I got my very first Sherlock Holmes book when I was nine years old. Nearly thirty years later, I continue to remain obsessed about Sherlock Holmes. For many years, I idolised Holmes for his intellect, and being the very paragon of rationality and logic. The notion that he was able to observe and then draw a series of inferences leading to a conclusion that solved a whole bunch of mysteries was so tantalising to me. It was everything I ever wanted to be. In fact, as a kid, when I grew up, I wanted to be a detective*.
But over the years, that too was deconstructed. Daniel Kahneman’s book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow” took a sledgehammer to my view that it was possible to be a perfectly rational being. Just by virtue of being human, we are all susceptible to cognitive biases that make our day-to-day decision-making simpler and faster, but at the expense of more calculated, slower thinking that may be more rational. While I still have difficulty admitting (and I will never admit as such!) that Sherlock Holmes may be fictional after all, let’s just say Kahneman made cracks appear in my glass bubble view of Sherlock Holmes.
Yet, the lessons that I took from Sherlock Holmes continue to resonate with me. And, in fact, I still quote them from time to time when people ask me for suggestions or advice. For instance, if you’re in limbo, just make a decision and you’ll feel better – Holmes says, “Any truth is better than indefinite doubt.” Or, when thinking about how individuals may be completely unique in their behaviour, but societies of unique individuals tend to be ‘normal’, Holmes says, “…while the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to.” And then there’s my favourite which is to always ask, “What’s missing?” Check out this conversation:
Stable owner Colonel Ross: Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night time.
Ross: The dog did nothing in the night time.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.
Considering that the Sherlock Holmes canon consists of 56 short stories and four novels, there is a lot to unpack. And, here, I’d like to just discuss in brief a quality of Holmes which has really resonated more with me as I grew older, and that is the philosophy on the flexibility of justice and how it relates to mercy. Let me explain.
If someone commits a crime and needs to be brought to justice, there are several channels. For the sake of society, the best option is always via the criminal justice system. This is, let’s call it formal justice. Certainly, history is rife with all forms of informal justice as well – clan feuds, vigilante justice, and so on. For the purposes of this essay, I consider the case of formal justice only. Via the criminal justice system, or at least the ones that are based on the right to trial and that kind of thing, a person goes through the system, and if found guilty, is punished accordingly. Again, like any good economist**, I make some simplifying assumptions to get to my main point – I assume that the criminal justice system is consistent, fair and proportionate***.
And for the most part, as Holmes figures out whodunnit, he cooperates with the official authorities to arrest the criminals and take them through the process of justice. But, on other occasions, he takes a more nuanced route. I should say, spoilers abound here, but in fairness, the stories have been around for a century or more. So spoilers no longer really apply.
In The Adventure of the Abbey Grange, Holmes is deciding on whether or not to reveal the true sequences of events to Inspector Hopkins who believed, erroneously, that he had solved the mystery. “You must look at it this way; what I know is unofficial; what [Hopkins] knows is official. I have the right to private judgment, but he has none. He must disclose all, or he is a traitor to his service.” Thus, formal duty is seen as a key differentiator for the appropriate thing to do here. Since Holmes is a private citizen and not an official member of Scotland Yard, he does not need to follow the formal duties of a Scotland Yard officer. Thus, in debating whether or not to reveal the truth, he further says, “Once that warrant was made out, nothing on earth could save [the criminal]. Once or twice in my career, I feel that I have done more real harm by my discovery of the criminal than ever he had done by his crime. I have learned caution now, and I had rather play tricks with the law of England than with my own conscience.”
In essence, Holmes is showing mercy to the perpetrator, who Holmes believes was acting righteously. In this instance, Holmes believes that, given the truth of this particular case, he would feel deeper regret at putting the criminal through the formal justice system compared to letting the criminal go. This is not the first instance that Holmes has shown such mercy. In The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle, Holmes states, after confronting and releasing the perpetrator, “’I am not retained by the police to supply their deficiencies…I suppose that I am committing a felony, but it is just possible that I am saving a soul. This fellow will not go wrong again. He is too terribly frightened. Send him to gaol now, and you make him a gaolbird for life. Besides, it is the season of forgiveness.” This is mercy to a desperate, one-time offender. In The Adventure of the Devil’s Foot, after meeting and releasing the murderer, Holmes says, “I think you must agree, Watson, that it is not a case in which we are called upon to interfere. Our investigation has been independent, and our action shall be so also…I have never loved, Watson, for if I did and if the woman I loved had met such an end, I might act even as our lawless lion-hunter has done. Who knows?”
Dungeons and Dragons, a fantasy board game, has a 3 by 3 Alignment system, which has on one axis, “Good, Neutral and Evil” and on the other axis, “Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.” This thus leads to nine possible combinations.
In these Holmes’ examples, Holmes has the Neutral Good alignment. He solves the mystery, and then decides whether or not he should turn the truth over to the formal authorities. If he always does so, he would be Lawful Good. That he believes he is a private individual and therefore has the right to independent judgment, and admits as well to “commuting a felony”, implies that he is Neutral Good. He just does whatever he feels is Good, regardless of whether or not it follows formal law.
In terms of philosophy, how are we to read Holmes’ actions? Perhaps someone from a Legalist tradition might say, “Despite his independent feelings of mercy or on ‘saving a soul’, he should still act in accordance with the law.” Moreover, when it comes to criminal justice, while Holmes may be ‘right’ in his independent judgment, can we trust the same for everyone else? Isn’t this why a system is in place in the first place? To prevent arbitrary decision-making? The German philosopher Immanuel Kant would argue that it depends on the categorical imperative – is the categorical imperative to always, “Follow the law” or to “Have a clean conscience”?
In reality, the causes and consequences of our behaviour, legal or illegal, are truly complex. No system in the world can find a solution to every single idiosyncrasy of human nature. Furthermore, even so-called consistent legal systems have shown double standards in treating those with power and those who are oppressed. Why then should individuals not have their own double standards in obeying the law, especially at the margins? We may all agree that theft, in general, is bad, but what if someone is stealing to survive? Or if theft is always bad, why is Robin Hood – stealing from the rich to give to the poor – a venerated hero?
Perhaps the takeaway is this. In such a complex world, where human motivations can be hidden or inconceivable to us, perhaps we owe flexibility to others when it comes to our own “independent judgment.” Sure, the legal system needs to be consistent in service of social justice, but as individuals who also have our independent views of social justice, we may be flexible. Someone who steals out of desperation to feed their family versus someone who steals just to build on their already vast amounts of wealth should not be thought of as proportionate levels of theft. And, thus, in some cases, while the formal legal system may have a particular view of justice, we could, as best as we can, practice mercy. Sherlock Holmes certainly did.
*Sadly, I became an economist. That being said, the renowned economist Claudia Goldin has a paper called, “The Economist as Detective” which makes me feel less bad about myself.
**Or not good?
***This is why economists get things so wrong. We make extremely improbable assumptions at times.
