Jump to content

The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on vol 2


kissdbyfire

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

:bs:

Slynt and Thorne wanted Jon dead. Maester Aemon wouldn't let them kill him or leave him to die in an ice cell, so they came up w/ the idea of sending Jon to kill Mance instead knowing Jon would be killed whether he succeeded or not. If he succeeded it'd be the cherry on top and they'd be rid of both Jon and Mance, and if Jon failed they'd still be rid of him. And the only reason it didn't go down that way is because Stannis arrived. 

Who cares? They thought Jon was a deserter/turncloak and thought of a way to rid themselves of him. Not to mention that it is the purpose of soldiers to die in war. What Slynt and Thorne demanded of Jon is no different from what Qhorin demanded of Jon - he, too, made it clear to Jon that he is not in the Watch to be a hero or to survive. He is there to do his duty and die.

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Sigh. The one letting Mance off the hook was Melisandre, when Rattleshirt was executed instead of him. Jon had nothing to do with that, he was not privy to her scheme. He was merely presented with the outcome which he could not change without opening a whole can of worms, and he utilized this resource best he could.

That is blatant nonsense. Jon could have executed Mance as soon as he found out what was really going on. He was his man now, not Stannis'. Making common cause with people who make a travesty out of justice makes you an accomplice of that travesty.

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Besides, in case it escaped you, rescuing Farya is not just personal, it is also about breaking Ramsay's hold of the North through his marriage to her. No Stark wife, no support to the Boltons.

Another thing Jon Snow should not involve himself in. Arya is no longer his sister, and the Starks are no longer his house.

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Death in its finality is the gravest punishment but I am not actually sure if mutilation should be considered milder, especially when affecting one's social functioning and/or self-esteem like the ones you suggested. Some might even find death preferable.

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, it is pretty clear that Westerosi society considers corporeal punishment that does not (necessarily) result in death to be a milder punishment than capital punishment. And that would include Jon Snow, a person who lives in Westeros.

2 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Cutting tongues is a punishment that is ordered by usually cruel/twisted men in the series (Aerys II, Roose, Euron Greyjoy). It certainly is not Jon Snow's style, Ned Stark's bastard son. 

The idea that the Starks of all people do not geld their rapists, don't take out tongues, do not take the hands of thieves, etc. is pretty silly. This is not a world of kindness and forgiveness, and we hear it again and again that the Starks of the past had a rather grim reputation.

2 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Decapitation is considered cleaner and more just in Westeros, especially in the North. Certainly some would personally choose to live, but some would not and would prefer a "clean death". It's just that they don't get to choose. 

Decapitation is a very nice way of capital punishment, one usually reserved for nobles. Commoners are hanged, drawn, and quartered or put in crow cages until they die.

2 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Gelding is more for rapists?

Not only for them, it seems, but you can come up with other potential punishments for Slynt that are not 'binding them to his horse' and 'putting him in an ice cell'. It is not those to possibilities and capital punishments. Mutilation, beating up, torture, you name it can come between.

And those would all be milder punishments compared to capital punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Who cares?

What does that question even mean? Seriously, it's utterly ridiculous. It's not a matter of who cares or not. The person I was replying to made a statement twisting the facts, and I addressed that. 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They thought Jon was a deserter/turncloak and thought of a way to rid themselves of him.

Well, Maester Aemon made it very clear to Slynt, Thorne, and whoever else that Jon not only wasn't a deserter but was, in fact, responsible for organising the few men left at CB and giving them a fighting chance. It wouldn't have been enough to defeat the free folk, but it was enough to hold the the ones south of the Wall long enough until Stannis arrived. 

At any rate, I see you at least isn't denying the obvious. 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not to mention that it is the purpose of soldiers to die in war.

Blimey, and here I thought the purpose of soldiers was to fight and to try to win wars, knowing it may cost them their lives. 

If the purpose of soldiers is to die in wars, then they can all just drink the kool-aid - literally - and be done w/ it.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

What Slynt and Thorne demanded of Jon is no different from what Qhorin demanded of Jon - he, too, made it clear to Jon that he is not in the Watch to be a hero or to survive. He is there to do his duty and die

It is entirely different, and if you can't see that I really don't know what to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that the Starks of all people do not geld their rapists, don't take out tongues, do not take the hands of thieves, etc. is pretty silly. This is not a world of kindness and forgiveness, and we hear it again and again that the Starks of the past had a rather grim reputation.

