Friday, December 23, 2011
Was justice served????
I have a question, in the Boscombe Valley Mystery, Holmes tells the murderer that he will not turn in his confession, unless someone else is convicted (other then the real murderer). Usually, Holmes seems to have no problem serving out justice, but in this case, he seems to let the murderer go free. I understand that the murderer felt that the only way to protect his family was by killing his enemy, but do you guys think that Holmes was correct? I seem to think that justice should have been served no matter what. He did kill someone...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your last statement, but I feel like the guy's actions was under the self-defense law. If you kill another person in self-defense, then it was justified murder. Since the victim posed a threat to others, I feel like Holmes saw it as justified. But if the police convicted someone else, then that would be injustice, so as long as no innocent person has to pay for the crime, I think justice was served
ReplyDeleteYes, however, I think self-defense, under law, only works if someone is physically right there with you trying to kill you. Not just threatening. And also, the only reason that the victim had something on the murderer, was because the murderer had done something wrong in his past. Since there are consequences for all the actions we do, it is somewhat his own fault that he was being threatened.
ReplyDeletehowever, blackmail is usually viewed as wrong in society, so the blackmailer is violating the law in a threatening manner
ReplyDeleteI think holmes made a judgment call. He knew that the mans actions were wrong but he, being his incredibly observant self, could tell that the man was not likely to ever kill again. Holmes even says himself that so good a man should not sit rotting in a cell for a crime he thought necessary to his family's safety. It was probably better the bad guy isnt around anymore, as holmes also says.
ReplyDelete