Jump to content
Damsel in Distress

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

Recommended Posts

23 hours 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.  

And Jon didn't "apply the standards fairly across the board".  The way he handled the situation of Janos Slynt and Mance Rayder was personal.  He hated the one guy who was the enemy of his dead father.  He wanted the second guy to secretly get his sister for him and allowed him to avoid punishment.  No justice at all.  Partly motivated by revenge but it was also Jon trying to intimidate the brothers who supports Janos Slynt.  It worked for a while and then the pink letter came it turns out Jon's crimes against the watch is far greater than the offense that he executed Janos Slynt for.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Slynt is still considered a pawn of theirs; him saying the dead are walking could be reasonably expected to weigh far more than Jon's. Killing Jon at this point would eliminate the chance of Slynt(a pawn of theirs), succeeding Jon should he be caught.

There are at least two problems with this.  The first is that the IT would probably be perfectly happy to see the North overrun with monsters at this time, given that they are in rebellion.  However, Jon doesn't know this, which brings up the second problem.  Unless I have missed something, Slynt has never actually seen an Other, and I seriously doubt he actually believes that they even exist, much less are a real threat.  Sending someone who not only hates you,but doesn't even believe the threat is real, as an envoy would be the height of folly.

As to the execution itself, no commander in the history of commander could tolerate such behavior and hope to retain any semblance of authority.  And Jon has limited options at his disposal, so the death penalty becomes the least bad one.  By the way, Slynt continued to be defiant even after the sentence was announced.  It was only when asked for last words that he asked for mercy.  That is a bit late.

On all other issues I totally agree with @the trees have eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 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.

 

I agree with the underlined part.  Slynt's execution was way too much for his offense.  If Jon had also executed Mance it might have come close to being justice.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

Jon's "midnight ride" and Slynt's public insubordination are 2 completely different things. 

They are different, yes, but in fact Jon committed the greater crime here, and should have been punished accordingly. He did desert - Janos Slynt never deserted - and Jeor Mormont actually knows that he didn't go on a midnight ride to Mole's Town but rather that he deserted and was brought back only by the honor of his friends.

He gets very special treatment there, most likely because he is the Bastard of Winterfell. I mean, we do know what Lord Ryswell did to his son and the companions of his son, right. Surely pretty much any deserter is going to 'change his mind' when he is caught. But then it is too late. Why was it too late for Gared and Dareon and all the others and not for Jon Snow and Mance?

Some people seem to be more equal than others. And that's not just.

Especially if we take into account that Jon was also basically rewarded for his attempted murder of Alliser Thorne.

16 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

Jon's authority as LC was being challenged, his hold on the Night's Watch was already tenuous considering his decisions were being questioned and he had as many enemies as friends, therefore he could not allow Slynt to get away with this.

That still doesn't make the death penalty the only or even a very smart punishment on his part. It sets up Jon Snow as a ruler the type of Tywin Lannister and Maegor the Cruel - you can justify their actions, too, but they don't make you popular, and if you are not already surrounded by fan boys and are not willing to put down all your real and potential enemies (as Maegor was great at doing and Tywin, too, with his eradication of both the Reynes and the Tarbecks)

16 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

As LC he knows he will have to order men to do very dangerous things, i.e. go beyond the wall, defend the tunnel, etc.) if a man's punishment is imprisonment, Jon will never be able to get these men to do those things because prison is better than death.  Slynt disobeyed a direct order which was essentially deserting, and thus he had to die.

There is no reason to believe that a direct order of that kind is equivalent with desertion. It is not part of the Night's Watch to swear undying loyalty to the ruling (or future) Lord Commander, is it? If it were, then the Night's King and Runcel Hightower, and all the others that had to be put down would have been in the right, too, because they would have been the supreme authority at the Wall from the day of their election to the day of their death.

In general, it is clear that the Lannisters don't trust Jon - but Jon doesn't trust them, either, nor does he want to work with them. He wants to see them destroyed. But as a black brother and the Lord Commander of the NW he should at least try to overcome all that. And he does a poor job at that. He has all the cards in hand to do it. He knows that the Others are out there.

Doing your best to give everyone the impression you are supporting a doomed pretender (and Stannis is doomed in the long run) and allowing the wildlings to cross the Wall while doing essentially nothing to explain your actions doesn't really help.

