The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

[Annalee]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

This does not mean that Jon is evil, or bad, it makes him fallible like every other human who has ever lived. He had the man who killed his father and was a possible future threat to his leadership murdered for a crime that did not warrant murder as a punishment. 

Evil and bad?  We don't need to go there.  But I know this.  Jon was not cut out for and should never get another chance to lead.  His inability to separate himself from the Starks will always compromise his judgment.  

[Annalee]

On 7/14/2018 at 2:38 AM, Giant Ice Spider said:

I think Jon made the right call.

This was said in front of the entire Castle Black garrison. Jon can't exactly let that go unchallenged. He could have ripped Slynt's tongue out instead of executing him, but as Tyrion points out in ACOK, that only gives credence to what he said. He can't let what Slynt said stand, because if he does he loses all authority and gets stabbed even sooner.

Jon did desert, but he was back by dawn (so technically he didn't violate the Watch's rules)nly refuse one of Jon's orders.

That doesn't change the fact is definitely personal though. Jon wasn't being impartial at the time, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.

Why not?  Mance Rayder challenged all of the laws of the Nightwatch and had the audacity to attack the wall with his wildlings.  Jon let him go unchallenged.  Why do you think he did this?  Because he remembered the story of Bael the Bard and if anyone can get his sister it was Mance Rayder.  Jon threw justice aside to serve his own needs.  A commander be harsh or lenient as long as they apply the standards fairly across the board.  

[Hugorfonics]

6 minutes ago, Annalee said:

Why not?  Mance Rayder challenged all of the laws of the Nightwatch and had the audacity to attack the wall with his wildlings.  Jon let him go unchallenged.  Why do you think he did this?  Because he remembered the story of Bael the Bard and if anyone can get his sister it was Mance Rayder.  Jon threw justice aside to serve his own needs.  A commander be harsh or lenient as long as they apply the standards fairly across the board.  

Jon didnt let him go unchallenged. He gave him to Stannis who burnt and shot him to death. The king facilitated the execution of Mance, this was all very legal and above Jons pay grade.

I suppose he could have tried to arrest him with Mel, but they were alone and Mance is the better warrior. Besides, its Arya. And its bullshit that any of this was illigal. Jon guards the realms of men, where was the girl in grey if not the realms of men

 

[Ygrain]

 

7 hours ago, White Ravens said:

But Jon is the ultimate authority at the Wall.  He's dealing with someone who is known to be corrupt and ethically challenged.  A person who tried to kill Jon by sending him on a suicide mission to kill Mance.  A person who openly disrespects him and who refuses to follow orders in front of the rest of the Watch.  Imprisonment might have lead to more challenges to his authority in the future but killing Janos Slynt removed those possibilities and was within his authority as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. 

It was an extreme solution but it wasn't unjust.

This should be set in stone because this is what the whole situation really boils down to. Yes, Jon wishes to kill Slynt prior, but he does not act on the wish, he sets it aside. The above is the reason why Slynt had to die, not Jon's personal vendetta.

6 hours ago, Tucu said:

For a bit of context we should mention that even in the current real world insubordination at the time of war can be punishable by death (for example in the US military). Janos was given two chances before he was executed for insubordination at the time of war.

Thanks for that, I had a suspicion this might be true but didn't have the time to do a thorough search. And this is present-day military - the farther you go into the past, the more common the death penalty would be as the value of human life diminished.

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Watch is constantly at 'war'. 

And currently, the winter is coming, the Others have returned, and the Watch is at its weakest. The situation is extreme, and like it or not, extreme situations sometimes require extreme solutions. Jon's motivation for finally moving against Slynt is not a personal grudge but an assessment of this extreme situation, per his own PoV and @White Ravens's summary. Slynt may not have had the full picture but he knew damn well he was crossing the line, and he didn't do it because he thought he was right but because he thought he was untouchable.

[Varysblackfyre321]

20 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jon didnt let him go unchallenged. He gave him to Stannis who burnt and shot him to death. The king facilitated the execution of Mance, this was all very legal and above Jons pay grade.

