Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Damsel in Distress

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

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

Well then, this may surprise you, but I'm actually all for the death penalty. Removing the offending hand of thieves, gelding rapists, etc. If all rapists were gelded, I daresay that there'll be far fewer repeat offenses. I say such punishments were far greater deterrents than the penal system we have today. I'd be all for bringing such punishments back.

That said, I don't think Slynt did anything worthy of death, at least after he swore his vows to the Watch.

42 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

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. 

Robb and the Greatjon paints a different story. A greater crime, met with mercy. Daenerys's bloodriders outright told her, at the end of AGoT, that they wouldn't follow her orders; she didn't try to have them killed, eventually convincing them to follow her. Victarion's an idiot, I can believe he'd do so.

The others, hard to say. He'd be punished, surely, but killing him would just be wasteful. I don't see it, from any of them.

42 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

It is insubordination. It only harms Jon's authority if he does nothing about it, which I'm not suggesting he should have done.

48 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

When deciding what punishment to mete out Jon considers several other options before discounting them as ineffective in dealing with Slynt's mutinous behaviour.

Jon's reasoning isn't great, there.

—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.

He and Thorne will begin to plot again? Thorne wasn't going to Greyguard, problem solved. Jon knows that sending Slynt to Greyguard will part him from Thorne, as it's one of his reasons for giving him command there.

"Janos Slynt," said Jon. Gods save us. "A man does not rise to command of the gold cloaks without ability. Slynt was born a butcher's son. He was captain of the Iron Gate when Manly Stokeworth died, and Jon Arryn raised him up and put the defense of King's Landing into his hands. Lord Janos cannot be as great a fool as he seems." And I want him well away from Alliser Thorne.

The fact that the punishment would occur would go to show that he's not untouchable, like he thinks, and that Jon's authority is recognised by all others. There's not much he could do, alone, and I'm sure he'd be able to realise this. This could very well make him fall in line. Tell him if he doesn't, he won't get another chance. If he doesn't, execute him then, what's the issue?

—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?

I agree that this isn't the best punishment, but it's hardly inevitable that he'd desert. All men know the price for desertion is execution. Still, it'd leave him seething, serving as the cook (he also mightn't be able to cook, so that's another downside), so it's not what I'd recommend.

"—and hang him," Jon finished.

Really? Nothing else comes to mind? It's hard to plot without a tongue. That was never considered. Although, I suppose it is also admittedly difficult to lead a garrison without a tongue, but he doesn't have to be given command of Greyguard. Anyway, the point is that there are plenty of other punishments, which could easily put Slynt in line or prevent him from plotting with Ser Alliser, without simply killing him. Considering that the Watch needs every man it can get (which I do believe is something that Jon espouses quite a bit), throwing Slynt away was foolish.

"The Watch has need of every man it can get," Donal Noye said when they were alone. 

 The Night's Watch needs every man. Why kill one, to no end? -Jon himself, here

The beacon was burning on Weatherback Ridge, and the Night's Watch had need of every man. -And here

If the wildlings were coming, the Wall would need every man. -Here too

There's probably more, that was just a cursory search. They're good points, and considering it's a point that Jon himself makes often enough, I'd think he should follow his own advice, and make use of the men he has, instead of killing them, if it can be avoided. Death should be the last resort.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

It doesn't refute that at all. When Slynt does something worthy of punishment, Jon jumps at the opportunity to kill him. Considering the fact that the Watch needs every man - something Jon knows quite well - and the fact that Jon could quite easily punish Slynt in another way, there must be something more to it. He wanted Slynt dead, as his own thoughts show. He's either emotional, or he's a fool. I don't think Jon's a fool, and it's perfectly understandable that he'd be emotional.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

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".