A proper Lord Commander wouldn't have sent Aemon and Samwell to Oldtown but to KL to tell the people there what had transpired. It is such a ridiculous thing to defend Jon and Stannis' non-action in this department by claiming that Cersei, etc. wouldn't have listened, anyway. The Watch needs the help of the Seven Kingdoms - they need all the help they can get. Sitting on your hands and not making an attempt to warn/inform anyone is possibly the worst thing anyone could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They are different, yes, but in fact Jon committed the greater crime here, and should have been punished accordingly. He did desert - Janos Slynt never deserted - and Jeor Mormont actually knows that he didn't go on a midnight ride to Mole's Town but rather that he deserted and was brought back only by the honor of his friends.

He gets very special treatment there, most likely because he is the Bastard of Winterfell. I mean, we do know what Lord Ryswell did to his son and the companions of his son, right. Surely pretty much any deserter is going to 'change his mind' when he is caught. But then it is too late. Why was it too late for Gared and Dareon and all the others and not for Jon Snow and Mance?

Some people seem to be more equal than others. And that's not just.

Especially if we take into account that Jon was also basically rewarded for his attempted murder of Alliser Thorne.

That still doesn't make the death penalty the only or even a very smart punishment on his part. It sets up Jon Snow as a ruler the type of Tywin Lannister and Maegor the Cruel - you can justify their actions, too, but they don't make you popular, and if you are not already surrounded by fan boys and are not willing to put down all your real and potential enemies (as Maegor was great at doing and Tywin, too, with his eradication of both the Reynes and the Tarbecks)

There is no reason to believe that a direct order of that kind is equivalent with desertion. It is not part of the Night's Watch to swear undying loyalty to the ruling (or future) Lord Commander, is it? If it were, then the Night's King and Runcel Hightower, and all the others that had to be put down would have been in the right, too, because they would have been the supreme authority at the Wall from the day of their election to the day of their death.

In general, it is clear that the Lannisters don't trust Jon - but Jon doesn't trust them, either, nor does he want to work with them. He wants to see them destroyed. But as a black brother and the Lord Commander of the NW he should at least try to overcome all that. And he does a poor job at that. He has all the cards in hand to do it. He knows that the Others are out there.

Doing your best to give everyone the impression you are supporting a doomed pretender (and Stannis is doomed in the long run) and allowing the wildlings to cross the Wall while doing essentially nothing to explain your actions doesn't really help.

A proper Lord Commander wouldn't have sent Aemon and Samwell to Oldtown but to KL to tell the people there what had transpired. It is such a ridiculous thing to defend Jon and Stannis' non-action in this department by claiming that Cersei, etc. wouldn't have listened, anyway. The Watch needs the help of the Seven Kingdoms - they need all the help they can get. Sitting on your hands and not making an attempt to warn/inform anyone is possibly the worst thing anyone could do.

No one trusts Jon south of the Wall. Blackfish thinks Jon’s the equivalent of a dirty cop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, White Ravens said:

Maybe it is possible to treat the killer of your own father impartially but I would find that a difficult thing to do.

It's difficult, so we can just not bother and call it justice?

18 hours ago, White Ravens said:

How fair and impartial should Jon be when dealing with someone who has been nothing but hostile towards him literally tried to kill him?

Completely fair, and completely impartial, as all judges should be. Justice is supposed to be blind, and when Jon accepted to be Lord Commander, he accepted all that that entails. Lordship carries with it some duties.

17 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Had he gone to Greyguard as ordered and refrained from openly despising his Lord Commander and making public his refusal to obey his orders he would be alive and well.  This is never addressed adequately and I'm tired of saying it.

Yes, of course Jon would've let him live, had he done that. Few people are disputing that (I certainly don't agree that Jon had no intention to truly give him Greyguard). The reason this is never addressed "adequately" is that it's completely besides the point. The point is that Jon jumped at the chance to kill Slynt, because Slynt killed his father. Insubordination need not be met with death.

17 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

When Stannis gives Jon a nod of approval do you think he is approving of Jon "avenging Ned" or dealing with a mutinous subordinate defying and challenging his command?

I doubt Stannis is being entirely impartial, either. He clearly states that he wanted Slynt dead for his crimes in King's Landing.

Stannis narrowed his eyes. "Do not trifle with me, my lord. I saw the proof Jon Arryn laid before the small council. If I had been king you would have lost more than your office, I promise you, but Robert shrugged away your little lapses. 

