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

[Lord Varys]

This Stannis issue here is ridiculous. Stannis nods to Jon because he did something he, Stannis, would have done in Jon's situation, too. And because he didn't like Slynt, either, and because he thought the man deserved to die.

But Stannis would also have other things Jon never did - like ridding himself or Thorne, Marsh, and other men he didn't trust. Stannis is surrounded by shitty people, too, but nobody of them is plotting against him.

And Stannis would have had Jon's head for his midnight ride, Stannis would have had Jon's head for his attack on Throne (even after he saved his life from the wight, because a good deed doesn't wash out a bad - he may have knighted him for his valor, and then he would have hacked off his head), and Stannis would have had Jon's head for fucking a wildling.

Stannis would also close down the brothels of Mole's Town, drive off the whores, and castrate all men who sleep around after they have said their vows. The man wanted to close down the brothels of KL, guys.

Burning people alive seems to be a not uncommon sentence in Westeros. It is extreme, but it is not out of the framework of stuff that's done. And just like Stannis Aerys didn't just burn random people. He burned people he had condemned to death. But then - Stannis is in the end as shitty at justice as Jon Snow. Davos got the 'Get out of Jail Free Card' because he was Stannis' buddy, never mind that he actually tried to murder Melisandre of Asshai and abducted Stannis' nephew, whereas the uncle of Stannis' own wife, Lord Alester Florent, got burned alive for the crime of trying to save Stannis' life and castle and title (as Lord of Dragonstone).

This is not justice. Davos was as mistaken in his intention of murdering Mel as Alester was in his belief that Stannis would approve of his negotiations with Lord Tywin.

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The vow doesn't include obedience to the Lord Commander.

Practically, disobeying to LC is more serious matter than deserting. If not, Wall could not stand for thousand years.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Dead headofMaelysKinslayer said:

Practically, disobeying to LC is more serious matter than deserting. If not, Wall could not stand for thousand years.

Tell that to the author. He didn't include the LC in the vow, nor that insubordination is customarily punished with execution. In fact, we don't even know the Watch has to have a 'lord commander'. They could organize themselves differently, one assumes.

If obedience to the LC was of paramount importance than Runcel Hightower and the Night's King didn't do all that much wrong. It was a reform of the NW to make the position of the LC hereditary, no? And who is to say the LC cannot marry a corpse bride when the men can go whoring? Usually corpses don't give birth to living children, so the Night's King kept his vows. And since the Others aren't mentioned in the vows, either, it is also not inherently wrong to worship them, no?

Marsh's reaction to Jon's sentence makes all that plain. If it were obvious that it was Jon's only course of action to execute Slynt, pretty much nobody should have taken issue with that. But they did.

But it is a diversion to talk what crimes are worse - the thing is: if Jon can get some slack for his rather severe crimes then he could have had the grace to give Slynt the benefit of the doubt, too. But he did not.

Just look how he treated Marsh. The man was part of the cabal who wanted Slynt to get elected LC. This is not a man you want as your Lord Steward, simply for that fact - especially after it became clear the man also opposes most of your policies.

[Tagganaro]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Tell that to the author. He didn't include the LC in the vow, nor that insubordination is customarily punished with execution. In fact, we don't even know the Watch has to have a 'lord commander'. They could organize themselves differently, one assumes.

He didn't include taking no part in the politics of the realm either in the vow, but it's still important.  It's a military organization, of course you have to have a chain of command and with presumably 997+ previous LCs, you would think it'd be pretty important to have one. 

Quote

If obedience to the LC was of paramount importance than Runcel Hightower and the Night's King didn't do all that much wrong. It was a reform of the NW to make the position of the LC hereditary, no? And who is to say the LC cannot marry a corpse bride when the men can go whoring? Usually corpses don't give birth to living children, so the Night's King kept his vows. And since the Others aren't mentioned in the vows, either, it is also not inherently wrong to worship them, no?

I know you're trying to make a point, but c'mon now.  This is silly.  There is obviously no comparison between Jon giving a perfectly reasonable order to a subordinate and what the Night's King was doing.

Quote

Marsh's reaction to Jon's sentence makes all that plain. If it were obvious that it was Jon's only course of action to execute Slynt, pretty much nobody should have taken issue with that. But they did.