Yes, and it turns out that Lord Janos wasn't the best the Watch had to offer, so he didn't need to choke him down. He would have dealt with Slynt, just as Jon would have given him Greyguard. That doesn't mean that they both didn't prefer that he die.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

unless you want to argue that this rigid man was motivated by a petty desire

It seems to me that Stannis is often motivated by his pettiness. Basically every time he dealt with Robert after he was King, for instance. His "right" to Storm's End. This is hardly the topic for that conversation, though. Regardless, it's not for Stannis to tell Jon how to deal with his men, just as it's not Jon's place to tell Stannis how to deal with his. 

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

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

The Greatjon's actual crime was bearing steel against his Liege. He spoke of returning home and leaving Robb to his war, itself not a crime (though the act itself would be). I spoke in my previous post about incentives and cajoling, which seemed to amuse you. You may notice that Robb threatening to hang the Greatjon for an oathbreaker is his way of cajoling the man into obedience. Something Jon didn't bother doing with Slynt, you may also notice.

So, no, I wouldn't say that refutes those points.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Jon was not justified in or was exceeding his authority, thus becoming a tyrant or despot, etc, in executing Slynt.

I never named Jon a despot or tyrant. Strictly speaking, Jon didn't exceed his authority, but to execute someone for insubordination, on his first offence? Particularly extreme, entirely unnecessary.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

Eh? So being unhappy with you Liege's decision is reason enough to draw steel on him? Well, Slynt was obviously unhappy with Jon's decision, and he didn't even draw his blade on Jon. You could very well say that he was testing Jon, in fact. Only, when the Greatjon found out that his assessment of Robb was misguided, he changed his tone and was given a chance. When Slynt found out his assessment of Jon was misguided, he changed his tone and still lost his head.

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

Sure sounds like he changed his tone.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Jon knows Slynt will never make a loyal subordinate.

Does he? Slynt made a loyal enough subordinate to the Lannisters. How long was Slynt at the Wall? A few weeks? A few weeks into Jon's time on the Wall, he was still a sulky, arrogant brat, who felt he was better than everyone there (which is fair enough, I suppose). It took months for Jon to come to truly commit himself to the Watch. Yes, Jon was still a child, and Slynt should know better, perhaps, but it was still quite a radical change for him. Lord of Harrenhal to brother of the Night's Watch. An adjustment period is to be expected. He could have made a fine enough brother of the Night's Watch, given the chance, just like most of the other distasteful souls there.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Had Slynt behaved differently he would not have met that fate.

True. Jon was looking for an excuse to kill him, and he found one, but he wasn't trying to trick Slynt into that position. He could've just accepted Greyguard, I don't dispute that. His crime necessitated punishment, just not execution.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

Yep. Not disputing it. Not worthy of execution, though, especially not in the current climate at Castle Black.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Execution was not the only answer. No, but it was the one Jon considered best

Sure, but why did Jon consider that the best option? Jon's reasoning is very flimsy, which I went over earlier, especially in regards to Slynt plotting with Ser Alliser, despite the fact that he chose to send Slynt to Greyguard to part those two.

There are many, many reasons not to throw away a capable member of the Watch, if it can be avoided. Jon scarcely considered not killing the man. The Watch is disgustingly undermanned, with fewer than 600 men voting for the Lord Commander. Every man is needed, Jon knows this, yet it didn't occur to him with regards to Slynt, when deciding his punishment. 

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Fall in line or bide his time?

Bide his time doing what? Parting him from Ser Alliser, his main source of support, through which he gains legitimacy, prevents him from doing much harm. He can seethe as much as he wants, but if Jon gives him trusted men, there's not much he could do but obey. Or desert, I suppose, but that's unlikely. He has nowhere to go, considering his life is forfeit if he truly leaves the Wall.

So, yes, fall in line.

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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".

They're not incompatible if he does obey in the end. His last words certainly indicate that he would do so.

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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?)

