Did Dareon deserve to die?

[David Selig]

Oh yes, and to those who say "he deserted, and deserved to die, and we shouldn't bring in modern perspectives":

Fair enough. Ned Stark was a convicted traitor and as such deserved to die.

Pretty much all PoV and other major characters in this series deserve to die if we use this reasoning. The vast majority of them are guilty of treason one way or the other. Ned deserved to die. Brienne deserves to die. Davos deserves to die. Bran deserves to die. Etc, etc.

[The Marquis de Leech]

What does Arya killing him have to do with whether or not he deserves to die? She might be acting immorally, or even illegally. But that has nothing to do with Dareon's crime.

Dareon's innocence of the crime that got him sent to the Wall is immaterial. Once you're at the Wall all prevous crimes are wiped clean, the crime he is guilty of, beyond a doubt, is desertion. Whether you wish to argue that he was morally justified in abandoning is a different matter.

Again, it seems like people are conflating legal concerns and moral ones. Law involves ethics, but they're not mutually inclusive.

I addressed both the moral and legal perspectives. Morally, he had every right to escape (and the question of "deserving" a punishment is in large part a moral one). Legally, he was murdered.

If I were to go somewhere that has the death penalty, break into Death Row, and shoot all the prisoners, I would be a murderer, and my killing of the prisoners would be undeserved (murders generally are). That my victims were on Death Row at the time is irrelevant.

[averde]

The laws of Westeros were pretty clear, deserting the nights watch earns you an execution.

[averde]

Also he kind of acted like a huge jerk towards the end anyway.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The laws of Westeros were pretty clear, deserting the nights watch earns you an execution.

Certainly. In Westeros, and at the hands of someone authorised to dispense justice. Neither of which apply here.

There is a wee difference between murder and judicial execution.

[averde]

Certainly. In Westeros, and at the hands of someone authorised to dispense justice. Neither of which apply here.

There is a wee difference between murder and judicial execution.

Arya's murder should legally earn her an execution as well.

She didn't however torture him or anything like that so since the end result is still his death I don't see a reason to feel bad for him. Atleast this way he didn't see it coming/ didn't rot in a cell for awhile

[David Selig]

I really can't believe people are arguing morality in favor of a person willing to let an old man, a 16(?) year old, a young women, and an infant die. All of whom had never been rude or cruel towards him.

There are hundreds of threads debating whether Arya had any moral or legal right to kill Dareon. This isn't one of them.

Why is he supposed to support them financially forever? Why wasn't Sam working instead of whining? Dareon supported them for months and he got sick of it at the end. I can't really blame him, especially since it was Sam's fault they got stuck there.

Aemon died because he was super old, nothing to do with Dareon.

So you think that his desertion itself was wrong but his abandonment of his superior officers and a few month old child was ok?

What superior officers? Neither Sam nor Aemon were officers of the NW.

[A Bastard Snow]

Certainly. In Westeros, and at the hands of someone authorised to dispense justice. Neither of which apply here.

There is a wee difference between murder and judicial execution.

I doubt they have extradition treaties.

And considering Arya is a Stark she is more then allowed to execute him.Ned executed 5 deserters from the wall it may seem harsh but most of the people on the wall are criminals (some may be innocent) but vast majority are not.The Watch is a way to start over fresh it may not be an easy life but its life.You might as well say sending criminals to jail is wrong cause some might be innocent...sooo whats the other option kill every single criminal?

[The Marquis de Leech]

I doubt they have extradition treaties.

And considering Arya is a Stark she is more then allowed to execute him.Ned executed 5 deserters from the wall

If they don't have extradition treaties (and they don't), killing Dareon is murder, and as such is undeserved.

As for being a Stark, Ned executed deserters because he is Lord of Winterfell, and so authorised to pass sentence and execute someone. Arya isn't.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

It's amazing to me that people keep resorting to the idea of Essos being some kind of legal sanctuary for Westerosi outlaws, when it's a place where one of their chief trades is in human beings. There is no centralized government or system of governance in Essos. It's every city for itself.

Braavos is a free city, yes, but the majority of Essos is a place where you'd better have your ducks in a row or you're liable to wind up with a brand or a collar.

Yet people think anyone in Essos will care or intervene if a deserter from the Westeros NW is executed based on the laws of Westeros. Essosi can't even enforce their own laws from city to city, jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

There are bedslaves in Pentos and citizens of Westeros being snatched off ships and sold into bondage daily in Slaver's Bay. Hell, there are people being taken off the coast of Westeros and transferred to Essos to be sold. So clearly not only does Essos not care about the laws of Westeros in Essos, they don't much care about the laws of Westeros in Westeros either.

But Essos is supposed to know and care that there is one less peacock strutting the waterfront of Braavos. Come ON.

If Dareon had been taken before the Sealord and charged with desertion from the NW, at BEST the likely outcome would have been Dareon being deposited on the next ship bound for Westeros for judgment. At which point he would have ended up just as dead.

[David Selig]

If Dareon had been taken before the Sealord and charged with desertion from the NW, at BEST the likely outcome would have been Dareon being deposited on the next ship bound for Westeros for judgment. At which point he would have ended up just as dead.

Nope, most likely the Sealord would've said that he didn't care what he has done in Westeros and would've had him released. Exactly because they don't care about the Westerosi laws. Dareon has committed no crime in Braavos.

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

Why is he supposed to support them financially forever? Why wasn't Sam working instead of whining? Dareon supported them for months and he got sick of it at the end. I can't really blame him, especially since it was Sam's fault they got stuck there.

Aemon died because he was super old, nothing to do with Dareon.