I kind of stated/asked if gelding is more for rapists at the end of the post.

But cutting tongues? That's not what we hear the recent Stark generation does. It's usually done by those who like to have their "amusements" via hurting other people. 

I only assume they take thieves' hands which is a proper punishment for thieves in this setting. 

The Starks of the past were a different thing. But they were also notorious for (again) decapitating. 

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Decapitation is a very nice way of capital punishment, one usually reserved for nobles. Commoners are hanged, drawn, and quartered or put in crow cages until they die.

Janos Slynt was a noble. If Jon was seriously going to hang him, then some people might've rightfully protested.

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not only for them, it seems, but you can come up with other potential punishments for Slynt that are not 'binding them to his horse' and 'putting him in an ice cell'. It is not those to possibilities and capital punishments. Mutilation, beating up, torture, you name it can come between.

And those would all be milder punishments compared to capital punishment.

But Jon was thought different than that. And the Night's Watch is like the last chance for the Realmers to prove themselves. Of course spitting in the LC's face and worse, insubordination, are crimes which don't have a matching mutilation for punishment. 

Robb seems to forget his father's teachings when he ordered people to be hanged. Yet it's still a death sentence. But there wasn't time to chop heads all day I guess. And prob they weren't all nobles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, Maester Aemon made it very clear to Slynt, Thorne, and whoever else that Jon not only wasn't a deserter but was, in fact, responsible for organising the few men left at CB and giving them a fighting chance. It wouldn't have been enough to defeat the free folk, but it was enough to hold the the ones south of the Wall long enough until Stannis arrived. 

Maester Aemon advises the Watch - nobody is obliged to follow his advice nor does he have the right to command. Cotter Pyke's opinion mattered, not Aemon's. And the fact that Jon was not hanged doesn't mean his innocence was proven.

And apparently Jon's suicide mission was perfectly fine - because Slynt/Thorne could actually force him to do that.

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Blimey, and here I thought the purpose of soldiers was to fight and to try to win wars, knowing it may cost them their lives. 

If the purpose of soldiers is to die in wars, then they can all just drink the kool-aid - literally - and be done w/ it.

LOL, don't twist things around. It is acceptable that soldiers die in war. They can also survive, of course, but the important thing is that they fulfill the mission/win the battle, not that they survive.

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It is entirely different, and if you can't see that I really don't know what to say.

LOL, no. Look me in the eye and tell me that Qhorin Halfhand did not send Jon Snow on a suicide mission. He could have died screaming for so many reasons in so many scenarios that it is a literal miracle (entirely based on plot convenience) that he did survive.

And considering Jon's plot armor there are even scenarios imaginable where Jon actually did assassinate Mance and even survived that thing.

2 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I kind of stated/asked if gelding is more for rapists at the end of the post.

It is used also for gelding, but we have Tyland Lannister being gelded by Rhaenyra's torturers and Johanna Lannister gelding one of the salt-sons of the Red Kraken. It is done - and following Johanna's example I actually thing a castrated Janos Slynt could have served Jon better than a dead one.

2 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

But cutting tongues? That's not what we hear the recent Stark generation does. It's usually done by those who like to have their "amusements" via hurting other people. 

We don't see the recent Stark generation sitting in judgment over men and women who did them and their own great harm. Nor do we see them sitting in judgment over criminals at all.

But the vibe one gets is that punishments in the North are likely more cruel/savage than those in the milder south.

2 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

The Starks of the past were a different thing. But they were also notorious for (again) decapitating. 

They do their executions themselves - if they also do their torturing themselves they would have to be even harder/crueler men than we know. Even Maegor the Cruel didn't do all his torturing himself.

2 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Janos Slynt was a noble. If Jon was seriously going to hang him, then some people might've rightfully protested.

Hanging is also a proper way to execute traitors.

2 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

But Jon was thought different than that. And the Night's Watch is like the last chance for the Realmers to prove themselves. Of course spitting in the LC's face and worse, insubordination, are crimes which don't have a matching mutilation for punishment. 

But there is no indication that the only punishment for Slynt's actions were either hanging or beheading. It is up to the judge to determine the sentence. Jon could have pardoned Slynt. Jon could have chosen a milder punishment. Jon could have done whatever the hell he wanted. He wasn't forced to kill the man. In fact, he shows that the sentence is entirely up to him when he changes hanging to beheading in the middle of the entire act.

