The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Trefayne said:

And my answer to that was way back, but I will reiterate. Yes, Jon made the decision and yes it immediately solidified his authority and willingness to apply it, but the timing was bad for his character. In the end it worked against him or someone might have warned him of the impending mutiny. If GRRM did just use Slynt as a plot device and not a character building moment, then the reactions of the Watch have to fall into the plot device's purview. Jon got blindsided when it was obvious he was on shaky ground. No one lifted a finger. There would have been some rumors or nasty grumbling going around, but nobody sympathetic heard and reported anything?

EDIT: Oh, I forgot, Melisandre warned him and he blew it off.

There is no textual evidence that indicates  Slynt’s execution had any negative impact on how the men viewed Jon as a leader. And, we definitely don’t know how many men were in on the mutiny and how many men were in the know about Marsh’s plan. So you argument that someone would have warned Jon of the attack if not for the Slynt execution is just speculation on your part. For all we know, the NW will hang Marsh for a traitor in the next book. We don’t know how extensive Marsh’s support is. 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

No traitor's bastard gives commands to Janos Slynt! -Janos Slynt

I could be wrong, but I interpreted that statement as Janos Slynt telling Jon Snow(and everyone in the room) that Janos Slynt will never follow any of his Lord Commander's commands. Unless Janos Slynt used the word commands, plural, to mean he wouldn't follow all the steps it took him in order to get to Greyguard. Pack his things, say farewell to his good many friends, eat a bowl of onion soup, make sure to use the privy before he made his journey to Greyguard so he wouldn't have to stop right after he left. Alas, who can know the mind of Janos Slynt, the Lord of Harrenhal?

[Three-Fingered Pete]

8 minutes ago, teej6 said:

There is no textual evidence that indicates  Slynt’s execution had any negative impact on how the men viewed Jon as a leader. And, we definitely don’t know how many men were in on the mutiny and how many men were in the know about Marsh’s plan. So to assume that someone would have warned Jon of the attack if not for the Slynt execution is just speculation on your part. For all we know, the NW will hang Marsh for a traitor in the next book. We don’t know how extensive Marsh’s support is. 

I think we can assume a loyal man would have tried to warn Jon if he had heard something disturbing. So, it was either tightly kept or no one cared to intervene.

However, I am of the mind that the whole thing was a plot device to add tension into the arc and move things along as the whole point of Jon's journey through ADwD is one of deconstruction rather than construction. Once he is brought back (if GRRM follows the show), he needs to have a clean slate, unshackled by the past and any oaths or other commitments that he doesn't wish to honor.

[kissdbyfire]

Why in 7 hells would Martin follow the abomination?

Maybe you meant, "if the abomination stuck to whatever Martin told them and didn't creatively decide it made sense b/c they wanted it to happen".

[Three-Fingered Pete]

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Why in 7 hells would Martin follow the abomination?

Maybe you meant, "if the abomination stuck to whatever Martin told them and didn't creatively decide it made sense b/c they wanted it to happen".

I only meant in that Jon will be brought back. If he isn't then who cares? I hope George doesn't follow the "abomination". That would be trite. I want to see Theon smash Ramsey's face.

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

The execution of Janos Slynt is an injustice.  I read the comments from the first thread and many of Jon's apologists justify the execution because Jon believed Slynt would cause political problems for him in the future.  Jon killed Slynt partly using that justification.  Folks, that is not justice.  You do not punish someone for what they might do in the future.  The punishment to be applied being execution made it much worse.  It doesn't matter how certain Jon was in his mind how Slynt will behave in the future.   He could never be sure and even if he were it was still a mishandling of justice.

[TheMiddleHero]

53 minutes ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

The execution of Janos Slynt is an injustice.  I read the comments from the first thread and many of Jon's apologists justify the execution because Jon believed Slynt would cause political problems for him in the future.  Jon killed Slynt partly using that justification.  Folks, that is not justice.  You do not punish someone for what they might do in the future.  The punishment to be applied being execution made it much worse.  It doesn't matter how certain Jon was in his mind how Slynt will behave in the future.   He could never be sure and even if he were it was still a mishandling of justice.

Give me a break. He died due to treason/mutiny. Was given chances to take up his duty, he did not. This is the NW, where most men go for a last chance to have a life, most are criminals, a few noble volunteer, some nobles/commoners are forced into due to disgraceful behavior (like Janos.) There is no retirement, retirement is death.  He would not do his duty, he was retired.

