By
Morrison Lee
Holmes: Just man or just a felon?
“I shall have to compound a felony, as usual.”
Sherlock Holmes
Definition. Felony: ME. Wickedness, baseness – 1489 wrath, Guile perfidy, 1533. A crime, misdeed, sin..any class of crimes regarded by the law as of a graver character than misdemeanors .
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
An inductive study of the outcomes of the career of Sherlock Holmes over the sixty recorded cases, (roughly classified) reveals:
- Arrests /Captures - Due process of law observed. 19 cases out of 60 cases
Jonathan Small of Agra arrested
John Clay of Redheaded League arrested
Beddington the forger arrested
Cunningham father and son arrested for Reigate murder
Sebastian Moran caught
Oldacre arrested for murder
Slaney arrested for murder in the Dancing Men
Woodley caught, Carruthers defended
Patrick Cairns arrested for murder of Black Peter
Beppo arrested in Six Napoleons
Browner arrested for murder
Valentine Walter and Oberstein arrested for murder and treason/espionage
Peters arrested for kidnapping/attempted murder of Lady Frances Carfax
Culverton Smith arrested for the murder of Victor Savage
Von Bork arrested for espionage
Count Sylvius arrested for theft
Evans arrested for attempted murder
Retired Color-man Amberley arrested for twin murder
31.7%
- Outwitted. Holmes clearly defeated by a Woman. 1 out of 60 cases
1.6%
3 No result but villain dealt just outcome - ‘karmic’ justice. 8 of 60 cases
Roylott dies of snake bite
Stapleton dies on the moor
Black Georgiano killed by Gennaro Luca
Tiger of San Pedro Don Murillo murdered in Madrid
Wilder dies from fall in cave
Resident Patient’s murderers die in sinking
KKK die in Lone Star sinking
Hudson dies by the hand of Beddoes
13.3%
Successful other. (Successful miscellaneous outcomes. 18 of 60 cases
Neville St Clair identified
Wood vindicated
Greek interpreter Melas rescued
Douglas acquitted (self defence)
Miss Dunbar vindicated at Thor Bridge
Ms Ronder saved from suicide
Lion’s Mane organism identified
Illustrious client’s secret preserved
Blanched Elmsworth found
Creeping professor exposed
Rucastle exposed
St Simon’s bride found
Daughter identified
Butler Brunton’s body found
Stark escapes Holmes, barely
Straker’s killer as a horse identified
Anna Coram discovered in her husband’s room
Missing ¾ found30.0%
Now to the most interesting category.....
4 ‘Holmesian/ personal ‘justice.’ 14 out of 60 cases.
John Turner - freed from homicide
James Ryder - freed from theft
Joseph Harrison - freed deliberately
Woman protected - “my sympathies are with the criminal, not the victim.” (ie. Milverton)
Professor Moriarty - killed by Holmes
Captain Crocker - freed to marry after committing homicide
Hilda Trelawny Hope - protected from theft
Dr Leon Sterndale - freed from murder
Young Jack Ferguson (15 yrs old) sent to sea - attempted murder
Isadora Klein - let off from homicide
Windibank - freed from attempt to defraud
Mary Holder - protected from theft
Gilchrist - let off from charge of cheating/ theft
Sir Robert Norberton - let off attempt to pursue personal advantage
23.5%
Thus in an analysis of Holmes’ sixty cases we find the following classification:
1. Arrests /captures; due process - 31.7% of cases
2. Outwitted (bungled) - 1.6%
3. No definite results (natural justice) - 13.3%
4. Successful – other - 30.0%
5. ‘Holmesian’ justice - 23.4%
______
100%
______
The issue.
It is the last and most curious ‘felonious’ category, (23.5% nearly ¼ of outcomes ‘Holmesian’ justice, where he does not follow due process) that I would like to query here. That is he failed to take due process and follow legal protocols mandatory to all citizens. The two issues are these:
1. on what basis does Holmes make these ‘felonious’ calls?
2. is this basis personally capricious or objective?
Material facts.
Consider a sample of felonies against Holmes. He is guilty (upon normal interpretation of British law) of:
. obstruction of justice - Charles Aug. Milverton shooting
. denial of due process - Sir Eustace Brackenstall homicide
. homicide - Professor Moriarty
. allowing known felons to escape - Dr Leon Sterndale; Captain Crocker,
James Ryder, Joseph Harrison.
. non-disclosure of information - Mary Holder, Hilda Trelawny Hope,
Isadora Klein.
