you know we don't give the sherlock holmes canon enough credit. sure, they're all-time great detective stories, but some of them also carry powerful messages that stand the test of time: women are just as smart as men, justice and the law are not synonymous, all mormons are evil, etc.
Also don’t forget: sending people to prison for non-violent crimes brands them a convict for life and makes them more likely to commit crimes in the future, so sometimes it’s better to let them escape.
ACD definitely allowed some of his more colonial attitudes to come into the work, but that doesn't take away how much of it actually pointed out the downfalls of late 19th century to early 20th century society. He's a white man of his time, there's no doubt about that, but he's certainly more humane than other writers of the time and you could even say he was progressive. People tend to focus on Charles Dickens being the writer of the 'people' but I truly believe ACD did a better job. So that's basically a long way of me agreeing with everything above.
But I think all of this also contributes to a queer reading of the story. Not just because Holmes and Watson are made for each other and they have some really cute interactions (although this point is valid and very important) but it's another way ACD is humanising the supposed 'criminals and deviants' and interrogating the prejudice beliefs of the time. He's not as up front about it as other matters (in The Blue Carbuncle, Holmes' speech about not making the guy a jailbird for life is pretty clear about its intentions) but it's why I think that the stories are supposed to be read with the same sort of analysis as, say, Dickens or Oscar Wilde. It could be the reason why ACD was frustrated about the reception the stories received, as the audiences wanted more new, grimy cases, rather than thinking about what he was actually wanting to talk about.
Detective stories, not about investigating crime but investigating life?