Marsh's reaction makes nothing plain.  He has a shall we say "vested interest" in Slynt's well-being considering that they both plotted together previously and that Marsh for all his tough talk about Jon taking sides is motivated by fear of the Crown.  Of course he's gonna react that way when Jon kills Slynt.

Besides, lets look at all the other reactions to Jon's sentence.  We're not told of one person who speaks up and says "This is wrong.  The LC can't do this.  There should be a trial."  This despite the fact that there are many Slynt supporters eating with him in the Hall.  Not one of Jon's men hesitates either.  Because you know why?  Slynt done F'ed up and there's nothing anyone can say in his defense here.

Quote

But it is a diversion to talk what crimes are worse - the thing is: if Jon can get some slack for his rather severe crimes then he could have had the grace to give Slynt the benefit of the doubt, too. But he did not.

I agree with this 100%.  IT is Jon's call as LC, just like it was Mormont's call before him whether to punish Jon more severely or not.  Jon chose to punish Slynt more severely, and knowing everything we do about him among the 100's of decisions Jon has made that should be questioned, this does not seem like one of them.

Quote

Just look how he treated Marsh. The man was part of the cabal who wanted Slynt to get elected LC. This is not a man you want as your Lord Steward, simply for that fact - especially after it became clear the man also opposes most of your policies.

I agree on this as well.  Jon certainly respects Mormont and I think the fact that Marsh served him well swayed Jon.  Also I will give credit to Marsh, he went up to Jon straight after he was elected and offered to serve him- good way to win Jon over.  And Marsh and Thorne, unlike Slynt, at least knew the rotten ice they walked on and didn't dare disobey a direct order from Jon and give him a reason to kill them.  Heck, I think Thorne says that exact same thing to Jon when Jon is sending him away on a ranging.  Because Slynt gave Jon a perfect reason to kill him because he's an idiot.  

 

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

He didn't include taking no part in the politics of the realm either in the vow, but it's still important.  It's a military organization, of course you have to have a chain of command and with presumably 997+ previous LCs, you would think it'd be pretty important to have one. 

Sure but all that is not textual evidence that it is customary for an LC to execute a man for as minor an offense as Slynt committed there. And that's the only issue we are discussing here.

The part about neutrality seems to be derived from or included in the line 'I will live and die and my post' - the post of a man of the NW is at the Wall, not in the Red Mountains of Dorne, on the Three Sisters or at Highgarden... And it is also clear they serve 'the realms of men' - which would have been the Hundred Kingdoms of the First Men and later the Seven Kingdoms of the Andals.

If 'realms of men' had included the wildlings as well, then wildlings would have served in the Watch of their own free will and the Watch would have never interfered with their raids in the North.

19 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

I know you're trying to make a point, but c'mon now.  This is silly.  There is obviously no comparison between Jon giving a perfectly reasonable order to a subordinate and what the Night's King was doing.

Most likely not. But the Runcel Hightower thing is a lot less obvious, or is it? And what about those watchmen who just continued to obey their Lord Commander's orders, serving Hightower and the Night's King faithfully? Were they wrong? Did the others have a right to turn against him? If so, what gave them this right? Most black brothers seem to have stuck with Hightower and the Night's King since the Starks of Winterfell (and also the wildlings) had to intervene to settle those issues. That wouldn't have been necessary if most of the Watch had opposed their lord commanders in those cases.

This doesn't mean a Lord Commander cannot execute someone for insubordination (and that's what Slynt did, basically). The question is merely whether this was a just, prudent, and overall a proper decision, especially in light of the fact how Jon himself was treated by his superior officers.

19 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

Marsh's reaction makes nothing plain.  He has a shall we say "vested interest" in Slynt's well-being considering that they both plotted together previously and that Marsh for all his tough talk about Jon taking sides is motivated by fear of the Crown.  Of course he's gonna react that way when Jon kills Slynt.

Marsh plotting with Slynt wasn't something that was 'wrong', though. There is no indication that scheming and lying and plotting are forbidden when a new lord commander is chosen (if it were, then Jon wouldn't be a duly elected Lord Commander, either).