. tampering with evidence - Devil’s Foot Root
There is no doubt that upon a literal and just interpretation of modern legal statute, Holmes has committed numerous felonies, which he admits as ‘usual’ by his self confession, as reported in the case of the three Gables:
“I shall have to compound a felony, as usual.”
It is the quixotic nature of his judgments that demands our full attention here, as in the homicide of Sir Eustace Brackenstall of Abbey Grange. Was there a more bizarre scene in fiction?
Holmes. “See here Captain Crocker, we’ll do this in due form of law. You are the prisoner. Watson you are a British jury,
and I never met a man who was more eminently fitted to represent one. I am the judge. Now gentleman of the jury, you have heard the evidence. Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?
Watson. “Not guilty my lord,” I said.
Holmes. “Vox populi vox dei. You are acquitted Captain Crocker.”
Here a nobleman was brutally killed and his killer apprehended by Holmes, and yet despite clear evidence of the crime and a confession, the killer was allowed to go free upon his private judgment and the dead denied due process, but upon what justification? The same in the case of Mortimer Tregennis and his killer Dr Leon Sterndale
Sterndale. “My soul cried out for revenge…I have spent so much of my life outside the law, that I have come at last to be a law unto myself.”
Holmes. “What were your plans?”
Sterndale. “I had intended to bury myself in Central Africa. My work there is but half finished.”
Holmes. “Go and do the other half,” said Holmes. “I, at least for one, am not prepared to prevent you.”
Thus upon his own authority Holmes released a confessed killer. (This was after he tampered with crime-scene evidence found in the sitting-room lamp of the Tregennis family.)
In the case of Moriarty, Holmes pitched him headlong to his death over the Reichenbach Falls, and then conspicuously failed to notify the authorities of his part in the death. Similarly Sir Robert Norberton was let off from the charge of failing to notify the authorities of the death of his sister.
Other examples of Holmesian ‘justice’ are found in the release of James Ryder and Mary Holder, both of whom stole jewelry worth vast sums of money, (Blue Carbuncle and Beryl Coronet) and Joseph Harrison and Lady Hilda Trelawny Hope, who both abstracted highly important state papers that could have altered the course of European history. Likewise Gilchrist was allowed to skip off to Rhodesia without punishment after it was discovered the young man stole examination proofs from his university. All these were discovered by Holmes, yet all were allowed impunity in due process of law. Only in Holmes does the law ‘bear the sword in vain,’ in contradistinction to St. Paul in Romans 13. Perhaps Holmes was serious when he said; “I’d rather play tricks with the law than with my own conscience.” echoing the rather injudicious remark;
“my sympathies are with the criminal, not the victim.”
On the face of it Holmes judgments appear capricious, subjective and contrary to law.
Law.
I take it as axiomatic that in any society laws must be obeyed by those who live under them. Laws enjoin upon the members of a society the requirement to submit criminal actions to a forum for the objective consideration of evidence: due process of law. These fora we know as courts of law. Courts of law were established to realize justice by an impartial consideration of evidence. Clearly these private acts of Sherlock Holmes are at variance with the letter of British law. Here I take the object of all law (Stammler 1856-1938) to be the realization of Justice, that is the most perfect harmony of social life possible under the conditions of time and place. (Bodenheimer p.136. The Philosophy and Method of Law)
Apply law to fact.
The real object of law is the realization of Justice. Has justice been served by Holmes? The ancient Greeks proposed that right action is defensible by right reason. In the classical formulation of Classical Natural Law, where an action stood on undefeated reasons, the action was allowed to be justified. What is seen when we apply the rule - justice as undefeated reasons - to the facts? In the shooting of Charles Augustus Milverton the official police knew some facts:
. Milverton was a known blackmailer
. He held papers for blackmailing
. These papers were burned by the blackmailed person /murderer
. No other item was stolen
. The sole object seemed to be the prevention of social exposure
But Holmes knew much more:
. the motive of the murderess
. that Milverton was one of the most dangerous men in London
. substantive evidence against him was unobtainable or unconvincing
. the private act of revenge elicited Holmes’ sympathies.
Knowing the true circumstances behind the shooting, Holmes declined the invitation to ‘step down to Appledore Towers’ to benefit the official police investigation.
His reasoning was:
Milverton was guilty of gross criminal actions
Evidence against Milverton’s criminality was unobtainable legally
Criminal ends came upon a criminal by persons to whom crime was exceptional
Therefore his sympathies were with the person to whom crime was exceptional and acted under duress.