I suppose he could have tried to arrest him with Mel, but they were alone and Mance is the better warrior. Besides, its Arya. And its bullshit that any of this was illigal. Jon guards the realms of men, where was the girl in grey if not the realms of men

 

Jon didn't give Stannis Mance-Stannis claimed the turncoat as his prisoner, Jon snow wasn't even lord commander when it happened. 

Jon let Mance go, and it was not a choice he did under threat-he could have easily rounded up a few brothers to over power and/or kill Mance

You can say his decision was moral, but please don't pretend as if he had no choice in this-hell he doesn't even seem to even suspect Mance and Melisandre are thinking this with Stannis' consent,given he planned to ship his sister far away from Westeroes-which actually would hurt Stsnnis, so much so he'd probably burn Jon over it. 

[Ygrain]

9 hours ago, The Transporter said:

You know Bowen Marsh is not a bad man.  He had every reason to kill the lunatic Lord Commander before more harm is done.  Slynt is not a nice man but even he deserved justice.  He was set up by Jon so he can be murdered.  Jon is the one who is wrong in this discussion.

11 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

They don't, I''d be surprised if a single person who likes Janos Slynt as a character, I know I certainly don't, but the idea that we can only discuss characters we are fans of is ridiculous. 

Sorry, guys, should have used an emoticon. That about Slynt or Marsh fans wasn't a serious comment.

 

9 hours ago, The Transporter said:

I get what you're saying but I cannot agree.  Insubordination is a punishable offense but killing Slynt is way too harsh.  Jon was emotional and wanted Slynt's blood.  Jon misused his authority to get back at a Stark enemy.   A day or two later and Jon basically gives Mance a pass.  Mance isn't just guilty of insubordination.  That man is guilty of oath breaking, desertion, and attacking the watch with his wildlings.  Mance is still legally a brother of the night's watch and subject to its laws.  Killing Slynt and then turning around to let Mance get away with his crimes is double-standard.  

While I agree that by the laws, Mance's head should roll, the situation still doesn't compare - Slynt is dangerous to Jon's command and to the unity of the Watch, Mance is not. That's the crucial difference and the reason Slynt has to die. Not for his part in Ned's death, but for his current actions and the danger he poises for the future.

15 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

yes, Jon wants Sam to do something that he does not want to do and he chooses to have a private conversation, Slynt's offer is much worse and he does so infront of a crowded room. 

The first time Slynt was given the order, it was in a private conversation, as well. And how he responded?

"No traitor’s bastard gives commands to Janos Slynt!"

I hope you do not want to claim that his response is in any way similar to Sam's. And how did Jon react? 

He could only hope that a night’s sleep would bring Lord Janos to his senses. The next morning proved that hope was vain.

And that's right after fantasizing about killing Slynt. He is NOT planning on killing Slynt, he hopes that Slynt will fall in line. Only after Slynt defies him a second time, he goes through the alternatives what to do with him. Jon was giving him a chance again, just like he did prior:

Slynt’s face had turned the color of a prune. His meaty jowls began to quiver. “Do you think I cannot see what you are doing? Janos Slynt is not a man to be gulled so easily. I was charged with the defense of King’s Landing when you were soiling your swaddling clothes. Keep your ruin, bastard.”
I am giving you a chance, my lord. It is more than you ever gave my father.

If you see this as thoughts of someone hellbent on revenge, I really don't know what else to say to you.

15 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Grenn would never have been killed for what Slynt did. And you know it. 

Of course he wouldn't, because he wasn't the kind of person Slynt was and wasn't in the position Slynt was. Meaning, Grenn wouldn't have done it in the first place. You keep focusing on the act and ignore the problem of personality, status and predictable future course of events, which all had their role in Jon's decision.

[Ygrain]

7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

But this is really a Jon hate thread, not a "I  Janos Slynt" one.

Yeah, Slynt getting so much defence is merely a side-effect

It's really mind-boggling how people claim it was personal when GRRM shows repeatedly that no matter how much Jon hates Slynt, he doesn't act on his feelings but on the assessment of the situation and tries to do right by Slynt, offering him chances to rectify his character and behaviour.