There is no Constitution, or Magna Carta preserving rights. He was bound by duty and refused said duty. He was given a second chance in the morning, and third chance after that refusal.  There is no justice in the NW only duty served or lack thereof, and lack thereof when capable of doing so is death.

 

Do you think Mormont, BloodRaven, or any other LC would have accepted his refusals of duty without the same consequences?

[Three-Fingered Pete]

13 minutes ago, TheMiddleHero said:

Do you think Mormont, BloodRaven, or any other LC would have accepted his refusals of duty without the same consequences?

Do you think Slynt would have openly defied them in front of the men? This was, after all, highly personal for the lead conspirators. They had a hate-on for Jon since he got there. His supposed "crimes" with the Wildlings were just the justification they needed to openly oppose him. They sent him out to die at Mance's hands and GRRM deus ex machinas it by having Stannis show up at precisely the right time to save his bacon.

[TheMiddleHero]

2 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

Do you think Slynt would have openly defied them in front of the men? This was, after all, highly personal for the lead conspirators. They had a hate-on for Jon since he got there. His supposed "crimes" with the Wildlings were just the justification they needed to openly oppose him. They sent him out to die at Mance's hands and GRRM deus ex machinas it by having Stannis show up at precisely the right time to save his bacon.

Irrelevant, Jon was the LC. Regardless of what Janos' feeling were, he was obligated to obey. It is not a democracy.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

16 minutes ago, TheMiddleHero said:

Irrelevant, Jon was the LC. Regardless of what Janos' feeling were, he was obligated to obey. It is not a democracy.

I don't know where you got the idea I ever disputed that. I think I have made it clear that if Slynt was willing to be an idiot, Jon was perfectly within his rights to execute him. The only thing I think he did wrong was his timing. Slynt could have been a more useful idiot. Used correctly, Jon could have used Slynt to solidify his hold on command and then he could have separated and sent the other agitators to Greywatch and other far flung forts to freeze and tire themselves out rebuilding the defenses.

BUT

Since the goal thematically was to get Jon killed, I think the execution was meant to work against him with the men. YMMV.

[Ygrain]

8 hours ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

Why delay?  Because execution was not the right thing to do.  It was divisive.  Most important of all, because Jon was too emotional.  It was wrong and he knew it.  But he kept arguing with himself and looking for reasons to kill Slynt.  Finally, he gave in to his need for revenge and killed Slynt.  Delaying might have given Jon time to think things better and let his emotions subside.   There was no rush because Slynt capitulated.  Killing a man who was begging for mercy is not good public relations for Jon.  Especially when you consider that Slynt was not a deserter.  

 

8 hours ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

The execution of Janos Slynt made Jon a hated man.  A feared man but a hated one.  He showed no mercy and he got no mercy when he himself broke the rules.  What goes around comes around.  And it came around for Jon Snow.

As others have pointed out, lots of bold points there with exactly ZERO text support, and a whole chapter to the contrary. 

7 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

"None but them whose sires displeased the Kings o' Winter," said The Norrey. "Those came home shorter by a head. So you tell me, boy … if these wildling friends o' yours prove false, do you have the belly to do what needs be done?"

Ask Janos Slynt. "Tormund Giantsbane knows better than to try me. I may seem a green boy in your eyes, Lord Norrey,but I am still a son of Eddard Stark."

Now that's a good answer to all those claiming double standards for the offenders.

3 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

The execution of Janos Slynt is an injustice.  I read the comments from the first thread and many of Jon's apologists justify the execution because Jon believed Slynt would cause political problems for him in the future.  Jon killed Slynt partly using that justification.  Folks, that is not justice.  You do not punish someone for what they might do in the future.

Don't make me laugh. Even in RL, there is something like "risk to the society" which the judge takes into consideration when deciding the sentence.

 

2 hours ago, Trefayne said:

Do you think Slynt would have openly defied them in front of the men?

Which is kinda the point. Slynt's defiance of a LC's authority was completely unprecedented, and absolutely no precedence of people thinking they might get away with something like that lightly could be allowed.

 

 

[Ran]

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 

Which is kinda the point. Slynt's defiance of a LC's authority was completely unprecedented, and absolutely no precedence of people thinking they might get away with something like that lightly could be allowed.

Not completely unprecedented. The mutineers at Craster's did much the same...

I am genuinely mystified by all this discussion. Never crossed my mind people would believe Jon was hungry to murder Slynt, or manipulated him into providing him a reason to kill him, or that Slynt deserved more opportunities than those he received.

[Ygrain]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

Not completely unprecedented. The mutineers at Craster's did much the same...