17 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

When Robb is leading the Northern host to free Ned the GreatJon doesn't like his position in the order of march and says he won't come, to which Robb tells him he will hang him for a traitor!

Do you, perhaps, recall what happened next? The Greatjon attacks Hallis Mollen and bares his weapon with the intent to murder his Liege, presumably. This is a crime traditionally punished with death. So, of course, Robb has him executed, yes? No, he has his wolf savage him, shows mercy, and gains an ally.

"My lord father taught me that it was death to bare steel against your liege lord," Robb said, "but doubtless you only meant to cut my meat." 

This was obviously the wisest move. Despite the fact that he could have killed the Greatjon, it was not the only option available to him. Likewise, executing Slynt was not the only option available to Lord Snow. 

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

If it was an ex-judicial murder with no basis do you not think it would have been commented on.

It wasn't an ex-judicial murder with no basis. It was a barely judicial murder with an incredibly flimsy basis. Insubordination can be punished with death, and that's all Jon needed. Slynt's insubordination most certainly did need to be addressed. Execution was not the only answer.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

It's clear that Slynt has talked and transgressed himself into a cul-de-sac but he believes his connections make him untouchable.  He was wrong.

Yes. He was wrong. Death is not the only way to show someone that they are not untouchable. He could have had him scourged. 20 lashes, say, administered by Ser Alliser. That'd show, perfectly well, that Slynt isn't untouchable, and would show that even Ser Alliser, Slynt's biggest supporter, accepts Jon's command. He'd fall in line.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

But he broke his vows and paid the price. 

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

I don't see "I vow to not be a prick" in there. He's certainly a prick, and he certainly should've followed orders, but if everyone killed those who wouldn't follow orders without some cajoling or incentive, few people would lead more than an army of the dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

No one trusts Jon south of the Wall. Blackfish thinks Jon’s the equivalent of a dirty cop.

"I will permit you to take the black. Ned Stark's bastard is the Lord Commander on the Wall."

The Blackfish narrowed his eyes. "Did your father arrange for that as well? Catelyn never trusted the boy, as I recall, no more than she ever trusted Theon Greyjoy."

All he knows is that Catelyn hated him. This is the only time I can recall the Blackfish speaking of Jon. Most people will not know of Catelyn's distaste for the boy, nor would they care. Nobody has any reason to distrust Jon, south of the Wall, except for Cersei and the Blackfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

No one trusts Jon south of the Wall. Blackfish thinks Jon’s the equivalent of a dirty cop.

That's only if we think the Blackfish is telling the truth to Jaime.  I'm not sure he would share any conflicting ideas on Jon he may have courtesy of Robb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

That's only if we think the Blackfish is telling the truth to Jaime.  I'm not sure he would share any conflicting ideas on Jon he may have courtesy of Robb. 

Yeah, pretty doubtful to me Blackfish was telling the truth there.  While not present for Robb's will, I'd still think as one of Robb's closest advisors Blackfish would be aware of his plans.  Either way, I'm not sure I ever would buy Cat talking about Jon anyway, and especially moreso than Robb who would only have kind things to say.  Also a bit suspicious that basically the 2 most high-ranking Tully men after Edmure take the Black when given a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

There was no.justice in that execution.  Jon Snow took his anger over Ned's execution on Slynt.  Jon took advantage of his position to get even with the Lannisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Texas Hold Em said:

I agree with the underlined part.  Slynt's execution was way too much for his offense.  If Jon had also executed Mance it might have come close to being justice.  

The "no justice for Janos" argument seems to be boiling down to quibbling over the severity of the sentence.  Westerosi notions of crime and appropriate punishment can't be confused with our own.  The idea that Janos can't be executed because we don't like capital punishment and so we need some less severe punishment to avoid having our sensibilities offended confuses our world with theirs.  Openly and publicly refusing not just a specific order from your Lord Commander but denying his right to give you any order while showering him with contemptuous insults is not mere insubordination but a denial of the basis of authority by which the whole system works.  Chop, chop time.

You should assess Janos and his punishment on it's own specifics.  The specifics of another case do not intrude on the justice of this case, only on the justice of that particular case.

50 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Yes, of course Jon would've let him live, had he done that. Few people are disputing that (I certainly don't agree that Jon had no intention to truly give him Greyguard). The reason this is never addressed "adequately" is that it's completely besides the point. The point is that Jon jumped at the chance to kill Slynt, because Slynt killed his father. Insubordination need not be met with death.