As someone who played Dragon Age: Origins (pretty much inspired by ASOIAF), I can only say that Jon has a much better grip of himself than my Cousland, who does make use of the situation and kills Loghain for personal reasons even though he knows damn well that he shouldn't. Jon is indeed his father's son here (father, as in, the man who raised him).

[Varysblackfyre321]

16 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

but that's one of the reasons he was killed. Feared and vulnerable is a dangerous combination. Jon deliberately avoided showing off his power, to his detriment, as Melisandre noted:

Perhaps he did not think himself worthy of the King's Tower, or perhaps he did not care. That was his mistake, the false humility of youth that is itself a sort of pride. It was never wise for a ruler to eschew the trappings of power, for power itself flows in no small measure from such trappings.

She would have no need of them today, but Melisandre made it a point to keep a pair of guards about her everywhere she went. It sent a certain message. The trappings of power.

 The second quote is quite telling, as of course if Jon had guards with him at all times, he wouldn't have been quite so vulnerable during Marsh's coup. If Jon had wanted to be feared and respected, however, he would have taken the King's Tower, and he would have had guards with him. As he made a point of not doing so, I see no reason to believe that fear and respect were his reasons for executing Slynt. Incentive, perhaps, but not the primary motivator.

Interesting. I'm inclined to agree with Melisandre that Jon is being prideful in his lack of safety precautions, but perhaps it's simply naive trust in the protection of the chain of command? If the latter it's still weird given he himself has tried to kill a superior when he was just a trainee and his predesssore was killed by his men who were dissatisfied with him but still. 

 

[Leonardo]

On 7/14/2018 at 9:25 AM, Wolf's Bane said:

 

On 7/14/2018 at 11:21 AM, Bernie Mac said:

no, they were not. There is zero evidence in the books that he was going to be executed. Is this really what it comes to, making up shit because you don't like the fact that Jon is a fallible human being guilty of the same emotions we'd all have in his place? 

 

hardly, the chapter starts with him fantasizing about killing Slynt and Jon telling the reader that he could not bring him to treat him like a brother of the watch, that he could not forgive his former deeds. 

GRRM is not being subtle here. 

yup, that is a huge giveaway to what is motivating Jon. no one, certainly not Janos, suspected what he would say would warrant his death. jon overreacted because of who Slynt was, he'd never have done the same to Grenn or some other random member. 

 

Jon is fallible as anyone, and executing Slynt was both a good move and a personal revenge. The two are not mutually exclusive; leaving Janos alive was faaaaaar worse than leaving him dead as an example. Jon makes plenty of mistakes, as does anyone who makes enough choices. It's not possible to be right all of the time, and for a kid under 18 does pretty damn well. Jon tells the reader that he needs to treat him like a brother, and forgive his former deeds if possible, it doesn't at all say that he can't forgive it or won't. You're misquoting there.

[Bullrout]

On 7/13/2018 at 10:09 PM, Damsel in Distress said:

Mormont cut Jon some slack for his desertion of the watch and for breaking his vows.   Jon could have shown the same mercy to Janos Slynt, whose offense was a lot less than his own.  His execution of Janos Slynt was personal and made a mockery of justice when he later allowed the most insubordinate Night's Watch brother of them all in Mance Rayder walk away unpunished.   That is not proper conduct for a leader and a disgrace for a lord commander.  The appropriate punishment and wisest decision would have been to lock Slynt in one of the cells.  Jon was thinking of Ned when he killed Slynt.  It was personal.  Jon was not objective when he passed judgment on Janos Slynt.  Whatever Slynt may have done during his life before the took the black is no longer important.  Any brother who takes the black get their past crimes forgiven.  

 

Jon has the wolf blood.  Like Lyanna, Arya, and Brandon.  You can't expect him to make good decisions when he's emotional.  He's too emotional and too attached to the wolf "pack."  Jon wanted to hurt the people who hurt his pack and he put that ahead of his vows.  Jon can't be objective when the Starks are involved.  He would not make for a good lord and he would be terrible at being king.  That last one is directed at Jon's fans who want to see him become king.  Me, I want him to either die from getting cut or stay at the wall and do his job.