My point as to why keeping Marsh was wrong is because Jon couldn't hope to trust him as well as he should be able to trust his Lord Steward. You need men that are your men, body and soul, when you want to rule, not men who plot against you. They don't have to be yes-men or echo you on all issues, but they should be loyal to you when a decision is made.

And, of course, the fact how Slynt's execution is going to look in the eyes of the Lannisters is also an important thing to consider. That looks like petty revenge from the point of view of the Iron Throne and thus doesn't help to sell the Realm that this Jon Snow fellow is neutral as a Lord Commander should be.

In fact, that's a major point why Jon should have either been more lenient or dragged more officers into being responsible for Slynt's execution. That way not only he would take the blame for that.

19 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

Besides, lets look at all the other reactions to Jon's sentence.  We're not told of one person who speaks up and says "This is wrong.  The LC can't do this.  There should be a trial."  This despite the fact that there are many Slynt supporters eating with him in the Hall.  Not one of Jon's men hesitates either.  Because you know why?  Slynt done F'ed up and there's nothing anyone can say in his defense here.

I never said the LC can't do that. And we should keep in mind that it happened very quickly and with the LC having put his men into place to execute the man on the spot. That's not an environment where people are likely to speak up citing legal precedents, etc.

19 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

I agree with this 100%.  IT is Jon's call as LC, just like it was Mormont's call before him whether to punish Jon more severely or not.  Jon chose to punish Slynt more severely, and knowing everything we do about him among the 100's of decisions Jon has made that should be questioned, this does not seem like one of them.

I think Jon's treatment of both Slynt and Thorne - who he resents and wants dead - and of Marsh who he actually liked somewhat and only grows annoyed by later - clearly shows his bias there. If Slynt hadn't killed his father he would never have treated him this way. If Thorne hadn't mocked him the way he did he would have never tried to kill him, etc.

Slynt certainly gave Jon cause to execute him, but so did Jon (repeatedly) with Mormont. But very few people complain that Jon wasn't executed for his crimes and offenses.

And in general we should note that - despite Jon being elected LC - he has never been formally cleared of his desertion and oathbreaking. He cannot proof his Qhorin Halfhand story, nor has he any way to prove that he didn't betray the Watch in his heart during his time with the wildlings.

His brothers at the Watch do not know whether he was one of their own the entire time, or whether he is just a successful double turncloak - a man who betrayed the Watch and then betrayed the wildlings.

If the latter was true, then Jon would actually be a false Lord Commander - we know it is not the case (or at least: the Qhorin story is correct) - but the black brothers have no way of knowing. And that's why Slynt, Thorne, and Marsh's misgivings are actually justified. They have all good reason to be suspicious of their Lord Commander.

19 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

I agree on this as well.  Jon certainly respects Mormont and I think the fact that Marsh served him well swayed Jon.  Also I will give credit to Marsh, he went up to Jon straight after he was elected and offered to serve him- good way to win Jon over.  And Marsh and Thorne, unlike Slynt, at least knew the rotten ice they walked on and didn't dare disobey a direct order from Jon and give him a reason to kill them.  Heck, I think Thorne says that exact same thing to Jon when Jon is sending him away on a ranging.  Because Slynt gave Jon a perfect reason to kill him because he's an idiot.  

See above. Jon has no reason to kill or truly dislike Marsh, but he still shouldn't have kept him as Lord Steward. Marsh isn't Jon's man.

And we'll have to wait and see what Marsh's motivation to kill Jon is. What is clear, though, is that he did it for the Watch.

[Unacosamedarisa]

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

as minor an offense as Slynt committed there

Refusing to follow a direct order, twice, and gross insubordination, in the medieval penal battalion during a war for the very survival of humanity, is not a "minor" offense. It's a pretty major one. 

[Lion of the West]

16 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

Refusing to follow a direct order, twice, and gross insubordination, in the medieval penal battalion during a war for the very survival of humanity, is not a "minor" offense. It's a pretty major one. 

You are aware that there are other punishments available to the LC? In a war for the very survival of humanity the LC needs to be careful with wasting human resources. From my perspective stripping Marsh of his command, give him a good whipping and sent him off under the command of one of Jon's men could very well have served well enough.