The first problem with this continues to be the modern mindset that we should not kill anyone.  In this world there are different rules and different punishments, harsh though they may seem.  In the middle ages you got your head chopped off for disobeying or demeaning your liege.  I'm not sure I've ever read of anyone in real life going so far as Slynt does in acting out that disobedience and demeaning but it seems a fitting punishment in the context of the society's rules. 

Second, is the narrow focus on Jon as if this is somehow a specific fault of his (due to his relationship with Slynt): if Slynt had acted like this with Tywin, Balon, Stannis, Roose, Victarion or I dare say even Robb, Ned or Dany he would have ended up hanged or beheaded for treason fast enough. 

Third, is what I have referred to as minimizing Janos's open and contemptuous defiance of the basis of Jon's authority into a minor workplace dispute or as you label it, insubordination, as if all acts of insubordination are equal and can be labelled as petty misdemeanors, when this is in fact far more serious and an open challenge to Jon's authority.  "Insubordination" would not have got Janos killed, public disobedience and contempt together with telling the whole castle he was exempt from Jon's authority and the bastard dare not touch him because of his connections was a far greater crime and what he died for.

Fourth, the personal angle on it, so far from clouding Jon's judgment, is actually irrelevant.  When deciding what punishment to mete out Jon considers several other options before discounting them as ineffective in dealing with Slynt's mutinous behaviour.  The fact that he gets satisfaction from killing Slynt is of course a human reaction but is not the reason he decides to execute him.  You can read his own internal thoughts in deciding what to do with him as proof of this.  Don't get hung up on his dislike of Slynt and use that as an excuse to ignore his own reasoning and claim poor old janos was hard done by.

Fifth, of course Greyguard matters because it shows that he was prepared to put his personal feelings aside and work with Slynt.  It was Slynt who refused to work with him.  It matters because it refutes the argument that his treatment of Janos was the settlement of a personal vendetta when it was really a measured and considered act dealing with a brazenly mutinous subordinate.

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I doubt Stannis is being entirely impartial, either. He clearly states that he wanted Slynt dead for his crimes in King's Landing.

Stannis narrowed his eyes. "Do not trifle with me, my lord. I saw the proof Jon Arryn laid before the small council. If I had been king you would have lost more than your office, I promise you, but Robert shrugged away your little lapses. 

Again I feel you are blurring two things: Stannis's dislike for the man with his approval of a newly elected Lord Commander dealing with an open and unprecedented challenge to his authority.  Like Jon, Stannis is aware that Slynt's previous crimes were washed away when he joined the NW and if you continue that passage (as you later invite me to) you will find Stannis saying "If it happens that Lord Janos here is the best the Night's Watch can offer, I shall grit my teeth and choke him down".  So Stannis knows the rules and, unless you want to argue that this rigid man was motivated by a petty desire to see Slynt executed for being a corrupt officer at KL, he is reacting to the scene in front of him where Slynt acts and talks his way onto the chopping block.

Like with Jon, the point is not that he doesn't dislike Slynt - he does - it's that he approves Jon's actions based on Slynt's behaviour in the here and now, not out of any prejudice against the man.

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Do you, perhaps, recall what happened next? The Greatjon attacks Hallis Mollen and bares his weapon with the intent to murder his Liege, presumably. This is a crime traditionally punished with death. So, of course, Robb has him executed, yes? No, he has his wolf savage him, shows mercy, and gains an ally.

"My lord father taught me that it was death to bare steel against your liege lord," Robb said, "but doubtless you only meant to cut my meat." 

This was obviously the wisest move. Despite the fact that he could have killed the Greatjon, it was not the only option available to him. Likewise, executing Slynt was not the only option available to Lord Snow. 

I do indeed.  The salient point is that Robb was entitled to threaten and therefore to actually execute the Greatjon for disobedience (or treason).  This refutes the arguments that 1) Slynt could not have known that his actions were serious enough to warrant a capital punishment as it is a commonplace understanding that you are required to obey or face the ultimate consequence and 2) Jon was not justified in or was exceeding his authority, thus becoming a tyrant or despot, etc, in executing Slynt.