2 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Robb seems to forget his father's teachings when he ordered people to be hanged. Yet it's still a death sentence. But there wasn't time to chop heads all day I guess. And prob they weren't all nobles.

If the Starks take their own talk seriously, a Stark should indeed hang, mutilate, torture, etc. ever criminal he condemns with his own hands. But that is likely not practical, so most likely only important (i.e. nobles or turncloaks of the Watch) are executed by the Lord of Winterfell himself.

I doubt that the Starks have nothing better to do that to concern themselves with every poacher, rapist, thief, adulteress, etc. on their lands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2018 at 8:55 PM, Jedi Exile said:

Pro-tip: It wasn't. The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice. 

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.  

Agree.  This is a question of justice.  Jon was not an impartial judge.  His mind kept telling him it would be wrong to kill this man but he kept pushing conscience aside with bullshit reasons of his own on what Slynt might and might not do.  Jon invented reasons to justify killing the man.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

Agree.  This is a question of justice.  Jon was not an impartial judge.  His mind kept telling him it would be wrong to kill this man but he kept pushing conscience aside with bullshit reasons of his own on what Slynt might and might not do.  Jon invented reasons to justify killing the man.  

Wow. Just WOW. Saying that "Jon invented reasons to justify killing" Slynt brings the reading comprehension fail to a new and absolutely shocking new level. Congrats. /s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Wow. Just WOW. Saying that "Jon invented reasons to justify killing" Slynt brings the reading comprehension fail to a new and absolutely shocking new level. Congrats. /s

That's because that is exactly what Jon did.  Dreaming up what the guy might do.  Jon was too emotionally involved to be fair.  The execution was unjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

That's because that is exactly what Jon did.  Dreaming up what the guy might do.  Jon was too emotionally involved to be fair.  The execution was unjust.

:bs: Slynt refused Jon's orders two times. This was insubordination and the reason he was executed. This is waht is written in the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I didn't say castrating or taking Slynt's tongue would be milder-I said it would be more appropriate than the sentence; given the watch what the watch is dealing with the death sentence should only be used when other forms of punishment cannot be expected to work towards the same goals.

And would they work? What use is a NW brother who cannot communicate? What use is a man whose hatred has spiralled into new heights because you took his genitals?

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't think Edd would particularly object anymore to participating in Slynt's castrasion or tongue pulling out anymore than he did when he was called upon to help execute Slynt-he was very cool about it.

I'm afraid that we are on completely different wavelength concerning how offputting mutilation is, and I believe GRRM's use of mutilation as punishment dealt mostly by despicable characters reflects a similar attitude, but perhaps it's just me.

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't think Jon need do it personally, or see it he has to do it personally-Like I don't  see Eddard Stark or most Stark Lords personally mutilating every thief or rapists that's brought his way personally.

He most likely did not, if such punishment was indeed used in the North in the first place. But then there is this problem of dealing justice personally, which an alternate punishment wouldn't allow for.

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Mutilation is a legitimate form of punishment in the seven kingdoms; hell the only way to avoid such most times is to join the night's watch.  Hell Briene(whose as noble as they come in most regards), personally sees Randyl Tarley sentence a thief to having 7 fingers taken for having robbed a holy place; Briene doesn't seem particularly horrified at the sentence. 

I honestly don't see most black brothers being anymore revolted than Jon's execution of Slynt.

There is one hell of a difference if you deal such a sentence to a criminal, or to your sworn brother. That's why I posit that such a punishment might actually be less acceptable than a clean death.

8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The point is that the only chapter the author has Jon fantasizing about murdering him is the very chapter he does it. 

And spends the rest of the chapter showing Jon trying hard to work against that fantasizing, not to follow.

8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Slynt did come to his senses, he was begging to be allowed to go to Greyguard, Jon did not care, he had his excuse to kill him. 

If someone agrees to do something because you hold them at a gunpoint, do you think they really agreed? 

Slynt didn't come to his senses, he would have promised anything that would have saved his skin. 

8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Jon even thinks of the appropriate punishments but then comes up with possible crimes Slynt may do in the future to justify to himself that he had to kill him.  He fantasized about killing him and two pages later got his wish. 