But like I think its was said above, ultimately Jon kill Janos because Jon wanted to kill Janos. The rest was just pretext.

[Unacosamedarisa]

8 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

You are aware that there are other punishments available to the LC? In a war for the very survival of humanity the LC needs to be careful with wasting human resources.

Jon tried, twice, to use the human resource that was Janos Slynt. Janos refused, twice. What was he good for if he wasn't going to follow orders? 

8 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

From my perspective stripping Marsh of his command, give him a good whipping and sent him off under the command of one of Jon's men could very well have served well enough.

I assume you mean Slynt here, not Marsh. What command? Slynt had no command, Jon was offering him a command, trying to bury the hatchet, treat Slynt impersonally, trying to make use of him. Slynt refused. Twice. Also, what could possibly make you think that Slynt would accept serving under one of "Jon's men" when he wouldn't accept his own command?

If you did mean Marsh... What would whipping Marsh do to deal with the Slynt situation. 

Jon approached Slynt impersonally, tried to ignore the personal, tried to make peace with him, and have him on-board as a useful member of the Watch. But, Slynt showed he had no intention of treating Jon impersonally, he made that evident when he first arrived at the Wall, and continued right up til he was made a head shorter. He showed he would never be more than a useless mouth to feed at best, and a dangerous conspirator at worst. Slynt made it personal, not Jon. 

[Ran]

Marsh wasn't just an insubordinate. He was an insubordinate _officer_, and someone who had been a leading contestant for Lord Commander before.

Whipping him and putting him under someone else's command -- that's the sort of thing you might do to an enlisted man. Execution under those particular circumstances was, within the framework of Westerosi views on law and justice, entirely appropriate. He was not simply refusing to obey because he thought it was beneath him or a bad idea, he was refusing to obey because he was rejecting the Lord Commander's very authority. That was not something that could be dealt with lightly.

[Lion of the West]

9 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

Jon tried, twice, to use the human resource that was Janos Slynt. Janos refused, twice. What was he good for if he wasn't going to follow orders? 

I assume you mean Slynt here, not Marsh. What command? Slynt had no command, Jon was offering him a command, trying to bury the hatchet, treat Slynt impersonally, trying to make use of him. Slynt refused. Twice. Also, what could possibly make you think that Slynt would accept serving under one of "Jon's men" when he wouldn't accept his own command?

If you did mean Marsh... What would whipping Marsh do to deal with the Slynt situation. 

Jon approached Slynt impersonally, tried to ignore the personal, tried to make peace with him, and have him on-board as a useful member of the Watch. But, Slynt showed he had no intention of treating Jon impersonally, he made that evident when he first arrived at the Wall, and continued right up til he was made a head shorter. He showed he would never be more than a useless mouth to feed at best, and a dangerous conspirator at worst. Slynt made it personal, not Jon. 

Yeah, I mean Slynt. Sorry for that.

But anyway, what I meant is that loads of authority people in Westeros have had their authority challenged and not everyone almost resorts to killing people. Granted, most people know their place in the world better than Slynt. I don't recall Robb killing the Greatjon despite a clear disrespect, even drawing steel against Robb.

The reason from my POV that Janos could behave like he did was because at first, as I recall, Janos outranked Jon and then Janos thought he had a kind of position that Jon couldn't touch. Obviously he was wrong as Jon very much showed him.

As for Janos I don't think we know. Janos was a conspirator of note because he was an officer in close proximity to like-minded individuals and the center of power. Remove those and I fail to see Janos as some kind of master mind being able to organize a plot across the length of many miles - without either Facebook or a smartphone at his disposal.

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Marsh wasn't just an insubordinate. He was an insubordinate _officer_, and someone who had been a leading contestant for Lord Commander before.

Whipping him and putting him under someone else's command -- that's the sort of thing you might do to an enlisted man. Execution under those particular circumstances was, within the framework of Westerosi views on law and justice, entirely appropriate. He was not simply refusing to obey because he thought it was beneath him or a bad idea, he was refusing to obey because he was rejecting the Lord Commander's very authority. That was not something that could be dealt with lightly.