Tyrion's savages had no true desire to fight for him. He provided them an incentive: weapons, the Vale. It worked perfectly well. They didn't swear oaths to him, you may say. Fine. Walder Frey had no desire to fight for Robb Stark or Hoster Tully. Robb provided him with incentive. Marriage, among the rest. He did swear oaths, being Tully's bannerman. Yet incentives were still needed. Incentives work, for some.

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

Robb Stark cajoled the Greatjon into loyalty. Mormont cajoled and incentivised Jon into loyalty. The Mountain's Men are cajoled into loyalty. Cajoling works, for others.

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

In any case Greyguard was the incentive but Janos was greedy, stupid and arrogant and that led him to make terminally bad decisions.

There are two ways to get people to do what you want. The carrot and the stick, as they say. Jon tried the carrot, and the minute it failed, he lopped his head off. He should've tried the stick. It wouldn't have hurt Jon any. The carrot and the stick can work in conjunction, too.

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:

What's to lose your cool over? It's a civil discussion about a work of fiction we all love. 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Somehow, this aspect keeps evaporating from counterarguments. 

Does it? I don't think anyone is suggesting that Slynt not be punished.

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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. 

You'd absolutely deserve to be sacked. But you could also be sacked for stealing pens, an offense that would not earn an execution on the wall. Getting fired from your job and being executed on the wall are not the same equivalent punishment. You can't get fired from the Watch, and it's more difficult to replace someone on the Wall (people actually want jobs, few people want to go to the Wall).

15 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

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

Oh? I have no issue with Jon, all in all. I'm not ignoring what happened, I just think that there was more to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Does it? I don't think anyone is suggesting that Slynt not be punished.

It does - all kinds of "parallels" keep being brought up which completely ignore the circumstances which make Slynt's execution necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that punishment is about deterrence just as much as it is about retribution. In ASOIAF punishment is used as a deterrence all the time. See spikes, heads, walls. Burning Rattleshirt as Mance and beheading Janos Slynt both succeeded (as much as capital punishment can) in the deterrence realm. The retribution side of things is certainly more of a judgment call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

What's to lose your cool over? It's a civil discussion about a work of fiction we all love. 

Erhm. I said it, black on white. Not surprised w/ the question though, so I'll repeat myself:

the laughable insanity that is this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 11:38 AM, White Ravens said:

I've read several posts on this thread suggesting that Jon killed Janos Slynt because of his role in killing his father and parading Ned's head to the masses after Ilyn Payne separated it from his body and since all of the Night's Watch have had their past crimes forgiven Jon is not justified in killing him for refusing to follow orders.  Maybe it is possible to treat the killer of your own father impartially but I would find that a difficult thing to do.  But Tywin Lannister was trying to manipulate the situation on the Wall and sent letters to Bowen Marsh to try to get Janos made Lord Commander and thus give the Lannister-run Iron Throne some influence up there.  When Janos' ship arrives at Eastwatch-by-the-sea his first action is to go directly to Castle Black and imprison Jon Snow with the intent to hang him.  When Maester Aemon blocks Janos' intent to execute Jon he and Alliser Thorne cook up the idea to send Jon to treat with Mance Rayder thinking that Rayder will kill Jon. 

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

 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

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

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.

 

Jon isn't a judge, he's the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch in a brutal medeival-type society.  He needs to strengthen the Wall's defenses to deal with the upcoming threat from the Others.  He's already tried to fit Janos Slynt into his plans by giving him the responsibility of defending Greyguard but Janos very publicly refuses the order.  These people don't have lawyers and supreme courts or the US Constitution that spells out very specifically what their rights are.  Jon must have the authority to do what he did because not a single member of the Watch criticized his decision.  It was a form of justice available to the LC to discourage others from refusing to follow orders in the future.  Allowing a mutinous faction to exist in his ranks would weaken the Wall's defenses. 

I've seen quite a few posts stating that Jon should have imprisoned Slynt rather than lop his head off but on the Wall that is a death sentence as well...

