Reggie accuses Jackson of “nefarious” activities, while he responds, “Nefarious for a good cause” (p. 142). Do you think it was acceptable for him to cross the line under the circumstances? Are there times when it’s reasonable to break the law?

Book Clubs Death at the Sign of the Rook Discussion
1

Reggie accuses Jackson of “nefarious” activities, while he responds, “Nefarious for a good cause” (p. 142). Do you think it was acceptable for him to cross the line under the circumstances? Are there times when it’s reasonable to break the law?

2

Because I am not an officer of the law, or even a private investigator, it’s easy for me to say I think it’s acceptable for Brodie (or any “fictional” detective) to cross the line to solve the case and/or bring about justice for the victim(s). Plus, it makes for a better story! In real life, yes, I do think there are times when it’s reasonable to break the law, with the understanding there may be consequences.