[Book Spoiler] Justice and Vengeance

[MoIaF]

Justice would be a swift execution. To the point and no dwelling on it. Anything that exceeds what is necessary (their death) is needlessly cruel and vindictive, since at that point you aren't interesting in serving fair justice, but satisfying your own want for vengeance and bloodshed.

No really, if you had to witness those poor children dying on the cross every mile you would want the people who did that horrific thing to them to suffer the same fate. The punishment should match the crime when dispensing justice. We still use that metric in modern times.

[Greywolf2375]

The punishment matching the crime =/= justice. Especially when she has no idea how involved any of those men were or how they may have endorsed or argued against the crucifying of the slaves or how they treat their own slaves. A clear case of 2 wrongs don't make a right

That's true, but that's also not what I said. I didn't say an eye for an eye, I said they got what they deserved.

based on their social status as the slavers, they got what they deserved. it can be argued that Dany, even though she isn't doing it from this perspective, was just meting out distributive justice.

[Queen of Whores]

No really, if you had to witness those poor children dying on the cross every mile you would want the people who did that horrific thing to them to suffer the same fate. The punishment should match the crime when dispensing justice. We still use that metric in modern times.

I for one do not ever want to see a person raped or mutilated like they may have done to their victims. I don't care how horrendous their crime is, I never want someone to be violated like that. It's just purely wrong, with no justification but the "eye for an eye" philosophy, which is deeply flawed and problematic. And we still use this metric in modern times? I don't think I've seen any examples of this. The most severe punishment in most countries that still use it is the death penalty, which is usually an injection which essentially stops their heart and puts them to sleep. I personally am against even this, but I'd much rather if we were to have to dispense death to those accused of terrible crimes, I'd rather a more merciful and quick death than a long, painful one. We don't see people who have raped get raped as punishment, do we? And when you look at places that operate under Sharia law, is stoning a woman to death a just punishment for something like adultery (which shouldn't even be a crime anyway)?

And as horrific as seeing the crucified children would be, I could never bring myself to coldly order the horrifically slow and agonizing deaths of anyone. Maybe I'm too soft, but such things make me feel sick.

[Cold Crashing Waves]

1. They totally deserved it, so right on Dany

2. She was making a point. Read up on some conquerors and leaders of the past and the things they did to strike fear into their enemies.

[MoIaF]

I for one do not ever want to see a person raped or mutilated like they may have done to their victims. I don't care how horrendous their crime is, I never want someone to be violated like that. It's just purely wrong, with no justification but the "eye for an eye" philosophy, which is deeply flawed and problematic. And we still use this metric in modern times? I don't think I've seen any examples of this. The most severe punishment in most countries that still use it is the death penalty, which is usually an injection which essentially stops their heart and puts them to sleep. I personally am against even this, but I'd much rather if we were to have to dispense death to those accused of terrible crimes, I'd rather a more merciful and quick death than a long, painful one. We don't see people who have raped get raped as punishment, do we? And when you look at places that operate under Sharia law, is stoning a woman to death a just punishment for something like adultery (which shouldn't even be a crime anyway)?

And as horrific as seeing the crucified children would be, I could never bring myself to coldly order the horrifically slow and agonizing deaths of anyone. Maybe I'm too soft, but such things make me feel sick.

Sorry, I didn't clarify myself, I wasn't referring to an "eye for an eye" as the metric but more that the severity of the crime should match the severity of the punishment.

However, you have to consider the horror that is our current prison system especially for crime involving drugs which I don't believe match the severity of the punishments currently being dispensed.

Also, if you think that rapist don't get raped in jail you are in for a rude awakening. I don't condom this of course, I find it horrific yet warders throughout the country turn a blind eye to this. People even in our modern time think it's justice for them to receive that punishment.

Again, the lines between justice and revenge are very blurred and we are kidding ourselves if we think they are not.

[MoIaF]

1. They totally deserved it, so right on Dany

2. She was making a point. Read up on some conquerors and leaders of the past and the things they did to strike fear into their enemies.

Well, this was the best solution for dispensing justice at this point in time and place.

How would Dany be able to assemble a court of impartial jurors and justices to hear out each slaver.