Quote

A STORM OF SWORDS - JON X

They had pulled him out this morning, after four days in the ice, locked up in a cell five by five by five, too low for him to stand, too tight for him to stretch out on his back. The stewards had long ago discovered that food and meat kept longer in the icystorerooms carved from the base of the Wall . . . but prisoners did not. "You will die in here, Lord Snow," Ser Alliser had said just before he closed the heavy wooden door, and Jon had believed it. But this morning they had come and pulled him out again, and marched him cramped and shivering back to the King's Tower, to stand before jowly Janos Slynt once more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's sum up again what happened:

Jon has a considerable and well-founded reason to dislike Slynt, to the point of fantasizing about cutting off his head. Yet,  he doesn't mention that Slynt took half a day to answer his Commander's summons, and assings him with the command of Greyguard - a tough job but a command still. Slynt responds emotionally, defies and insults Jon. Yet, Jon does not act on it, gives Slynt the time to calm down and reconsider. 

When Jon approaches Slynt in the morning, he gives him a fair warning: "I will give you one last chance." Slynt refuses to obey and insults Jon again. Thorne smiles at this, Godry the Giantslayer laughs out loud at this undermining of authority which they do not acknowledge, but Slynt is the only one vocal about it: "He’s just a boy, a bastard. His father was a traitor." Jon goes over alternatives punishments and realizes that Slynt will never cease to instigate problems with discipline, and orders his execution. No-one stands up for Slynt, no-one tries to make Jon reconsider, Stannis nods approvingly.

What happened was not just Slynt disobeying and being a jerk about it with that "shove it up your bastard ass". He  challenged the authority of the Lord Commander, not because he had some better vision for the Watch but because he hated and despised Jon. Had his defiance gone without a response that would put a stop to it once and for all, it would have led to the creation of a faction that would split and cripple the Watch at a critical time, and THAT was Slynt's biggest crime for which he had to die. If I am not mistaken, instigating against the commander is not mere insubordination but mutiny, as @the trees have eyes has pointed out, and I am fairly sure that was punishable by death until quite recently.

 

Share this post


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

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. 

That is a very weird way to reinterpret 'desertion'. If we were to follow your reasoning here it would effectively mean that every black brother sneaking off to Mole's Town should be executed because they sure as hell don't ask their superiors for permission to go there, no?

Slynt refused to obey a command. That is refusal to obey an order, not desertion. That is defined differently, and it is the only crime of a Watchman where we know for certain that the death penalty is obligatory. We are given the impression that Jon was free to punish Slynt in a different manner. It was his decision to be as harsh as he was, and while this was well within his rights, it wasn't necessarily just or smart.

2 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

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.

It isn't part of the vow to obey the Lord Commander in all things, though. They are expected to obey him, but it is just 'tradition' that the obey him the way they do, just as it is 'tradition' that they elect him, or that they fight against the wildlings (although that goes back to the fact that the wildlings do attack the Seven Kingdoms).

If you put crime against crime (Jon's attempt to murder Ser Alliser Thorne, a superior officer in the Watch, Jon's desertion in AGoT, and Jon's 'inner desertion' when he is longer with the wildlings as per Qhorin's orders and no longer knows whether he'll stand with Ygritte or return to CB) then, by the standards of the world he lives in, he deserves to die much more than Slynt. At least for the crimes he committed as a black brother. Whatever Slynt did back in KL is irrelevant since those crimes were all washed away when he took the black.

One should also note that Slynt was simply stupid when he was sentenced to death. He didn't grasp the danger he was in, and when he did he quickly apologized. Mormont cut Jon some slack, too, after all.

2 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

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.

See above. Whatever standing Slynt had with the Watch would have evaporated the moment he begged for his life there - and to make certain that this is not forgotten, Jon could have forced him to lick his boots, had his men beat him to pulp, and then make him everybody's servant. There are many ways to break people that do not involve killing them.

But if he wanted to kill him he could also have used some form of corporal punishment that was likely to kill him without actually commanding his death. A lot of lashes, perhaps, some scourging, take your pick.

