Reading Response #4: Ethics and where the line is drawn

A balance weighing between
ethical decisions

As I've come to read more of Doyle's work, I've come to realization that there is a blurry line separating what is considered ethical and non-ethical in Holmes' detective work. Sometime we must ask the questions, could Holmes' have saved  Selden's life (in The Hound of the Baskervilles) if he had not been working from the shadows of the moor? Or, could Holmes' have took upon this case himself rather than allowing Watson (who is still an adept at detective work) to take on such a serious case? Or has Holmes' endangered the lives of others by using such a theoretical rather than practical approach to investigating crime?

There are points in the novel where I question what could have been done better in that specific situation. For example Holmes says, "[proving] the connection between the man and the beast" (Holmes is referring to Stapleton and the hound), Watson or Holmes' could have simply arrested Stapleton (Doyle 190). By arresting Stapleton, they would have avoided any suspicions and it would have prevented Stapleton from doing any more harm if even he was not the culprit of the crime. Although, I can see the other side of the argument being that arresting people for a crime they had not committed is infringing on the basic rights and freedoms citizens should have. But is dismissal of these rights and freedoms necessary to protect the lives of others in dangerous times? Or should rights and freedoms always be in place even if it puts others lives at risk?


As seen in October 1970 in Montreal, Quebec, Prime Minister Trudeau imposed the war measures act allowing police to arrest anyone as said in the earlier paragraph (CBC.ca). Even though the FLQ was a bigger threat to the public, mysterious deaths still hold a potential threat (as seen in The Hound of the Baskervilles). Should Holmes' have played the same moves as Trudeau did? In my opinion yes but it is not to say that I would suggest putting all citizens of a region in jail. Then again, giving the power of arresting anyone without warrant can lead to corruption inside law enforcement as we have seen in some police interacting during Occupy Wall Street protests. I do still feel the need to have an authoritative figure to protect the lives of citizens although the way we go about doing this is not and may never will be decided. 

So what is my main point from all this? Well, law is not a discrete way of sorting the innocent from the guilty. The way we go about protecting citizens is and never will be perfect. There will always be holes in any set of laws and rules.