[Bullrout]

1 hour ago, Leonardo said:

Jon is fallible as anyone, and executing Slynt was both a good move and a personal revenge. The two are not mutually exclusive; leaving Janos alive was faaaaaar worse than leaving him dead as an example. Jon makes plenty of mistakes, as does anyone who makes enough choices. It's not possible to be right all of the time, and for a kid under 18 does pretty damn well. Jon tells the reader that he needs to treat him like a brother, and forgive his former deeds if possible, it doesn't at all say that he can't forgive it or won't. You're misquoting there.

Hi Leonardo.  I love that name if not your opinion.    It's more than a mistake.   That was murder.   The appropriate punishment was not execution.  Jon made an exception because of how he felt about the man.  What Jon basically did was kill a man he did not like for a misdemeanor while choosing not to punish another man who had committed many felonies because he needed said man to fetch his sister for him.  That's not justice.  That is Jon serving his own interests and placed it above the welfare of the Night's Watch.   A Lord Commander should be better than that.  

Slynt had many supporters and maybe Jon was paranoid.  So he killed Slynt.  But you know that is what dictators do and not something an elected leader of a brotherhood should do.  It was wrong for so many reasons.

 

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, Bullrout said:

that is what dictators do and not something an elected leader of a brotherhood should do

 

1 hour ago, Bullrout said:

 The appropriate punishment was not execution.

Then why didn't Jon's friends call him out on it? Why did the decent members of NW follow his orders if they were illegal? Why did by-the-rules Stannis nod approvingly?

I can't help but feel that many people apply today's standards to a decision process which has nothing to with them and make a huge deal from Jon's desire to kill Slynt when his inner monologue makes it clear that he does not act on this desire.

[Lord Varys]

One can see the double standard Jon is applying there not only with the fact that he spares Mance's life (who actually poses a much larger danger than Slynt ever could after he realizes the man is still alive) but also how he does not care to punish other Watchmen who do not exactly support his policies.

I mean, what would have happened if Mance had went back over the Wall to show his people that he was not, in fact, dead? He could have raised another army, etc.

And if one justifies Slynt's execution but finds excuses as to why Jon didn't deserve to be executed (or at chastised severely) for his many transgressions while he was at the Watch) then one is applying a double standard, too.

Slynt quickly broke down when he realized he had gone too far. He tried to make amends, he tried to apologize. I don't remember the scene where Jon Snow did ever apologize to Alliser Thorne for his attempt to kill the man. Do you?

Jon had every opportunity to change the sentence there. After all, he did - from hanging to beheading. He could also have changed it from execution to something else.

We don't know his men took this extreme measure. As a sign of strength or as a sign of madness and unnecessary cruelty? We'll have to wait and see...

[SeanF]

On ‎7‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 3:09 AM, Damsel in Distress said:

Mormont cut Jon some slack for his desertion of the watch and for breaking his vows.   Jon could have shown the same mercy to Janos Slynt, whose offense was a lot less than his own.  His execution of Janos Slynt was personal and made a mockery of justice when he later allowed the most insubordinate Night's Watch brother of them all in Mance Rayder walk away unpunished.   That is not proper conduct for a leader and a disgrace for a lord commander.  The appropriate punishment and wisest decision would have been to lock Slynt in one of the cells.  Jon was thinking of Ned when he killed Slynt.  It was personal.  Jon was not objective when he passed judgment on Janos Slynt.  Whatever Slynt may have done during his life before the took the black is no longer important.  Any brother who takes the black get their past crimes forgiven.  

 

There was a personal element, but it was not undeserved.  A decent officer would have accepted the command of Greyguard, and Slynt was given the chance to change his mind.

[Lord Varys]

Proper justice, even in Westeros, involves that you distance yourself from your personal feelings and do what is right, not what you want. Just look at Cregan Stark or Stannis Baratheon - the former rode to war to restore Rhaenyra Targaryen to the Iron Throne and ended up avenging her murderer, a false king, because this man was betrayed and murdered by people he trusted. And Stannis both rewarded and punished Davos for his deeds.