Share this post


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

Oh? I have no issue with Jon, all in all. I'm not ignoring what happened, I just think that there was more to it.

Yes, I agree, there is more.

First I take into consideration that 16/17 year old Jon Snow did not actively seek to become Mormont's (killed by NW men) replacement as LC of the NW. Aemon Targ and Sam finagled it.

Can someone remind me why Tyrion sent Slynt to the Wall?

AND will someone suggest how Mormont's raven happened to be in the pot? Other than martin wrote it that way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

AND will someone suggest how Mormont's raven happened to be in the pot? Other than martin wrote it that way.

 

Aemon lied about not interfering with the election (or skinchanging)

Share this post


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

Let's sum up again what happened:

Jon has a considerable and well-founded reason to dislike Slynt, to the point of fantasizing about cutting off his head. Yet,  he doesn't mention that Slynt took half a day to answer his Commander's summons, and assings him with the command of Greyguard - a tough job but a command still. Slynt responds emotionally, defies and insults Jon. Yet, Jon does not act on it, gives Slynt the time to calm down and reconsider. 

When Jon approaches Slynt in the morning, he gives him a fair warning: "I will give you one last chance." Slynt refuses to obey and insults Jon again. Thorne smiles at this, Godry the Giantslayer laughs out loud at this undermining of authority which they do not acknowledge, but Slynt is the only one vocal about it: "He’s just a boy, a bastard. His father was a traitor." Jon goes over alternatives punishments and realizes that Slynt will never cease to instigate problems with discipline, and orders his execution. No-one stands up for Slynt, no-one tries to make Jon reconsider, Stannis nods approvingly.

What happened was not just Slynt disobeying and being a jerk about it with that "shove it up your bastard ass". He  challenged the authority of the Lord Commander, not because he had some better vision for the Watch but because he hated and despised Jon. Had his defiance gone without a response that would put a stop to it once and for all, it would have led to the creation of a faction that would split and cripple the Watch at a critical time, and THAT was Slynt's biggest crime for which he had to die. If I am not mistaken, instigating against the commander is not mere insubordination but mutiny, as @the trees have eyes has pointed out, and I am fairly sure that was punishable by death until quite recently.

 

A good summary of how thinks unfolded. However, I feel if @the trees have eyes very thorough, thoughtful and clear description of events of the Slynt execution can’t convince the “Slynt was unjustly killed” camp, I doubt any argument is going to. Notice how the arguments favoring the OP’s position have changed through the course of this thread from Jon intentionally set up Slynt to be killed to questioning the severity of his punishment. 

I find it funny how posters discount the text on Jon’s reasons/rationale for executing Slynt as opposed to other forms of punishment and continue to harp on Jon’s emotional state and personal feelings. There is no ambiguity in the text about Jon’s motives right before he lopped off Slynt’s head. We have Jon’s thoughts (as GRRM wrote it) on the matter. Jon does not think about vengence for Ned or how much he hates Slynt, instead he thinks Slynt is a threat to his leadership and the NW and therefore must go. Every other motive ascribed to Jon’s actions in this thread are nothing but conjectures formed in order to suit a certain narrative. 

Anyway, kudos to you and others like @the trees have eyes on your patience in continuing with this discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2018 at 6:13 PM, Lord Varys said:

When we ask about justice it is quite clear that Jon didn't execute Slynt because the man had talked back to him. He did it, to send a message to Slynt's supporters (and even the Lannisters) that he was standing for their shit. But that's not justice, that's politics.

Jon showed that he and Stannis were building a cabal up at the Wall, doing what they deemed best, and shedding the whole pretense of 'Watch neutrality'.

The idea that Slynt deserved to die for anything he did before taking the black also goes against core values of the NW and the Seven Kingdoms. Anybody taking the black should actually try to leave all the other stuff behind them. Thousands and thousands of black brothers did that in the past. Or do we believe back in the days of the Hundred Kingdoms the men taking the black continued their petty wars and blood feuds at the Wall? If they did do that, the Watch wouldn't have survived until the arrival of the Andals...