This ‘Holmesian’ principle of the realization of Justice – Natural Law - is seen in other cases also. Holmes’ deliberations outside due process are not capricous, but he follows a pattern of Natural Law in three scenarios. Holmes used private judgment:
1. where the party was a good person and the crime exceptional to their character.
2. where the guilty party executes proper Justice
3. where the guilty party is part of a greater scheme, and a greater good to be served
We will consider these three points in turn.
1. For example in the case where the party was a good person and the crime exceptional
to their character.
Holmes considered the out-of-character commission of crime as an opportunity to extend leniency. In the case of the theft of the Blue Carbuncle the facts show James Ryder:
. was tempted to theft by Catherine Cusack
. showed contrition toward his misdeed
. gained nothing by the theft
. was sensibly aware of his good character
. was acutely aware of the pain to his parents
. possessed not a criminal character
The jewel was recovered and the case against John Horner, (falsely accused) fell over and he was freed. Further prosecution of Ryder would have meant jail for a weak man and shame for a decent family, without a better guarantee of repentance than he had already demonstrated.
In the case of the Beryl Coronet Mary Holder was protected by Holmes’ silence after the Coronet and jewels were recovered. Her crime was suggested and planned by the criminal machinations of Sir George Burnwell. Exposing Mary would have meant a public scandal for a noble family with no opportunity for he return after a predictable rejection by the callous Burnwell.
In the case of Hilda Trelawny Hope Holmes perceived she was a naïve and defenseless woman tempted to act out of character in reaction to the threats of a villain. The main object of his investigation was to recover a diplomatic letter and the preservation of national security. This accomplished no necessity compelled him to expose the agent.
But Isadora Klein had less claim to Holmes’ kindness after she brought about the premature (but unpremeditated) death of Douglas Maberley of the Three Gables. Her desire to protect herself against exposure resulted in her use of violent men to achieve her ends. (Douglas was believed to have died by self-inflicted grief after an assault). Holmes seems to have realized the difficulties in realizing her prosecution, and settled for a stern warning to the imperious lady, and a one thousand pound cheque to compensate Maberley's grandmother.
2. In the case where the guilty party is a good person and executes Justice, Holmes
accepts the Justice
The three cases in which this principle is seen clearly are; The Abbey Grange, the Devils Foot and the Final Solution. The three characters; Captain Crocker, Dr Leon Sterndale and Sherlock Holmes himself, are under scrutiny for content and motive. The facts appertaining to Captain Crocker, master of the vessel The Bass Rock:
. responsible sea captain endorsed on all hands
. Brackenstall (victim) had a history of violence
. Crocker acted under provocation and
. was first attacked by Brackenstall (under influence of liquor)
. acted in self defence
. on behalf of a wronged woman
. honorably and in character at all times
. without regard for personal advantage.
Also,
Dr Leon Sterndale
. Adventurer in a lawless land
. knew of Tregennis’ theft of poison and its toxic effects
. of his questions for its use
. and his character and motive
but in a court of law this would be;
. reduced to circumstantial evidence
. defense based on hearsay from the accused
In this matter Sterndale acted in character without advantage by his act but the administration of justice:- the application of the poison that the murderer applied to his own family. Sterndale's ‘defense’ to Holmes was the simple truth told with an honest and real sense of justice prompted by the willful murder of his beloved. (Under French law crimes of passion are mitigated.) After assisting the official police force Holmes announces: “It’s not a case in which we are called upon to interfere. Our investigation has been independent, and our action shall be also.” Holmes saw clearly no greater good could come of condemning a just man to penal servitude and depriving society of the good he might yet do. He believed Justice had been served on the murderer. It was enough. This is evident.
It might be argued that Holmes obstructed justice in taking the powder, but this does not stand up to close factual scrutiny.
. Holmes took but a sample of the evidence leaving half “so as not to
stand in the way of an official police force.”)
. additionally he left two hints with Vicar Roundhay to communicate to
them: the open window, and the talc on the sitting room lamp
In the homicide of Professor Moriarty Holmes had a duty to confess to his death, but he chose not to.
Firstly consider the character content of Holmes. He is;
. a good man actively opposed to evil, who
. assisted the police force to alleviate crime and
. acted as a private police force, and
. acts on strictly rational principles from force of constrained habit.
Secondly consider Holmes' motive:
. he acted against the criminality of Moriarty
. whose criminality was known to the police
. but the evidence against whom was not substantive
. Moriarty set out to destroy Holmes and
. Holmes accepted his own death if it negated Moriarty.