Lots of things are entirely appropriete in Westerosi views of justice but that don't mean that only one alternative is possible.

And like I said below, Janos Slynt don't seem like the kind of guy who don't break easily. Sure he hold grudges but like the Prince teach us, men can avange small injuries, they cannot avenge great ones. Thus while I understand that death was an option and an option that Jon liked, it seems to me that no other options were considered.

And I don't see Janos Slynt as a very capable person. Remove him from authortiy and physically away from his friends and he's likable to collapse into nothing. Or get himself killed on some further insubordination or foolish action further down the line.

I'm just not entirely convinced of "kill them all!" as a first response to troublesome people. Can be necessary of course, I won't deny that.

[Unacosamedarisa]

3 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

The reason from my POV that Janos could behave like he did was because at first, as I recall, Janos outranked Jon and then Janos thought he had a kind of position that Jon couldn't touch.

He didn't outrank Jon... Slynt was newly arrived outsider, with no actual position. Slynt and Thorne arrived during the Wildling attack, and took it upon themselves to be "in charge", even though it had been Jon that had been commanding the Watchmen atop the Wall. Slynt and Thorne then tried to kill Jon, for purely personal reasons. When Aemon stopped them, they forced Jon to engage in a suicide mission, hoping to see him dead, for purely personal reasons. 

[Ran]

This wasn't a first response to a troublesome person. Jon's first response was not acting when he learned Slynt was calling him a turncloak after the election, presumably to see if he'd cool off. After time passed, he tried to convince him to accept command of Greyguard. His second response was not calling for his head when he insulted him, threatend him, and refused him, but rather giving him a chance to change his mind. His _third_ response when Slynt didn't prepare to go as commanded was to again give him a second chance to change his mind, right there in the barrack hall.

His fourth response was saying he used up his chances and executing him. Now, that may feel like a big escalation, but he had already given Slynt a lot of opportunity to bad mouth him and make a show of not obeying him, so he had to respond with something suitable.

It is absolutely the case that the system in Westeros is not a modern or pleasant one, and that execution and corporal punishment are solutions to problems that are not, in our world, considered reasonable solutions. But Jon tried mightily to avoid the situation, to try and assuage Slynt's suspicion and anger and envy, and Slynt refused at every turn and then proceeded to escalate the situation while trying to gather adherents who could poison the Watch if given the chance. Jon killed Slynt because he had to, as he saw it, not because he wanted to.

[Lion of the West]

5 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

He didn't outrank Jon... Slynt was newly arrived outsider, with no actual position. Slynt and Thorne arrived during the Wildling attack, and took it upon themselves to be "in charge", even though it had been Jon that had been commanding the Watchmen atop the Wall. Slynt and Thorne then tried to kill Jon, for purely personal reasons. When Aemon stopped them, they forced Jon to engage in a suicide mission, hoping to see him dead, for purely personal reasons. 

 

Forgive me if I was obtuse, I didn't mean that Slynt outranked the Lord Commander, but that Slynt outranked Jon when Jon came back from the Wildlings.

But if Aemon could have stoped them one time why couldn't he stop them the other times?

And who made Janos an officer, as I think that I recall he was, when Jon took his head?

*****

I see. I don't recall the details enough to say if you're wrong or right but I shall be of the good grace to take your word for it. When I get to this part in my re-read I'll see how well it matches up to what I read and think of it.

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

This wasn't a first response to a troublesome person. Jon's first response was not acting when he learned Slynt was calling him a turncloak after the election,

We don't actually know that, Slynt does constantly call Jon a turncloak but we only hear of these times prior to him becoming the Lord Commander, the very last time Slynt calls him that is a two paragraphs before the final count. 

At no point after the election do we or Jon hear him call him a turncloak.  The only person we actually hear call Jon a turncloak after he has became LC is Tormund

He called Jon Snow a craven, a liar, and a turncloak, cursed him for a black-hearted buggering kneeler, a robber, and a carrion crow, accused him of wanting to fuck the free folk up the arse. Twice he flung his drinking horn at Jon's head, though only after he had emptied it. Tormund was not the sort of man to waste good mead. Jon let it all wash over him. He never raised his own voice nor answered threat with threat,

which means little, however we do know other brothers have called him a 'turncloak' in ADWD and none are punished for it

Mully cleared his throat. "M'lord? The wildling princess, letting her go, the men may say—"

"—that I am half a wildling myself, a turncloak who means to sell the realm to our raiders, cannibals, and giants." Jon did not need to stare into a fire to know what was being said of him. The worst part was, they were not wrong, not wholly.