[Cold Crashing Waves]

Again, the lines between justice and revenge are very blurred and we are kidding ourselves if we think they are not.

Exactly. Some people are being a little too idealistic with this, and naive.

[Queen of Whores]

Sorry, I didn't clarify myself, I wasn't referring to an "eye for an eye" as the metric but more that the severity of the crime should match the severity of the punishment.

However, you have to consider the horror that is our current prison system especially for crime involving drugs which I don't believe match the severity of the punishments currently being dispensed.

Also, if you think that rapist don't get raped in jail you are in for a rude awakening. I don't condom this of course, I find it horrific yet warders throughout the country turn a blind eye to this. People even in our modern time think it's justice for them to receive that punishment.

Again, the lines between justice and revenge are very blurred and we are kidding ourselves if we think they are not.

I agree completely that the severity of the punishment against drug-related 'crimes' is ridiculous.

I never said that rape doesn't occur in prisons. Obviously it does. I meant that the government and law (aka the people responsible for handing out the punishment) do not use such methods. What happens inside prison (the punishment that has actually been dealt them) doesn't have anything to do with what the government has decided to use as punishment.

[MoIaF]

I agree completely that the severity of the punishment against drug-related 'crimes' is ridiculous.

I never said that rape doesn't occur in prisons. Obviously it does. I meant that the government and law (aka the people responsible for handing out the punishment) do not use such methods. What happens inside prison (the punishment that has actually been dealt them) doesn't have anything to do with what the government has decided to use as punishment.

Sadly, it does. They know what is happening in the prison system and yet choose to turn a blind eye to it. That makes them complicit in the crime.

[SerArthurHeath]

No really, if you had to witness those poor children dying on the cross every mile you would want the people who did that horrific thing to them to suffer the same fate. The punishment should match the crime when dispensing justice. We still use that metric in modern times.

And wanting them to suffer the same fate for those reasons, utterly emotional, would be VENGEANCE not Justice. Can someone with emotional attachment serve justice without it being vengeance by association? Probably not

[MoIaF]

And wanting them to suffer the same fate for those reasons, utterly emotional, would be VENGEANCE not Justice. Can someone with emotional attachment serve justice without it being vengeance by association? Probably not

You understand you've made my point about Jon seeking justice as much as vengeance, right? They killed Jon's brothers as well as his Lord Commander, people he had lived with and served.

In reality Jon's emotional attachment is much greater than Dany's, as he knew the people that were killed.

[salmonsnake]

Perish the thought that there exists a transhistorical, universal Justice.

Daenerys might be moving from the Stone Ages of the Red Waste to the Middle Ages of, say, Pentos. Her arc could be a historico-political Bildungsroman, as she moves her wayward tribe that gradually increases in number, from a geographically desolate area to arable land. Consider someone from Dorne wedded to a Thenn beyond The Wall and have them return to civilization. From an immature chieftain to an immature tyrant, and onward onward, Daenerys the Conqueror...

[SerArthurHeath]

I don't deny that Jon is out for revenge. I merely stated that a trial would not be necessary in the course of justice and that the plan was more importantly pragmatic in its approach. Jon mixes justice and revenge all the time

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Is it justice? Jon clearly says in the episode that they must avenge Mormont, how is that justice? Shouldn't the mutineers be tried before the punishment is dealt.

What Jon is doing is not very much different from what Dany is doing.

Yes I completely agree, Jon wants to kill these people to avenge Mormont and to save his own neck at the wall (along with his brothers) so that mance doesn't find out he was lying about the number of brothers there are. Jon is not going on a justice journey. The masters of mereen killed 163 children unprovoked. Dany hadnt even gotten there yet. It was a stupid move on their part to piss her off like that. She gave them back exactly what they did to the children. Would that hold up in 2014 court? NO, but that is not what we are talking about so there is really no reason to bring our politics into her situation. There is no court for her, just like there is no court for the Masters treating their slaves how they do, and killing their children. There is nothing wrong with what she did.

[ovis alba]

There is nothing wrong with what she did.

Doing to your enemies exactly what you loathe them for, to me is somewhat wrong. I'm not much of an "eye for an eye" type of person.