And, yeah, Jeor Mormont is a pretty lenient commander. I doubt Bloodraven would have stood for the shit Mormont let stand. However, it is pretty clear, too, that Jon's attack on Alliser Thorne was a pretty big conundrum. Jon is the son of the Lord of Winterfell and the Hand of the King. Executing or severely punishing him for whatever he did could have had severe repercussions.

If I were Ned I'd most definitely not allow Jeor's kin to keep Bear Island if the man had mistreated my son. Not to mention what Mormont would have faced if Benjen Stark had returned from beyond the Wall to find his nephew dead.

Ned is a better man than that.  Knowing his bastard attacked and tried to kill a superior officer is an embarrassment to his honor.  He would be sad ofcourse but he would have understood.  He would accept Jon's execution and send a letter of apology to Mormont.  Both fathers having been dishonored by their sons.

Jon should have been flogged at the very least.  Execution is reserved for the most serious of offenses.  Like breaking your vows and leaving the watch.  Mance deserved an execution twelve times over for his offenses.  What most fans fail to realize, Mance is still a brother of the watch.  He swore an oath that lasts for as long as he lives.  Mance walked off the job and never looked back, even leading wildlings and killing crows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2018 at 7:24 PM, Bernie Mac said:

There clearly is not. Jon considers the punishments in his head the very moment he sentences him to death

"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. The spoon slipped from his fingers. Edd and Emmett crossed the room, their footsteps ringing on the stone floor. Bowen Marsh's mouth opened and closed though no words came out. Ser Alliser Thorne reached for his sword hilt. Go on, Jon thought. Longclaw was slung across his back. Show your steel. Give me cause to do the same.

The surprise from long standing members of the Watch should make it obvious the punishment jon chose was not in line with the crime. 

 

 

It was a shocker because it was outrageous.  Execution for what Slynt did is uncalled for.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 12:18 AM, 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.  

This is Jon's second biggest failure.  Behind trying to steal Arya away from Ramsay.  It was grossly unfair to execute Slynt and then not execute Mance Rayder.  There's no defense for Jon's decision.  He was biased and acted on personal feelings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 5:56 AM, Lord Varys said:

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...

I agree with you.  Justice cannot happen when double-standards are being practiced.  Jon was using double-standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, teej6 said:

A good summary of how thinks unfolded. However, I feel if @the trees have eyes very thorough, thoughtful and clear description of events of the Slynt execution can’t convince the “Slynt was unjustly killed” camp, doubt any argument is going to.

:agree:

Quote

Notice how the arguments favoring the OP’s position have changed through the course of this thread from Jon intentionally set up Slynt to be killed to questioning the severity of his punishment. 

I did notice that, actually. Initially every Jon hater here kept banging on and on about one thing, and when faced w/ a Wall (yeah, capital w) of posts presenting a staggering amount of textual evidence, everyone changed gear and swapped to another erroneous claim that doesn't take into consideration the text but is rather based on disliking a character. 

Quote

I find it funny how posters discount the text on Jon’s reasons/rationale for executing Slynt as opposed to other forms of punishment and continue to harp on Jon’s emotional state and personal feelings.

Simply not true. I asked a couple of times, and saw many others asking as well. What would have been, in-universe, a suitable punishment for Slynt? How many more chances should Jon have given him?

ETA: I think the quoter misbehaved! :leaving:

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.  