. Holmes acted in self defense at the Falls
. in the interest of others and
. would have been hunted if it was known he had survived.
To Holmes, Moriarty’s destruction was justice for those he killed, robbed and ruined in the past, (and prospectively in the future had he survived.) With nothing to gain but the good of others Holmes had no personal advantage nor motive for the death of Moriarty.
In these three cases rationality and circumstance dictated Holmes’ judgments, judgments in accord with right reason and therefore morally defensible. These actions would have been appropriate had there been no formal legal system at all.
3. In the case where the guilty party was part of a greater scheme, and a greater good to
be served
Holmes acted arbitrarily in a number of cases, but two cases (where he extended the Nelson-eye to crime) bear particular notice. In the Naval Treaty Holmes ‘let his man go,’ and again in the case of the case of the Second Stain, Holmes’ main object was the recovery of vital documents and the preservation of secrecy in the interest of national security. It was in this context of the higher good that he necessarily sought to avoid due process, though in Naval Treaty he notified the authority in charge, one, Forbes.
“If he is quick enough to catch his bird well and good. But if, as I shrewdly suspect, he finds the nest empty before he gets there, why, all the better for the government.”
This avoidance of due process preserved a higher good - national interest - even at the cost of a criminal’s freedom
In the case of Shoscombe Old Place Sir Robert Norberton pleaded with Holmes not to denounce him for failing to register his sister’s death. His defense was:
. she died of natural causes
. of a known illness and
. was interred in a family crypt and
. buried with reverence and respect and
. sincerely mourned.
but practically to expose Norberton to due process meant:
. declaring his sister's death immediately and certain financial ruin and shame
. where a short delay meant a probable chance of financial security.
While Holmes rightly saw this conduct as “inexcusable,” he was moved by compassion at seeing the entire destiny of a highborn aristocrat reduced to a single wager, and allowed the delay warning him with a caution:
“..this matter must of course, be referred to the police. It was my duty to bring the facts to light, and there I must leave it. As to the decency or morality of your conduct, it is not for me to express an opinion.”
The happy ending was that Shoscombe Prince won the Derby, Sir Robert recovered enough to pay his debts and gain financial security, and was only mildly censured by the police and coroner for the delay in registering his sister’s death. Holmes’ compassion was vindicated and certain ruin was avoided. This all-encompassing scope of deliberation is the object of Natural Law, the basis of justice according to undefeated reasons.
Conclusion.
In this brief survey of Holmes’ cases it may be observed that Holmes had a definite Natural Law rationale for all the decisions he made. While committed to due process in the main (31.7% of his cases) it is found that independent ‘Holmesian’ justice (no formal process involved) accounts for a substantial 23.4% of all his outcomes; nearly 1/4 of all his cases
While the letter of due process was not observed in these cases, ‘Holmesian’ justice is not at all entirely arbitrary or capricious, but rather Holmes’ rationale accords with the Just spirit of the Natural Law tradition applied on a case-by-case basis according to three principles:
1. where the party was a good person and the crime exceptional to their character.
2. where the guilty party executed proper Justice
3. where the guilty party was part of a greater scheme with a greater good to be served
Justice precedes law. In Holmes' actions we discover no felony; ie. No wickedness, baseness or perfidy, no misdeed, sin or any class of crimes regarded by the law as of a graver character than misdemeanors. In each case Holmes personally administered both justice and compassion, exercising reason and compassion. Law without reason is no law. Law without compassion is vicious. These are principles of Natural Law.
Natural Law consists in both heart and mind, - thinking and feeling.its scope both cognitive and affective. It requires a preeminent love of justice, a strictly rational mind, a truly compassionate heart, and a robust courage independent of the safety nets of peer approval and social consensus. Natural Law plucks corn for the hungry, tends to drowning oxen on the sabbath, and in wartime surrenders its own life preserver to an non-swimmer enemy, even on the Sabbath.
True Justice sees deeper than the letter of the law, and looks to preserve the spirit of the same. Justice, (and its commensurate Natural Justice) is based on Natural Law, and synonymous with Divine Law;
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.
Leviticus 19:15 (KJV)
In this vignette of Holmesian justice we see, as in a glass darkly, the complexity of the supreme regulatory principle of human conduct, the law of the heart and mind, Natural Law – the dharmony of right thought and right feeling with right action. Natural Law is seen here in the head-and-heart-judgments of Sherlock Holmes, consulting detective.
Morrison Lee
Holmes’ Clay Pipe
Seoul, South Korea 2010
-ooOOoo-