 

So not only is there no actual evidence of him knowing that Slynt called him that after he became Lord Commander but there is no real reason to believe that saying that is a cause for a harsh punishment. 

 

Quote

 

presumably to see if he'd cool off. After time passed, he tried to convince him to accept command of Greyguard.

Convince is an exaggeration, he convinced Sam to go to the Citadel, there was not attempt to convince Slynt after he first said no. 

 

Quote

 

His second response was not calling for his head when he insulted him, threatend him, and refused him,

Jon is a bastard, I don't think calling him that is grounds for execution nor is calling a 16 year old 'boy'.  Nor can you really label him pointing out he has friends as an actual threat, certainly not one worthy of harsh punishment. 

 

 

 

[Ran]

35 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

We don't actually know that, Slynt does constantly call Jon a turncloak but we only hear of these times prior to him becoming the Lord Commander, the very last time Slynt calls him that is a two paragraphs before the final count. 

Quote

"Alliser Thorne complains about the manner of your choosing, and I cannot say he does not have a grievance." The map lay between them like a battleground, drenched by the colors of the glowing sword. "The count was done by a blind man with your fat friend by his elbow. And Slynt names you a turncloak."

Stannis is speaking in present tense, of post-election remarks and complaints. Slynt is still calling him a turncloak.

 

Quote

Convince is an exaggeration, he convinced Sam to go to the Citadel, there was not attempt to convince Slynt after he first said no.

I don't think it's an exaggeration. Jon tried to convince Sam and succeeded. Jon tried to convicne Slynt and failed. Jon informs him he's giving him a command. Slynt refuses. Jon tries to impress it on him that it is a command, not a request. Slynt again refuses. Jon lets him go, because it's clear that Slynt will not hear him: he sees him as a boy, an usurper of what should be his, a bastard. But Jon hopes -- and it's important that he hopes this, because it makes it plain he doesn't want to kill Slynt -- that Slynt will think on it and accept the command after a night's rest.

 

Quote

Jon is a bastard, I don't think call him that is grounds for execution nor is calling a 16 year old 'boy'. 

 

Intent matters. Slynt's intention is to insult him, much as his intention by calling Tyrion "dwarf" was to insult Tyrion. Same with "boy". He is insulting and denigrating his superior to his face, and this after Jon welcomed him, offered him a seat, and informed him that he was to command a fort with thirty men under him.

 

 

Nor can you really label him pointing out he has friends as an actual threat, certainly not one worthy of harsh punishment. 

An officer refusing a repeated order from the Lord Commander, in public, because he is refusing to acknowledge his authority, seems like reasonable grounds for execution. None of the other men of the Watch ever question or criticize it, other than Alliser Thorne.

[Bernie Mac]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Stannis is speaking in present tense, of post-election remarks and complaints. Slynt is still calling him a turncloak.

That is not really clear and given how much time had passed between these two chapters, about a week, there is no reason to think that Stannis is referring to a more recent outburst given Slynt was more than clear on his thoughts before the count. 

In fact given Jon's own comments it is clear that had he the opportunity to punish Slynt in the week between becoming Lord Commander and sentencing Slynt to death he would have

I am giving you a chance, my lord. It is more than you ever gave my father. "You mistake me, my lord," Jon said. "That was a command, not an offer.

Jon also never considers  that in his thought process, the main cause of Slynt's execution is for what Jon thinks him capable of, not what he has actually done as a brother. 

—and confine him to an ice cell, he might have said. A day or ten cramped up inside the ice would leave him shivering and feverish and begging for release, Jon did not doubt. And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again.

—and tie him to his horse, he might have said. If Slynt did not wish to go to Greyguard as its commander, he could go as its cook. It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him?

"—and hang him," Jon finished.

