Imagine, somebody has stolen a jewel called a carbuncle that belongs to a countess. Sherlock Holmes is an investigator trying to find the person that has stolen the carbuncle. Ryder a hotel guy tells Sherlock that Horner a plumber, has stolen the carbuncle. Horner says that he’s innocence, but nobody believes him. Ryder explained everything of how the jewel went into the goose and Holmes let them go. Was it the right choice or the wrong choice? In the first place, Sherlock Holmes in my opinion made the wrong choice of letting him go free. Ryder framed Horner by telling Sherlock that he did it and Horner was innocence but nobody believed him. Horner made a crime in the past. Ryder was the thief along he planned the crime before he did the crime. …show more content…
But if somebody is stealing something that belongs to somebody self they are hurting them also, and that is just plain cruel. Stealing a jewel is like stealing a million dollars. Ryder stole a jewel that belonged to a countess, the countess forgave. Stealing is very bad, stealing can get you into an monstrous amount of trouble and you are going to have to make the consequences for it. Yeah, Sherlock Holmes gave him a second chance but he can do another bad thing again in the future.
In the third place, when Holmes sent Ryder free, Holmes broke the law. Once someone breaks the law they need to go to jail for it. Holmes is a investigator, he is supposed to be doing the right thing. Holmes had to think of what he was supposed to do, and he let the ruler breaker go because he stole a jewel that belonged to a countess. Would anyone forgive a person that stole something from