I feel you are overlooking the point that the Greatjon was simply unhappy with his his placement in the order of march and was testing Robb.  Once he realised Robb was strong enough to stand up to him he backed down and became a loyal subordinate.  By contrast Slynt started as an enemy of Jon's, refused his orders and felt that he could dominate Jon and, crucially and unlike his assessment that the Greatjon would be a useful bannerman, Jon knows Slynt will never make a loyal subordinate.

Is the death sentence the only option available to him?  No, but it is a legitimate one.  Had Slynt behaved differently he would not have met that fate.

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

It wasn't an ex-judicial murder with no basis. It was a barely judicial murder with an incredibly flimsy basis. Insubordination can be punished with death, and that's all Jon needed. Slynt's insubordination most certainly did need to be addressed. Execution was not the only answer.

No, Slynt would have been executed for this by any contemporaneous ruler.  In the 21st century he might be jailed but in Westeros this goes way beyond what can be permitted.  The basis is anything but flimsy and to call it "barely judicial" is simply flat out wrong.  Slynt's disobedience and denial of Jon's authority in front of Castle Black is as open and shut a case as you could possibly ever expect to see.  You don't like the sentence but in Westeros it's not unexpected.  Cue Stannis's nod of approval.

Execution was not the only answer. No, but it was the one Jon considered best and we have his reasoning as to the trouble Slynt will cause if reprieved.  I think the decision not to reprieve him was correct.

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Yes. He was wrong. Death is not the only way to show someone that they are not untouchable. He could have had him scourged. 20 lashes, say, administered by Ser Alliser. That'd show, perfectly well, that Slynt isn't untouchable, and would show that even Ser Alliser, Slynt's biggest supporter, accepts Jon's command. He'd fall in line.

We have Jon's reasoning: it's solid whether you agree with it or not.  I still feel there is a leaking of 21st century rejection of the death penalty into a historical fantasy novel set in the middle ages.  Anything but death seems ok as a punishment but the minute it's capital punishment Jon crosses a current taboo that people can't swallow.  I take it like Ned taking 8 year old Bran to watch him execute a deserter - it's something we don't approve of but it's legal and moral and expected in the society we are reading about.

Fall in line or bide his time?  You are looking for a reason for a reprieve but Jon's reasoning is that he won't.

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

I don't see "I vow to not be a prick" in there. He's certainly a prick, and he certainly should've followed orders, but if everyone killed those who wouldn't follow orders without some cajoling or incentive, few people would lead more than an army of the dead.

Well I see, "I pledge my life and honour to the Night's Watch" which is incompatible with "No traitor's bastard gives orders to Janos Slynt.....I will not have it boy, I will not have it".  Let's not pretend Slynt did not break his vows and that what he did was merely a commonplace reaction to giving orders he was insufficiently incentivized (lmao, stock options maybe?, new job titles or shorter working hours?) or cajoled (I imagine Tywin and Stannis don't expect obedience, they have to cajole their men into feeling appreciated enough to "accept the offer to take part" in the battle) into choosing to obey.  Come on, it's not a workplace committee meeting or a system you opt in or out of.  In any case Greyguard was the incentive but Janos was greedy, stupid and arrogant and that led him to make terminally bad decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@the trees have eyes, I have to say I thoroughly admire your patience and your ability to remain cool as a cucumber amidst the laughable insanity that is this thread. You are a far better person than me. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

a brazenly mutinous subordinate.

Somehow, this aspect keeps evaporating from counterarguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Somehow, this aspect keeps evaporating from counterarguments. 

If I refused my boss's instructions, was given until the next day to reconsider my position, still refused and told her inf front of the whole office to "stick it up her bastard arse" and that "no [insert suitably incendiary personal invective] gives me orders, I will not have it ****, I will not have it" I would be sacked on the spot and walked out of the building.  No one would say that she had it in for me anyway and so it was grossly unjust, that I should have been suspended for a couple of weeks or assigned new duties instead, no one would argue I had not breached my contract or committed gross misconduct and a sackable offence (a number of them actually), no one would argue she had become a tyrant and exceeded her authority, no one. 

Everyone would understand I had gone way too far and there was no way back (this is not a true story btw :P) .  

Well, Janos went and got himself sacked from the Night's Watch.  He just left the building in a different manner.