And in what way is Jon's reasoning invalid, please? A conspiring Slynt, or a Slynt leading a band of deserters, is a risk that the Watch cannot afford. Do you also have a problem when a judge refuses a bail, or deals a higher sentence because the culprit is a risk to the society?

8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

We also didn't see a Lord Commander order the execution of another brother till Jon's first week in the job, whats your point? 

That the Watch may not be using such punishments.

26 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

His mind kept telling him it would be wrong to kill this man but he kept pushing conscience aside with bullshit reasons of his own on what Slynt might and might not do.  Jon invented reasons to justify killing the man.  

A quote for this, please. From ASOIAF, not some fanfiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

It is not spelled out though, quite the opposite as the chapter makes Jon's feelings about Slynt more than clear. 

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

Jon is more than clear how this is personal for him.  It would be for anyone, that is why no judge would be trying a person who had previously killer a member of their family, it is almost impossible for their to not be a conflict of interest. 

Either GRRM is writing Jon as a human being or he is writing him as an emotionless robot. 

Jon still offered him a command and still gave him several chances in spite of his feelings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

Jon still offered him a command and still gave him several chances in spite of his feelings. 

So much this. Jon gave Slynt a chance despite his personal feelings. And after Slynt refuses the first time Jon even hopes that Slynt comes to his senses. Jon doesn't act on his emotions when executing Slynt but on a very rational thought process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

Agree.  This is a question of justice.  Jon was not an impartial judge.  His mind kept telling him it would be wrong to kill this man but he kept pushing conscience aside with bullshit reasons of his own on what Slynt might and might not do.  Jon invented reasons to justify killing the man.  

 

42 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Wow. Just WOW. Saying that "Jon invented reasons to justify killing" Slynt brings the reading comprehension fail to a new and absolutely shocking new level. Congrats. /s

 

24 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

That's because that is exactly what Jon did.  Dreaming up what the guy might do.  Jon was too emotionally involved to be fair.  The execution was unjust.

 

12 minutes ago, Wylla Manderly said:

:bs: Slynt refused Jon's orders two times. This was insubordination and the reason he was executed. This is waht is written in the text.

Nothing Slynt did justified an execution.  Confinement, maybe.  Killing him because he might cause problems in the future is not right.  Jon wouldn't be alive if Mormont handled justice the same way.  Jon has a history of desertion and if Mormont was like Jon, he would think, "I need to execute this guy because he might desert again and talk others to do the same."  Jon was given plenty of chances.  Mormont gave him a break from his desertion.  What Slynt did was minor when taken into comparison.  Jon should have shown Slynt the same kind of mercy that he got.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buell Rider said:

Nothing Slynt did justified an execution. 

Insubordination justifies execution in my book. Remember, the Watch is a medieval penal battalion, and the Lord Commander is its ultimate authority.

9 minutes ago, Buell Rider said:

Jon was given plenty of chances. 

So was Slynt. 

9 minutes ago, Buell Rider said:

Mormont gave him a break from his desertion. 

 

And Jon took the second chance, and didn't try to desert again. Slynt threw the second chance Jon gave him back in Jon's face. 

10 minutes ago, Buell Rider said:

Jon should have shown Slynt the same kind of mercy that he got.  

He did. He gave Slynt a night to cool off, and a second chance, just like Jon had been given. Slynt did not take the second chance, he continued to defy his superior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wylla Manderly said:

:bs: Slynt refused Jon's orders two times. This was insubordination and the reason

he was executed. This is waht is written in the text.

 

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

A quote for this, please. From ASOIAF, not some fanfiction.

Quote

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.

Quote

It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then.  And how many others will he take with him?

It's obvious Jon was looking for and inventing excuses to kill Janos Slynt.  Killing a man for what Jon suspects that he might do in the future is plain wrong.  And that last one is particularly rich because it is Jon who has a history of desertion, not Janos Slynt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

 

It's obvious Jon was looking for and inventing excuses to kill Janos Slynt.  Killing a man for what Jon suspects that he might do in the future is plain wrong.  And that last one is particularly rich because it is Jon who has a history of desertion, not Janos Slynt.  