[salmonsnake]

Good thing about GRRM with regard to internet forums is he knows how to tickle all kinds of personalities and bring them out to express their affinities and allegiances 'free' of the inconvenience of contemporary conventions. A whole spectrum of ethics are mirrored in the audience. Occasionally it is frightening, occasionally endearing..

[sj4iy]

That's true, but that's also not what I said. I didn't say an eye for an eye, I said they got what they deserved.

based on their social status as the slavers, they got what they deserved. it can be argued that Dany, even though she isn't doing it from this perspective, was just meting out distributive justice.

Because everyone who takes up that lifestyle in a country where it's either 'be a slaver' or 'be a slave' is automatically guilty by association, right?

I guess you would agree with the Reign of Terror in France where aristocrats were beheaded because, based on social status, they deserved it?

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

2. She was making a point. Read up on some conquerors and leaders of the past and the things they did to strike fear into their enemies.

She was making a half-hearted point.

Here are some 'conquerors' to read up on: Gaius Julius Ceasar, Augustus Aurelian "Invictus Restitutor Orbis" (Unconquered Restorer of the World), Tamberlaine. These three people had one thing in common. When a city submitted to them, they accepted it and took NO punitive action. If, once they left, the city revolted again, they returned and destroyed it. In Aurelian and Tamberlaine's cases, they wiped the city off the map.

When Augustus Aurelian became Emperor, Rome consisted of Italy, the Med islands, the Balkans, Greece, western Turkey and North Africa. North Africa was in open revolt. By the time he finished he added Spain, Gaul, Britain, all of Turkey, Egypt, and Syria. Every city that bent the knee, he allowed stand... until he came to Palmyra. Once there he executed all the leaders (a half-measure) then left. Within months Palmyra was in revolt again. Aurelian returned and destroyed it. Stone by stone. And the oasis itself was destroyed so the trade routes were diverted. Display of clemency: no problem. Complete destruction: no problem. A punitive half-measure: problem.

Compare that to the Battle of Caudine Forks. A Roman legion was trapped in a gorge by a Samnite general. The general sent a message to his father asking what to do. His father replied "set them all free". The general thought that was unusual so he sent another message to his father to clarify. This time the reply was "Kill every single one". While the general sat in confusion, his father arrived and the son again asked for clarification and his father said "Kill them all, or set them all free. There is NO middle ground."

So the general took the middle ground.

He set the legion free, but forced them to march 'under the yoke' as they left - a sign of vast disrespect and an extreme shaming.

This caused resentment and resolve amongst the Romans and when they built up strength again they struck back and eventually crushed the Samnites. Taking the middle ground didn't work.

Recognising the Samnites as first class warriors though, the Romans then made the same damn mistake. They wanted the Samnites as soldiers for the legions, so they granted the Samnite peoples non-voting citizenship. This was a half measure. A couple of generations later, the Samnites rose again demanding full rights because it was their sons bleeding for Rome. They marched on the city and met the hastily constructed Roman army at the city's Colline Gate. It took nothing less than a desperate and skillful move by Marcus Crassus (the guy from the Spartacus TV series) on the right flank to win the battle for Rome. 70,000 lay dead at the gate of the city.

So what did Rome do to these traitorous people having defeated them? They granted them full voting rights. The Samnites never rose again.

-----

Dany could have taken the 'Kill them all' position, but she didn't.

She could have taken the Selmy position, but she didn't

She could have found the actual people responsible for the 163 slaves, but she didn't

She did what the general at Caudine Forks did - a punitive half measure that was neither just nor will it 'teach them a lesson'

You catch more bees with honey than vinegar.

[SerArthurHeath]

Very Tywin by the Caesars, right?

[MoIaF]

Because everyone who takes up that lifestyle in a country where it's either 'be a slaver' or 'be a slave' is automatically guilty by association, right?

I guess you would agree that the Reign of Terror in France where aristocrats were beheaded because, based on social status, they deserved it?

They were Great Masters, there job was to be slavers. These weren't some innocent middle class merchants who got rounded up with the Great Masters.

And before anyone says anything Dany know they were GM as she comments on sending the bodies to the families later on.