The Blue Carbuncle Essay
Jimena Romero
In “The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle,” by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, James Ryder
steals a precious stone called the blue carbuncle. He is caught by Sherlock Holmes, but Holmes
lets him go and does not bring him to the police. Holmes has made a mistake and broken the
law by letting him go. Originally, if someone commits a crime, they should go to jail or at least
have some type of consequence; in this story, Holmes doesn’t want to send James Ryder to jail
because he doesn’t want him to become a “jail-bird” but what he didn’t think of was that he
already is one. He stole the Carbuncle and wasn’t thinking on giving it back; this is a minor
crime, but he might think it’s okay to do something like that again without any consequence or
punishment.
First, Sherlock broke the law by letting the criminal go. This was wrong because James
Ryder deserved a consequence because of stealing. Criminals go to jail because they have done
something wrong, and before the court decides if they should go to jail or not, most of them try
to convince you that it was not their fault etc. but they know they did wrong and if no one tries
to stop them (send them to jail) they will think it's alright to do it again. This is why everyone
deserves a consequence either good or bad (in this case bad).
Additionally, I believe Holmes shouldn't have let Ryder go because he didn't want him to
become a "jail-bird". However, he already committed a crime, which made him, what they call,
a "jail-bird" already. Ryder was not planning on giving the carbuncle back, so this makes the
crime even more worth a consequence. I also think that Holmes didn't quite think about the type
of crime he had committed; this was a very expensive gem and it was not a good idea to had let
him go. Ryder has committed a very bad action and Holmes (as a stranger to Ryder, kind of)
doesn't know what Ryder is capable of doing after he was set free.
Lastly, Holmes made a mistake on letting Ryder go because he did send Horner to jail
even though it wasn’t him the one who stole the blue carbuncle. I think that if Holmes thought
that it was okay to send Horner to jail, why didn’t he send Ryder to jail? This is something that
makes me think because Horner was innocent and Ryder was not, however, he did send Horner
to jail without knowing it was not him and later on he figured out that it was Ryder (pretty
much strangers) and let him go.
Sherlock Holmes made an extremely bad decision at letting James Ryder off the hook.
Criminals need punishments in order to understand or at least make them stop doing bad things
while they’re in jail. Ryder could’ve been plotting something else for the future, and maybe
something worse that would involve killing or kidnapping etc. I really believe everyone should
have their consequence in whatever they do, and Holmes should’ve taught James Ryder a
lesson he could’ve learned from.