 

Slynt has been executed not for what he did while Jon was Lord Commander, but for what he did before and what Jon feared he could do later. It was a decision the majority of us would have came to in Jon's position, but it was not justice.

1 minute ago, Ran said:

 

I don't think it's an exaggeration. Jon tried to convince Sam and succeeded.

Jon took him aside and personally explained why, there was valid reason why while both Jon and Janos were perfectly well aware of the reasoning why.

Had Sam refused been given 24 hours and still said no he would not have been executed for it. Had Grenn been in a similar position he too would not have been executed for it. The man who executed his father, who almost won the election was  probably the only brother, including Thorne, who would  have been dealt with like that, everyone else would have faced a less severe punishment.

 

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That is not really clear and given how much time had passed between these two chapters, about a week, there is no reason to think that Stannis is referring to a more recent outburst given Slynt was more than clear on his thoughts before the count. 

I find it quite clear, but mileage obviously varies. Do you doubt Slynt still calls Jon a turncloak after the election? I am baffled.

2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

In fact given Jon's own comments it is clear that had he the opportunity to punish Slynt in the week between becoming Lord Commander and sentencing Slynt to death he would have

He could have confronted Slynt about his slanders immediately if he wished. Time did not stand still for a week. Jon gave it time, came up with something he felt would make the best use of Slynt while doing as much as he could to limit the negatives, chose to ignore that he griped about him being a turncloak, commanded him to appear at first light , proceeded to politely welcome him after Slynt refused to appear at first light, gave him a command, repeated that it was a command, and gave him the opportunity to reconsider, that day and next. 

2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

Jon also never considers  that in his thought process, the main cause of Slynt's execution is for what Jon thinks him capable of, not what he has actually done as a brother. 

—and confine him to an ice cell, he might have said. A day or ten cramped up inside the ice would leave him shivering and feverish and begging for release, Jon did not doubt. And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again.

 

 

 

 

—and tie him to his horse, he might have said. If Slynt did not wish to go to Greyguard as its commander, he could go as its cook. It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him?

"—and hang him," Jon finished.

 

 

Slynt has been executed not for what he did while Jon was Lord Commander, but for what he did before and what Jon feared he could do later. It was a decision the majority of us would have came to in Jon's position, but it was not justice.

 

It's worth noting that after executes Slynt, Thorne does not dare refuse a command -- even one he believes (wrongly) is given to him because Jon wants him to die on the mission -- because he knows that Jon will not brook that kind of disobedience. As is to be expected in a hierarchical militant order. Slynt's denigration and rejection of Jon's authority is part and parcel of why he would plot and scheme if he was allowed to do so. You're merely bolstering the case.

2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Had Grenn been in a similar position he too would not have been executed for it. The man who executed his father, who almost won the election was  probably the only brother, including Thorne, who would  have been dealt with like that, everyone else would have faced a less severe punishment.

 

If Sam escalated matters to refusing and denying Jon's authority over him to his face and in public, I think Jon would have had to be very harsh. Same with Grenn. Same with Pyp. Same with anybody. Execution? Well, none of them are officers, who would naturally have a higher bar of behavior because they set the example for the men below them. But harsh, just the same.

One of the first lessons a young lord learns way back in AGoT is that other men will test him and think him weak if he bends to those efforts. Jon was perfectly aware of it, and dealt with it appropriately.

Again, it's clear that he did not want Slynt dead. He hoped he would change his mind and do what he was commanded to do.

[Leonardo]

On 7/16/2018 at 3:13 AM, Bullrout said:

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.

 

Mance had a semblence of honor and a rapport with Jon; Janos had neither.

 

Mance had valuable skills, as was his very person; Janos possessed none of these qualities.

 

Mance could be relied upon to be controlled with Melisandre's death collar; Janos could not, and actively plotted against Jon.

 

Winter has come, and Janos is a perfect example to display Jon's authority and the consequences of repeated outright disobedience; this is not a time for mincing peace, it's a time to cull the dead weight, which was Janos Slynt. He was worth more dead than alive, and it's a pragmatic choice in the end. Jon would rather have him dead than a constant obstacle.