What superior officers? Neither Sam nor Aemon were officers of the NW.

Well, Sam had to remain with the traumatized Wildling, the infant, and the centenarian.

Aemon did because the dampness and cold made him ill, they needed firewood but Darean squandered the money he made on new clothes, alcohol, and protitutes. He at least could have made it to the Citadel and lived the few months he had left there.

[GallowsKnight]

I'm not sad that an oathbreaker and deserter died. I do regret the unsanctioned and possibly illegal manner in which it happened.

[The Wolves]

I want to say no he didn't deserve to die, and no Arya didn't have that right to kill him.

His crime was desertion from an organization he never willingly signed up for so no I don't think he deserved to die.

[The Marquis de Leech]

It's amazing to me that people keep resorting to the idea of Essos being some kind of legal sanctuary for Westerosi outlaws, when it's a place where one of their chief trades is in human beings. There is no centralized government or system of governance in Essos. It's every city for itself.

Braavos is a free city, yes, but the majority of Essos is a place where you'd better have your ducks in a row or you're liable to wind up with a brand or a collar.

Yet people think anyone in Essos will care or intervene if a deserter from the Westeros NW is executed based on the laws of Westeros. Essosi can't even enforce their own laws from city to city, jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Whether or not the Braavosi are going to pay attention to Arya's murder of Dareon doesn't make it any less a murder. For it to have been a legitimate execution, Arya needed lawful authority to pass sentence. In Braavos, she didn't have that.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Speaking of extradition treaties, in our world you can only be extradited for something that is an offence in both countries. If someone charged with blasphemy flees to another country with no such law, they can't be extradited.

If the Braavosi had been sufficiently developed to have an extradition treaty with the Iron Throne, Dareon would still be safe.

[Maia]

Certainly. In Westeros, and at the hands of someone authorised to dispense justice.

It is not clear that somebody who is a self-confessed deserter from NW needs to die at the command of a lord. After all, unlike other criminals, their guilt is beyond question once the fact that they are deserters is established. In fact, given that the Black Brothers are trained fighters, it would be absurd to demand of people that they risk their lives to capture them alive. For whatever reason, the people of the holdfast were able to capture Garett and chose to call Ned, but it is likely that they didn't have to do it.

Jon thinks in his last AGoT PoV:

Wherever he might go throughout the Seven Kingdoms, he would need to live a lie, lest every man's hand be raised against him .

This sounds to me like with renegade crows, whose status as deserters is clear, it is a "wanted dead or alive" situation and that Westerosi can chose to deal with them themselves, rather than being obligated to capture them alive and deliver them to a lord.

It is also not true that lords alone are empowered to dispense justice - they can certainly delegate it to family members and other retainers. And as far as Arya knew, she was the last trueborn Stark alive and had the right to do so by default. That they were both in Braavos made it iffy, sure, but IMHO it is fairly likely that sooner or later another Westerosi would have killed Dareon, because laws and customs pertaining to the Night's Watch are the oldest in the Seven Kingdoms and deeply ingrained in their culture.

Re: to those who claim that if Dareon was innocent, he had every right to betray people who have trusted him and escape - he is not only screwing over his sworn brothers at the worst possible time, but also other guys, who may find themselves in a similar situation in the future. Because, if it became known that somebody like him managed to escape - and Dareon certainly was making it known far and wide that he was an NW deserter, they wouldn't be offered the chance of NW in the first place, but executed or mutilated straightaway.

(Questionable) innocence is not the point anyway - once you say NW vows, you are in it for life. And before you folks decry it, consider that that's what gives people who would have otherwise been killed, mutilated or perhaps starved to death a chance of at a new life and one that really isn't bad compared to those many commoners live.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The only executions for desertion we have seen have been those carried out by lawful authorities (i.e. Lords of Winterfell, and Lord Commanders). Arya is neither, nor has she been delegated judicial power. She's simply a stray Westerosi without a home.

The "every man's hand is against him" line is just as easily read as everyone will try to detain him and/or bring him to justice. No need to read in the idea that everyone can kill a deserter, especially because your average peasant is not in much of a position to judge whether someone is a deserter or not (imagine if random innkeeper had chopped off Yoren's head, not understanding his mission). Lords are in a much better position to verify facts.

[Lord Reaver]

And considering Arya is a Stark she is more then allowed to execute him.

Being a Stark doesn't give her the right to kill anyone. See also my post #169.

It is not clear that somebody who is a self-confessed deserter from NW needs to die at the command of a lord.

On the contrary, it is. See my post #169 in this thread.

[Maia]

Why await the king's justice, if any man can mete out said justice as well as Ned ? The only answer to this is they can't, it's Ned's job, and you're dead wrong.

It is far from the only answer. People "wanted dead or alive" were sometimes brought in alive IRL, after all, despite the easier option of legally killing them. Since we didn't hear anything about anybody at the holdfast being wounded or killed and we know that Gared was an experienced and dangerous fighter, I imagine that they somehow got a drop on him and captured him without struggle.

Not everybody can kill a man in cold blood. And also, people may have been disquieted by Gared's rants about the Others and wights and thought that it was something that their lord needed to hear. More fool they, of course, since Ned sent Gared's head to the Wall, but didn't bother to report his words to Mormont. Finally, it was a holdfast less than a day's ride away from Winterfell. If it was a few days/weeks travel from any lordly seat, who knows if they would have bothered to fetch a lord for dealing with a NW deserter?

Re: Arya being "just a girl" or "just a stray Stark" - as far as she knows she is _the_ Stark, the only one alive. Frankly, I suspect that if it had been Bran or Rickon (!) who killed Dareon, some readers would have been falling all over themselves praising them...