People in Westeros know that justice should be blind. People are always tempted to favor their friends and family and retainers, but they actually should not do that when they sit in judgment over somebody.

This is also why Robert Baratheon sucks so hard as king. The fact that he ascended the throne over the dead bodies of the royal family isn't that bad in and of itself since he wasn't personally involved in the murders at KL, but as a proper king he should have punished the murderers - Jaime, Gregor, Amory, and Tywin. That could have helped heal the wounds of the Realm and it would have sent a message to the Targaryen loyalists that Robert Baratheon intended to be their king, too, not just the king of the rebels.

Considering Jon's personal history with Slynt - the fact that the man was involved in the downfall and execution of Ned Stark - it should have been of paramount importance to him to ensure that he is not seen as a man who prefers his personal vendettas to the good of the Watch.

And he continues that policy with his help to Stannis, the mercy for Mance, the intervention through Mance in the affairs of the North, his deals with the wildlings, and his declaration of war on the Lord of Winterfell.

One understands why he does that, and one doesn't like the Boltons at all, but one also sees that the man doesn't live up to the standards by which one should judge a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.

He sees the big picture, but he is biased as to who he wants to work with to fight the Others. The wildlings, yes, Stannis, yes, but the Boltons, Freys, Lannister a resounding: No!

[The Commentator]

Nine pages and counting.  Just everything that could be said on both sides of this debate has been written but I want to point out a few things that I am sure got lost somewhere in all of the thesis.  

You don't have to like Janos Slynt to see that he didn't get any justice.  You can also recognize Jon's motivations and still disagree with Jon.  At least we can because we're in no danger of getting our heads taken off for crossing him, right.  

Jon projected his hate for the Lannisters on Janos Slynt.  Which is unfortunate because Slynt only acted on false information.  He was a victim of false information.  Ned admitted to treason.  He was guilty as far as Janos, Joffrey, Payne knew.  Ned was executed for a crime that he admitted to.  Yes, Janos betrayed him but remember, Ned also wanted to bribe Slynt to turn him against the Lannisters.  Ned didn't want to dishonor himself so he had LF do the bribing for him.  Jon should not have that big of a beef with Janos.  

Micah, the son of a butcher was killed by a hound.  Janos, the son of a butcher was killed by a direwolf.  Two butchers' boys killed by dogs.  Maybe it's the ghost of those cows getting their revenge on the butcher.  

[The Commentator]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

There was a personal element, but it was not undeserved.  A decent officer would have accepted the command of Greyguard, and Slynt was given the chance to change his mind.

Actually, Slynt did change his mind and asked for mercy.  Jon denied that mercy and killed him anyway even after Slynt agreed to go.

[Tucu]

16 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Actually, Slynt did change his mind and asked for mercy.  Jon denied that mercy and killed him anyway even after Slynt agreed to go.

Slynt closed the door for mercy himself when he mocked the sentence:

Quote

“If the boy thinks that he can frighten me, he is mistaken,” they heard Lord Janos said. “He would not dare to hang me. Janos Slynt has friends, important friends, you’ll see …” The wind whipped away the rest of his words.

<snip>

Janos Slynt twisted his neck around to stare up at him. “Please, my lord. Mercy. I’ll … I’ll go, I will, I …”

No, thought Jon. You closed that door. Longclaw descended.

3 chances was enough: 2 to obey, 1 to ask for mercy.

[The Commentator]

1 minute ago, Tucu said:

Slynt closed the door for mercy himself when he mocked the sentence:

3 chances was enough.

A man's life is at stake.  A fellow brother of the watch.  He gave in and begged for mercy.  It was not too late.  It was Jon wanting to get his revenge.

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

A man's life is at stake.  A fellow brother of the watch.  He gave in and begged for mercy.  It was not too late.  It was Jon wanting to get his revenge.

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? How many chances would have been enough, in your opinion? Seven? Nineteen? Or, because a person's life will always be at stake where the death penalty is concerned, maybe it should be renamed to "the threat of death" penalty.