Lol, yeah - unprecedented except open mutiny with arms :-)

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

I am genuinely mystified by all this discussion. Never crossed my mind people would believe Jon was hungry to murder Slynt, or manipulated him into providing him a reason to kill him, or that Slynt deserved more opportunities than those he received.

You and me both.

[kissdbyfire]

6 hours ago, TheMiddleHero said:

Do you think Mormont, BloodRaven, or any other LC would have accepted his refusals of duty without the same consequences?

Just imagine the likes of Janos Slynt telling LC Brynden Bloodraven Rivers to shove it up his bastard arse!

[Rufus Snow]

9 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

The execution of Janos Slynt is an injustice.  I read the comments from the first thread and many of Jon's apologists justify the execution because Jon believed Slynt would cause political problems for him in the future.  Jon killed Slynt partly using that justification.  Folks, that is not justice.  You do not punish someone for what they might do in the future.  The punishment to be applied being execution made it much worse.  It doesn't matter how certain Jon was in his mind how Slynt will behave in the future.   He could never be sure and even if he were it was still a mishandling of justice.

No, you don't. But you might show leniency for what someone might do in the future - Jon considered the POSSIBILITY that Janos might change his ways, looking for a reason to be lenient.

There was no such promise for Janos, so the sentence had to stand.

[Tagganaro]

9 hours ago, Trefayne said:

I don't know where you got the idea I ever disputed that. I think I have made it clear that if Slynt was willing to be an idiot, Jon was perfectly within his rights to execute him. The only thing I think he did wrong was his timing. Slynt could have been a more useful idiot. Used correctly, Jon could have used Slynt to solidify his hold on command and then he could have separated and sent the other agitators to Greywatch and other far flung forts to freeze and tire themselves out rebuilding the defenses.

BUT

Since the goal thematically was to get Jon killed, I think the execution was meant to work against him with the men. YMMV.

I'm not sure I see this- I think if anything the execution helped Jon keep Thorne and others in line (in the short term at least).  I mean, when Jon gives Thorne the command to go ranging North Thorne specifically notes the execution of Slynt and decides not to disobey.

And at the end of the day, Thorne was always going to hate Jon going back to AGOT.  Jon made him an enemy for life by making a joke at his expense and Thorne is just the kind of self-serious petty ahole to hold a grudge forever for something like that.  Jon notes there is "blood" between Jon and Slynt- it is much the same with Thorne who tried to kill Jon in ASOS.

I don't think there was anyway Slynt could have been used to "solidify Jon's hold on command," and Jon realizes this when he briefly stops the hanging and sees Slynt's smile which he compares to the sweetness of "rancid butter."  This weighs on Jon's thoughts about the punishment and we can see him basically decide that Slynt will go right back to plotting against him if he is not killed on the spot- It is tough to argue that Jon's assessment is not entirely correct knowing what we do of Slynt.

[Varysblackfyre321]

17 hours ago, TheMiddleHero said:

Honestly if we want to compare Jon's desertion with Slynts mutinous behavior, let's look at how each handled it when confronted with it.

 

Jon: Rode out, was  coaxed back by friends, expected to be beheaded. Was given a second chance and he fell in line.

 

Janos: Refused an order, was given a second chance, refused it again, insulted the LC, was asked a third time and continued to refuse and insult the LC.

 

Seems clear to me why each had a different result.

Prior to his desertion Jon tried to murder a superior over having his feelings hurt. After Mormont decided to be lenient and not execute the guy for that dire offense(to which the only justice would be death),Jon deserted, and only came back because he could bring himself to seriously harm his friends to leave. Janos Slynt refused an order and insulted the LC. Jon's offenses are greater than Slynt's(what with that being attempted murder, desertion), and his punishment was basically nothing really. Slynt's first and only punishment for the crime of insubordination was death. Jon so far as I call didn't even have to apologize for Alliser about having tried to end his life. 

[Rufus Snow]

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Prior to his desertion Jon tried to murder a superior over having his feelings hurt. lost his temper after being deliberately needled by a man who should know better. After Mormont decided to be lenient and not execute the guy for that fire offense recognized that both men involved bore some of the responsibility and separated them to let tempers cool, Jon deserted, and only came back because he could bring himself to seriously harm his friends to leave before reaching the point of no return that Mormont had set. Janos Slynt repeatedly refused an order and insulted the LC, even after being told it was his final chance. Jon's offenses are greater than trivial compared to Slynt's and his punishment was basically nothing really appropriate. Slynt's first and only punishment for the crime of insubordination, subverting the chain of command, threatening a superior officer, dereliction of duty and mutiny was death. 

