By this time, I think that everyone has heard that Enron CEO Ken Lay has died of a heart attack prior to serving any time for his crimes. There was a big uproar about how he had escaped justice (albeit a bit permanently.)

I think that’s one of the purposes that mystery fiction holds for the public. As writers, we create worlds in which justice prevails on the final page. Even though in “real life” people escape justice through death or wealth or any other mechanisms, we don’t do that. We have set up a world where good triumphs and evils goes off to its own punishment.

Of course, not all mysteries follow this pattern. I’ve read a number of books where the criminal doesn’t go to jail. There have been mysteries where the criminal is offered the option of suicide. I’ve seen this most in cases where the detective might not have enough evidence or to spare the family the shame of being exposed. Even though it’s not the typical justice, the reader and detective know the truth and can relax knowing that order has been restored.

There have been cases where the detective has set up the scenario where the killer is killed. This is morally troubling. In order to re-establish order, the detective has set himself up as killer. I haven’t seen many of these, but the cases I’ve read have stood out for this reason.

Then of course, there are some cases where the criminal is not caught or imprisoned. I’m guilty of this. If you plan a sequel with the same antagonist, then the character cannot be put to death for the crimes. At least it’s enough for the reader to know that the criminal has been identified. Agatha Christie once said that finding a criminal not only punishes the guilty, it also alleviates the burden of the innocent who could be unfairly suspected.