The only problems people seem to have are we don't approve of the death penalty (it's pseudo-medieval fiction peeps), we know Jon doesn't like Janos (would that really invalidate my boss sacking me in the hypothetical scenario above? surely to argue so gives me carte blanche to do what I like because she can't touch me for fear of being accused of lack of impartiality) and Mance goes unpunished (in practical terms Jon is prepared to use whoever he can be it Mance, the Weeper or pre-brazenly mutinous behaviour Slynt).  None of these are convincing reasons to see Janos talking himself onto the block as anything other than Westerosi justice in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

@the trees have eyes, I have to say I thoroughly admire your patience and your ability to remain cool as a cucumber amidst the laughable insanity that is this thread. You are a far better person than me. :cheers:

Ditto.  That was a terrific post by @the trees have eyes  And yes, probably a far better person than me as well. :cheers:

 

48 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Somehow, this aspect keeps evaporating from counterarguments. 

yes!!  Again, @the trees have eyes is correct to use the word mutinous in regard to Slynt's final refusal to follow orders.  And yes, you are right in noticing how that said mutinous behavior seems to be disregarded in this latest round of #GotchaPosting about #BizarroIceAndFire 

 

Edited by Lady Fevre Dream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

There was no.justice in that execution.  Jon Snow took his anger over Ned's execution on Slynt.  Jon took advantage of his position to get even with the Lannisters.

 

So many posts that focus only on the fact that Janos Slynt played a role in Ned's death and is therefore avenging his father.  We keep hearing from posters that all past crimes are forgiven when a man joins the Night's Watch and that the Watch should be involved in Southern intrigue.  But Slynt was trying to win favour with Tywin Lannister by killing Jon Snow and when he got to the Wall he tried to seize power and intended to hang Jon but Maester Aemon wouldnt allow it.  He then tried to get Jon killed by sending him to treat with Mance Rayder, confident that Mance would kill him.  After Jon became Lord Commander, Slynt was obstructive and disobedient until his disobedience became flagrant before the rest of the men.  These are all factors too.  The man who was openly refusing to follow Jon's orders literally tried to kill him.  Jon knows more than even most men at the Wall that they need to work together to face the huge challenges ahead but Slynt is indicating that he refuses to accept Jon's leadership and will always work against him.  Really, it's not just about Slynt playing a role in Ned's death. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason to believe that a direct order of that kind is equivalent with desertion. It is not part of the Night's Watch to swear undying loyalty to the ruling (or future) Lord Commander, is it? If it were, then the Night's King and Runcel Hightower, and all the others that had to be put down would have been in the right, too, because they would have been the supreme authority at the Wall from the day of their election to the day of their death.

I disagree.  If you disobey a direct order to report to a post or go on a mission, and you do not report as ordered, you have essentially deserted the post you were assigned to.  Secondly, the Brothers of the Nights Watch are expected to obey the Lord Commander.  You can argue that Jon was wrong for letting the Wildings South of the Wall, but this was not an order to open the gate, where one might feel a sense of conflict with the order and question.  This was unrelated to that conflict.

What would have been an appropriate punishment?  If you say time in the Ice Cells, how long, and what do you do with him when he comes out? Do you think he will all the sudden respect and listen to Jon?  Slynt did more than just disobey an order, he mocked Jon to his face and in front of a room full of people.  Slynt basically dared Jon to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The "no justice for Janos" argument seems to be boiling down to quibbling over the severity of the sentence.  Westerosi notions of crime and appropriate punishment can't be confused with our own.  

Your being far too kind, it boils down to disliking Jon and completely ignoring what happened.

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

@the trees have eyes, I have to say I thoroughly admire your patience and your ability to remain cool as a cucumber amidst the laughable insanity that is this thread. You are a far better person than me. :cheers:

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

Ditto.  That was a terrific post by @the trees have eyes  And yes, probably a far better person than me as well. :cheers:

 

yes!!  Again, @the trees have eyes is correct to use the word mutinous in regard to Slynt's final refusal to follow orders.  And yes, you are right in noticing how that said mutinous behavior seems to be disregarded in this latest round of #GotchaPosting about #BizarroIceAndFire 

 

Nothing more to add than what these two already said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate Jon as much as the next guy but even I don't have any issue with Jon executing Slynt for disobeying an order.  Though I will say Jon should thank the old gods and the new for having a very lenient prior lord commander giving his prior insubordination he displayed a recruits (sabotaging Thorne's training of Samwell, attacking Thorne in from of the entire NW)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×