It all depends where you stand.

[Varysblackfyre321]

28 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

It all depends where you stand.

No. Explain how Jon attacking Alliser with a dagger can honestly be categorized as anything but attempted murder; just saying Jon lost it doesn't do that-and to be clear, Thorne can only be shown as to have said something negative about Jon's father within ear shot of Jon; that's it. Even if one can assume he intentionally spoke loudly enough to nettle Jon, that isn't really something that ultimately matters.  Attempted murder of superior>than not following one order. Jon's motive( that being Thorne said something bad about his father),  for the attempt does not make it some lesser offense . I don't know why people are trying to pretend "he hurt my feelings" really lessens the severity of the crime of attempted murder especially in a military organization. Again Jon did not really suffer from this-he didn't even have to apologize to Thorne over the attempt on the man's life. 

A Game of Thrones - Jon VII

And then he heard the laughter, sharp and cruel as a whip, and the voice of Ser Alliser Thorne. "Not only a bastard, but a traitor's bastard," he was telling the men around him.

In the blink of an eye, Jon had vaulted onto the table, dagger in his hand. Pyp made a grab for him, but he wrenched his leg away, and then he was sprinting down the table and kicking the bowl from Ser Alliser's hand. Stew went flying everywhere, spattering the brothers. Thorne recoiled. People were shouting, but Jon Snow did not hear them. He lunged at Ser Alliser's face with the dagger, slashing at those cold onyx eyes, but Sam threw himself between them and before Jon could get around him, Pyp was on his back clinging like a monkey, and Grenn was grabbing his arm while Toad wrenched the knife from his fingers.

Later, much later, after they had marched him back to his sleeping cell, Mormont came down to see him, raven on his shoulder. "I told you not to do anything stupid, boy," the Old Bear said. "Boy," the bird chorused. Mormont shook his head, disgusted. "And to think I had high hopes for you."

 

 

Jon deserterted; the second he left castle black with clear aim to join up with family.  Mormont having simply saying Jon is forgiven because he came relatively soon after his desertion doesn't make Jon's action not desertion.

Desertion>not following one order, insulting Jon.

 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I'm not sure I see this- I think if anything the execution helped Jon keep Thorne and others in line (in the short term at least).  I mean, when Jon gives Thorne the command to go ranging North Thorne specifically notes the execution of Slynt and decides not to disobey.

And at the end of the day, Thorne was always going to hate Jon going back to AGOT.  Jon made him an enemy for life by making a joke at his expense and Thorne is just the kind of self-serious petty ahole to hold a grudge forever for something like that.  Jon notes there is "blood" between Jon and Slynt- it is much the same with Thorne who tried to kill Jon in ASOS.

I don't think there was anyway Slynt could have been used to "solidify Jon's hold on command," and Jon realizes this when he briefly stops the hanging and sees Slynt's smile which he compares to the sweetness of "rancid butter."  This weighs on Jon's thoughts about the punishment and we can see him basically decide that Slynt will go right back to plotting against him if he is not killed on the spot- It is tough to argue that Jon's assessment is not entirely correct knowing what we do of Slynt.

Yes, it kept the agitators in line for a bit, but we get just about nothing from the common grunt. GRRM keeps us in the dark about that except for "two guys on the wall" that may or may not be Jon loyalists anyway. The point is we have no idea.

I just feel that in a large castle with hundreds of occupants where a rather controversial execution just took place and gossip and intrigue are the meat and potatoes of the day (remember, these folks don't have smartphones to bury their noses in), people would be talking and a certain portion of it wouldn't be positive toward Jon. IMO there would have been some warning signs besides a cryptic missive from the Red Priestess, who Jon doesn't like or trust at all.

Slynt could have been used more effectively by keeping him alive, but in a position that allowed him to conspire some more by trying to bring in more associates to his insurrection. Maiming Slynt by lopping of a hand or even removing his tongue and stripping him of all authority would have embarrassed and enraged him. It would also show Jon can be "merciful" in the face of open defiance/dereliction of duty, like Mormont, but wasn't going to take any more guff from the agitators. Then, when Slynt begins to recruit others outside of the original cabal, Jon arrests them and reveals their open rebellion and executes them. IMO, killing Slynt only drove the conspiracy farther underground, making it almost impossible to prevent. Nobody, except his close cronies, liked Slynt, but that doesn't mean they want to end up the same way.

I guess this is just a long way of saying that Jon needed to be a little more Littlefinger and a little less Cersei in this instance, IMO.