[Bernie Mac]

45 minutes ago, Ran said:

I find it quite clear, but mileage obviously varies. Do you doubt Slynt still calls Jon a turncloak after the election? I am baffled.

In private and to his allies, more than likely, but not to Jon or Stannis. 

Given that Jon does not mention or think that to justify the execution or that he is aware that other brothers call him that then my point is that it was immaterial to why Janos was executed. Not a single other person receives any sort of slap on the wrists for calling Jon a turncloak despite him being clear that they do. 

Quote

He could have confronted Slynt about his slanders immediately if he wished.

Slanders that are nothing more than speculation at this point. But the fact is we are in a position were we both have what happened written on page and the thoughts of the person making the decision, a rarity in most of the debates on this forum, and we know slander was not a reason.

Had Jon actually brought it up, either to Slynt or in his thoughts then It would be pertinent but it is absent from both so coming to the conclusion that it played a part is wrong. 

Quote

 

 Jon gave it time, came up with something he felt would make the best use of Slynt while doing as much as he could to limit the negatives, chose to ignore that he griped about him being a turncloak,

Ran there is zero evidence that Slynt 'griped' about being a turncloak after Jon is Lord Commander, nor is there any evidence in Jon's own thoughts that this played a part. 

Quote

commanded him to appear at first light , proceeded to politely welcome him after Slynt refused to appear at first light, gave him a command, repeated that it was a command, and gave him the opportunity to reconsider, that day and next. 

I think the fairer option would have been to let him know how seriously he was taking it. Once his life was on the line he was begging to be allowed to do it and given the reaction from both Bowen and Marsh it seems to have not been expected to be on the table. 

Jon himself, in the split second he orders his death thinks of two more appropriate punishments, no one, not even Jon himself, thought Janos saying no would have resulted in him losing his head.

Are you really telling me that Slynt's role in his father's death and the fact that he was a potential future threat  were not Jon's biggest reasons for ordering his death?

Quote

 

It's worth noting that after executes Slynt, Thorne does not dare refuse a command --

of course not, if you were Thorne would you take that chance? 

Quote

 

 

If Sam escalated matters to refusing and denying Jon's authority over him to his face and in public, I think Jon would have had to be very harsh. Same with Grenn. Same with Pyp. Same with anybody. Execution? Well, none of them are officers,

nor was Slynt in Jon's command, he was offered the chance to be

Quote

 

Again, it's clear that he did not want Slynt dead.

I'm sorry, but that is not clear at all. the chapter begins with him fantasizing about it. 

Jon slid the oilcloth down his bastard sword, watching the play of morning light across the ripples, thinking how easily the blade would slide through skin and fat and sinew to part Slynt's ugly head from his body. All of a man's crimes were wiped away when he took the black, and all of his allegiances as well, yet he found it hard to think of Janos Slynt as a brother. There is blood between us. This man helped slay my father and did his best to have me killed as well.

Personally I don't know how anyone can read the above and not come to the conclusion that Jon wanted him dead, but the fact that this is now 15 pages long with many people taking up both sides we should probably stop saying Jon's motives on this are clear (though I know I probably have done so)

 

Quote

 

He hoped he would change his mind and do what he was commanded to do.

I don't see much in his thoughts that Jon was sad about his death, nor did he spend a great deal of time coming up with the punishment for his crime or that he even acknowledged that death was an option before he sentenced him 

"As you will." Jon nodded to Iron Emmett. "Please take Lord Janos to the Wall - "

-  and confine him to an ice cell, he might have said. A day or ten cramped up inside the ice would leave him shivering and feverish and begging for release, Jon did not doubt. And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again.

-  and tie him to his horse, he might have said. If Slynt did not wish to go to Greyguard as its commander, he could go as its cook. It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him?

" - and hang him," Jon finished.

Janos Slynt's face went as white as milk.

 

That i s not justice, a split second to go from a week in a cell to death is arbitrary at best.

 

 

[Makk]

I don't think it was full out mutiny at that stage, but it was a deliberate attempt to undermine the new, raw, untested lord commander's authority. Jon really had no choice or others would have been encouraged to do the same. 

It is true that Jon loathed Slynt. But he managed to push those feelings aside and gave Slynt a chance. That directly contradicts this threads premise.