Aerys' Accountability

[doodlebutt]

I started thinking about this after a thread regarding Stannis and autism, so check that out if you're interested! and sorry if it seems like I am beating a dead horse about character psychology, the subject is just really interesting to me, and I assume many others. :)

Let me start of by saying that I am not trying to diagnose Aerys as having any particular mental disorder. I don't think there is enough information to assign him any particular diagnosis, but it is very clear that his behavior was very a-typical. It also seems to be that his disorder was genetic, particularly in reference to fearing that Dany may have a streak of madness in her as well, as well as Viserys. If someone more experienced in psychology than I has any input on a diagnosis, please let me know!

Aerys assumed his throne when he had relatively healthy mental faculties. He was ambitious, charismatic, and displayed many other indicators of a stable mind, but grew more and more paranoid and violent over time. In the context of Westeros, I don't think there would be a proper way for Aerys to step down as king because of the onset of mental disease, especially when that disease caused him to be massively fearful and distrusting of others. He was stuck in a position of power while being unable to properly do his job, like having a heart attack while driving a car and being unable to pull over. AWoIaF describes him as "sliding rapidly into madness" and "plunging irrevocably into the abyss." But it seems that the general consensus of Westeros is that he deserved to be put down for his actions, despite those actions being a direct consequence of his madness, for which he had no choice.

My question is, can we blame Aerys for being a poor king? Is he responsible for his actions? Modern law absolves mentally deficient people of their crimes by reason of mental incompetence, as prison or capital punishment is considered cruel and unusual. Did he deserve to be murdered? Was there a less cruel way to remove Aerys from the throne? Obviously he couldn't seek therapy or medication, so I feel like the only other option of locking him in prison would be just as cruel. Is there a solution that would have saved everyone involved?

What does this say about justice for the mentally unstable? How do mentally disordered people factor into the social structure of Westeros? I think these sorts of discussions are the kind of very deeply human ethical dilemmas that GRRM often portrays in the series.

[Viserys - The last dragon]

I believe everyone is responsible for their actions, regardless of the circumstances. I am law student and I feel sick when I see so many cases of people who are freed because of the lack of "accountability" when they should be punished regardless (there are of course sometimes its fitting, but thats extremely rare)

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Aerys' case is the examble of systemic failure.

He's king because of birth, suitability notwithstanding. Being the king is a position of power, which is (should be...) by definition a position of responsibility.

But he's also an ill person. But he's also the king, whose word is the law, so anyone who suggests that he's unsuitable and should be deposed is a "traitor". But he's an ill person and should not be the king. But ... [Repeat until rebellion]

[Chaircat Meow]

Personally I think Aerys holds a substantial measure of the blame for driving himself mad. He had a childhood friend who he grew jealous of, and set out to humiliate. He went a bit far (and I think did something pretty bad), and then the friend grew to hate him and plotted his downfall, probably engineering his great humiliation at Duskendale. Yet Aerys kept him as his hand. He wrote his own recipe for producing paranoia. So, although he was always somewhat unstable, and despite the fact that instability would likely have got worse as he grew older, he was responsible for the malign man he became.

Despite all that, even the subjects he had not wronged started plotting against him because of their own ambition and the actions of his predecessors.

[doodlebutt]

I believe everyone is responsible for their actions, regardless of the circumstances. I am law student and I feel sick when I see so many cases of people who are freed because of the lack of "accountability" when they should be punished regardless (there are of course sometimes its fitting, but thats extremely rare)

Do you mean even in cases of mental disease or incompetence? My perception is probably skewed because I watch a lot of Law and Order SVU, but there are many cases that are dismissed for psychological reasons. Are these cases not as pervasive in real life? I know it is a common defense tactic to argue mental insanity when the defendant is not anywhere near insane, but if you had some insight into this I would be interested to hear it.

Aerys' case is the examble of systemic failure.

He's king because of birth, suitability notwithstanding. Being the king is a position of power, which is (should be...) by definition a position of responsibility.

But he's also an ill person. But he's also the king, whose word is the law, so anyone who suggests that he's unsuitable and should be deposed is a "traitor". But he's an ill person and should not be the king. But ... [Repeat until rebellion]

I think you're absolutely right, that this is yet another example of the system failing its people.

Personally I think Aerys holds a substantial measure of the blame for driving himself mad. He had a childhood friend who he grew jealous of, and set out to humiliate. He went a bit far (and I think did something pretty bad), and then the friend grew to hate him and plotted his downfall, probably engineering his great humiliation at Duskendale. Yet Aerys kept him as his hand. He wrote his own recipe for producing paranoia. So, although he was always somewhat unstable, and despite the fact that instability would likely have got worse as he grew older, he was responsible for the malign man he became.