Wow, you really did a number cherry picking those quotes you used. That is not at all the big picture of Jon’s thoughts. Jon weighs his options and realities, which was in the end as shown correct: 

A Dance with Dragons - Jon III

Marsh hesitated. "Lord Snow, I am not one to bear tales, but there has been talk that you are becoming too … too friendly with Lord Stannis. Some even suggest that you are … a …"
A rebel and a turncloak, aye, and a bastard and a warg as well. Janos Slynt might be gone, but his lies lingered. "I know what they say." Jon had heard the whispers, had seen men turn away when he crossed the yard. "What would they have me do, take up swords against Stannis and the wildlings both? His Grace has thrice the fighting men we do, and is our guest besides. The laws of hospitality protect him. And we owe him and his a debt."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

And would they work? What use is a NW brother who cannot communicate? What use is a man whose hatred has spiralled into new heights because you took his genitals?

Quote

You know Illyn was still able to be an adequate tool after having lost his tongue. Taking someone's speech doesn't mean they can't be useful. Slynt  can play the role of a common steward without genitals or a tongue; the trauma of the event would more likely get the man too scared to even think about any sort of plots and the mutilations themselves would make Slynt into someone that is virtually useless to the avid traditionalists of the watch; there can be use for found in the found with this punishment; more use than if he was a corpse. 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

afraid that we are on completely different wavelength concerning how offputting mutilation is, and I believe GRRM's use of mutilation as punishment dealt mostly by despicable characters reflects a similar attitude, but perhaps it's just me.

No it's done most lords in Westeroes who've been lords for years-like thieves the standard punishment for thieves is losing finger-it's ridiculous to suppose most lords always opt to simply give whatever thief over to the watch. Mutilatayion is not just the sort of thing just done by big baddies like Ramsey or Roose. The punishments are cruel from. Edd having grown up in a world where such punishments are enacted would not object in aiding Jon in Slynt's punishment to where he loses some body part(s). 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

There is one hell of a difference if you deal such a sentence to a criminal, or to your sworn brother. That's why I posit that such a punishment might actually be less acceptable than a clean death.

11 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I really don't see there being a worse reaction than what we actually plenty of brothers do when Slynt was sentenced to death; where they got up and looked prepared to fight; Thorne stepping aside cooled things off. 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

nd in what way is Jon's reasoning invalid, please? A conspiring Slynt, or a Slynt leading a band of deserters, is a risk that the Watch cannot afford. Do you also have a problem when a judge refuses a bail, or deals a higher sentence because the culprit is a risk to the society?

The fact that deserting is a death sentence? Like literally Winter is right around the corner, they're really not going to find better shelter than the Greyguard. if they go South they'll be executed by the northern lords, they go north beyond the wall they'll be killed and probably tortured by the wildlings. The majority of black brothers only stay at the wall even though life is hard as hell is because they realize they leave they'll die for sure-even a wildling horde comes to kill them at castle black we don't see desertions even though the brothers can very well die-but if that's better than a certian death. Slynt would be lucky to convince one to desert(especially if he wasn't it's castles' commander), to join him in basiclly suicide.  A major reason Jon even sent Slynt to the grey guard was to stop the conspiring between Slynt and Thorne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

 

It's obvious Jon was looking for and inventing excuses to kill Janos Slynt.  Killing a man for what Jon suspects that he might do in the future is plain wrong.  And that last one is particularly rich because it is Jon who has a history of desertion, not Janos Slynt.  

No, Jon wasn't looking for excuses. And he didn't invent anything to execute Janos. As I already pointed out earlier in this thread Jon gave Slynte the command of Greyguard despite his personal feelings towards him. And when Slynt refused he made it clear that this was not an offer but an order. And he gave Slynt the night to think it over and also hopes that Slynt comes to his senses:

"...He could only hope that a night's sleep would bring Lord Janos to his senses.

The next morning proved that the hope was vain." 

This contradicts your claim that Jon was looking for excuses to kill Slynt. He actually hoped for the opposite.

But in the common room in front of other brothers as well as Stannis men Slynt refuses Jon's order a second time and not only that he also insults him. This is insubordination and Jon has to punish him. And Jon thinks the possibilities through he has. And when he thinks it through he also considers the probable future behaviour of Slynt. And this prognosis is based on the past beheviour of Slynt. I already pointed out this is a common practice when sentencing someone.