 

Bad history between the House of Slynt and the House of Stark for sure.  But you know Ned tried to buy the Goldcloaks via Petyr B.  It's not as if Ned was above buying support.  The Lans made a better offer and Slynt took it.  I would also claim the Lans managed to convince Slynt of Ned's guilt.  Ned made it more convincing when he admitted in front of a crowd.   Jon can't put that out of his head and killed Slynt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Bad history between the House of Slynt and the House of Stark for sure.  But you know Ned tried to buy the Goldcloaks via Petyr B.  It's not as if Ned was above buying support.  The Lans made a better offer and Slynt took it.  I would also claim the Lans managed to convince Slynt of Ned's guilt.  Ned made it more convincing when he admitted in front of a crowd.   Jon can't put that out of his head and killed Slynt.  

I have one word (that may not really exist) for you: multiquoter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Ned is a better man than that.  Knowing his bastard attacked and tried to kill a superior officer is an embarrassment to his honor.  He would be sad ofcourse but he would have understood.  He would accept Jon's execution and send a letter of apology to Mormont.  Both fathers having been dishonored by their sons.

Could be. Or not. There is no indication that Jeor Mormont knew Eddard Stark very well. But if I were Mormont I'd not risk offending the Lord of Winterfell and Hand of the King in that manner. I have to suck up to him, not antagonize him. And I know that. So I most definitely do not execute or severely chastise his son if I don't have to.

I mean, Mormont also gave Waymar a command despite the fact that the youth wasn't ready yet. Simply because he was Royce of Runestone and one of the very few noble volunteers to the Watch. He is sucking up to the rulers of the Seven Kingdoms. 

And it is not that Mormont saw at the bottom of Jon's heart and realized that he was such a great and competent guy. He saw the Bastard of Winterfell and the nephew of his First Ranger. And that's by birth and default leadership material.

Quote

Jon should have been flogged at the very least.  Execution is reserved for the most serious of offenses.  Like breaking your vows and leaving the watch.  Mance deserved an execution twelve times over for his offenses.  What most fans fail to realize, Mance is still a brother of the watch.  He swore an oath that lasts for as long as he lives.  Mance walked off the job and never looked back, even leading wildlings and killing crows.

I have not forgotten that.

20 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Simply not true. I asked a couple of times, and saw many others asking as well. What would have been, in-universe, a suitable punishment for Slynt? How many more chances should Jon have given him?

I have given some. The thing is - Slynt actually breaks during the whole thing. He is a moron who doesn't understand in what kind of danger he is until it is too late. If Jon had him flogged, beaten to pulp, scourged, or confined to an ice cell for a month or so the man would have been as tame as  a lamb. This guy is no hero and no real leader. He would have licked Jon's boots if he had commanded it.

And Slynt was only dangerous while the likes of Thorne could use him as figurehead. Once the black brothers had realized what he was - and that he wasn't even remotely what he claimed to be - he would have lost whatever support he had left.

Instead Jon kills a pawn to send a message while basically ignoring the real plotters and vipers. 

Thorne is the man he should have killed (he doesn't have many friends in the Watch and most definitely not down in KL). And Marsh the man he should have dismissed as Lord Steward. Slynt is a man he should have punished and humiliated - only to later take him back into his good graces in a public show of conciliation to send the message to the Lannister-friendly men in the Watch (or those, like Marsh, thinking it is more likely they will end up on top) that he wants to be the Lord Commander of all black brothers, not just the men who elected him.

The first step when taking power is to ensure that you actually have a power base. Jon makes the same stupid mistakes as Ned - he sends away the few men he can actually trust while keeping those around who plot and scheme while he is either ignorant of that or he simply doesn't care.

At least when he starts with his wildling idea, he would have to be completely certain that every officer in the Watch stands with him in this. If that's not guaranteed then the chances for success are not exactly great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

But you know Ned tried to buy the Goldcloaks via Petyr B.

Somewhat true. Five books. Starting with book one can you remind me why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But if I were Mormont I'd not risk offending the Lord of Winterfell and Hand of the King in that manner. I have to suck up to him, not antagonize him. And I know that. So I most definitely do not execute or severely chastise his son if I don't have to.

If you were Mormont is not the criteria for martin's saga.

Share this post


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

×