Despite all that, even the subjects he had not wronged started plotting against him because of their own ambition and the actions of his predecessors.

Do you think Tywin was possibly intentionally egging him on and encouraging his paranoia? Gaslighting an unstable person in order to work the game of thrones even as a young person? And not just Tywin, but many of Aerys' council did the same thing.

[OldGimletEye]

Do you mean even in cases of mental disease or incompetence? My perception is probably skewed because I watch a lot of Law and Order SVU, but there are many cases that are dismissed for psychological reasons. Are these cases not as pervasive in real life? I know it is a common defense tactic to argue mental insanity when the defendant is not anywhere near insane, but if you had some insight into this I would be interested to hear it.

Actually, arguing insanity isn't as common as people think. It's very difficult to prove insanity( in large part because the standard is often tough to meet) in most US jurisdictions and it's a risky strategy.

[Chaircat Meow]

Do you think Tywin was possibly intentionally egging him on and encouraging his paranoia? Gaslighting an unstable person in order to work the game of thrones even as a young person? And not just Tywin, but many of Aerys' council did the same thing.

After 273, when Joanna had died and we're told all trace of affection between Tywin and Aerys had disappeared, yes.

[TallTyrion]

The standard for accountability usually involves the defendants ability to determine right from wrong. Aerys ordering the Murders of Ned and Robert implies that he knows what he did was wrong. ie he's trying to cover his tracks. So even by modern standards he probably wouldn't get away with an insanity plea.

[Ramsay Gimp]

It's possible to be both a jerk and insane. We don't know to what degree Aerys' evil acts were the result of insanity vs. plain old malice

Joffrey wasn't insane, for instance, but I could just as easily see him burning the Starks after promising a trial by combat (in fact, he promised to be merciful to Ned).

When Aerys violently raped his wife, was that his "insanity" rearing its head or was he just being a dick? Late, even if his insanity made him think he'd be reborn as a dragon, he still wanted everyone else to perish in wildfire (and he waited until the war was lost for the Targs, which implies he understood the nature of what he was doing).

[Monctonvike]

The standard for accountability usually involves the defendants ability to determine right from wrong. Aerys ordering the Murders of Ned and Robert implies that he knows what he did was wrong. ie he's trying to cover his tracks. So even by modern standards he probably wouldn't get away with an insanity plea.

:agree:

Blammo!!!

[SeanF]

Judging by TWOIAF, a sane Aerys would have been a selfish, lazy, king, but not a disaster.

WRT deposing him, it would be very difficult to achieve, unless he himself realised he couldn't do the job. Had Rhaegar won at the Trident, he might have been able to appoint himself Regent, or Hand.

[Ramsay Gimp]

WRT deposing him, it would be very difficult to achieve, unless he himself realised he couldn't do the job. Had Rhaegar won at the Trident, he might have been able to appoint himself Regent, or Hand.

A sort of silent, bloodless coup in favor of Rhaegar would be the best thing, IMO. Have the King "retire" to Dragonstone for "health reasons" and sign a document (forged if necessary) naming Rhaegar Hand or Regent. Aerys retains the crown and all acts are still done in his name.

Getting the Kingsguard to cooperate would be key

[doodlebutt]

The standard for accountability usually involves the defendants ability to determine right from wrong. Aerys ordering the Murders of Ned and Robert implies that he knows what he did was wrong. ie he's trying to cover his tracks. So even by modern standards he probably wouldn't get away with an insanity plea.

I think you've made a good point in that there are moments by which we can judge whether he could distinguish right from wrong, but I'm a little confused as to how ordering their deaths shows Aerys' sanity. My understanding was that it was still part of his fearful paranoia, kill-everyone-I-suspect, self defensive murder complex that was deeply a part of his madness. But I'm interested to hear your explanation!

[Chaircat Meow]

I actually think Aerys was likely correct to think there was a big plot against him.

[Mal Malenkirk]

A sort of silent, bloodless coup in favor of Rhaegar would be the best thing, IMO. Have the King "retire" to Dragonstone for "health reasons" and sign a document (forged if necessary) naming Rhaegar Hand or Regent. Aerys retains the crown and all acts are still done in his name.

It woud have been... except for teh fact that Rhaegar's handling of the Lyanna situation makes me wonder just how suitable a king he would have been!

[Mal Malenkirk]

I actually think Aerys was likely correct to think there was a big plot against him.

If everyone hates you because you are paranoid, are you no longer paranoid?

[Ramsay Gimp]

If everyone hates you because you are paranoid and an evil bastard, are you no longer paranoid?

Fixed. But good reply