And the situation in the first book, when Jon attempts to join Robb's campaign is a total different one. It it an attempt, but no desertion. And with the help of his friends Jon gives it up and goes back voluntarily. And he also shows remorse and would have accepted punishment from LC Mormont. And because of this Mormont gives him a second chance, which Jon takes.

As others already pointed out, Jon also gave Slynt a second chance, but Slynt blew this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

It's obvious Jon was looking for and inventing excuses to kill Janos Slynt.  Killing a man for what Jon suspects that he might do in the future is plain wrong.  And that last one is particularly rich because it is Jon who has a history of desertion, not Janos Slynt.  

And how did you get from those quotes that in his mind, Jon knows that executing Slynt is wrong, when he goes exactly the other way around - realizing that the less severe punishments would not do, and finally settling on the execution? A complete fail of logic on your part here, sorry.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You know Illyn was still able to be an adequate tool after having lost his tongue.

Are you kidding me? Adequate for what?! Don't you think that men living and fighting in rather extreme conditions had better not be handiccaped like that? - Now I can't get rid of the idea of Slynt acting charades to report wights oncoming...

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Taking someone's speech doesn't mean they can't be useful. Slynt  can play the role of a common steward without genitals or a tongue; the trauma of the event would more likely get the man too scared to even think about any sort of plots and the mutilations themselves would make Slynt into someone that is virtually useless to the avid traditionalists of the watch; there can be use for found in the found with this punishment; more use than if he was a corpse. 

It could also make him a totally broken man who might commit suicide, or someone who might feel who has nothing to lose and be willing to sacrifice anyone and anything to get his revenge on Jon.

I really don't get why you think that mutilation would somehow solve the situation, or that people would find it preferable. Let's drop the issue, it's leading nowhere.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No it's done most lords in Westeroes 

Most lords, certainly, but the ones wer are shown, like Randyll Tarly, are definitely not the men who are supposed to be fan-favorites.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I really don't see there being a worse reaction than what we actually plenty of brothers do when Slynt was sentenced to death; where they got up and looked prepared to fight; Thorne stepping aside cooled things off. 

It would be worse if they feared Jon but didn't respect him and thought him a crazy psycho Aerys-style.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The fact that deserting is a death sentence? Like literally Winter is right around the corner, they're really not going to find better shelter than the Greyguard. if they go South they'll be executed by the northern lords, they go north beyond the wall they'll be killed and probably tortured by the wildlings. The majority of black brothers only stay at the wall even though life is hard as hell is because they realize they leave they'll die for sure-even a wildling horde comes to kill them at castle black we don't see desertions even though the brothers can very well die-but if that's better than a certian death. Slynt would be lucky to convince one to desert(especially if he wasn't it's castles' commander), to join him in basiclly suicide.  A major reason Jon even sent Slynt to the grey guard was to stop the conspiring between Slynt and Thorne.

You are forgetting the the North has taken heavy casualties, many lords are dead and the country is in disarray - a perfect time for deserting and establishing an armed band that could terrorize and live off minor settlements (and even major ones, if they get bold enough). To form such a band, you need a ruthless leader with zero principles. The other conspirators, for all their faults, are still the men of the Watch and wouldn't do that, but Slynt has no loyalties except to himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Buell Rider said:

 

 

 

Nothing Slynt did justified an execution.  Confinement, maybe.  Killing him because he might cause problems in the future is not right.  Jon wouldn't be alive if Mormont handled justice the same way.  Jon has a history of desertion and if Mormont was like Jon, he would think, "I need to execute this guy because he might desert again and talk others to do the same."  Jon was given plenty of chances.  Mormont gave him a break from his desertion.  What Slynt did was minor when taken into comparison.  Jon should have shown Slynt the same kind of mercy that he got.  

Only Slynt wasn't executed b/c of what he might do in the future but because of  insubordination. Try harder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wylla Manderly said:

As others already pointed out, Jon also gave Slynt a second chance, but Slynt blew this.

Jon gave Slynt a second chance, and a third, and then a fourth. I did ask the question but got no replies so far. How many chances would have been enough? How many times should Jon have allowed Slynt to refuse to obey his LC? Would 12 chances have been enough? Perhaps 27? More? 

The argument is preposterous given the setting, and the facts and circumstances surrounding Slynt's execution. 

I get that some disagree w/ the sentence, and argue it was too harsh. I wholeheartedly disagree, but to each their own.

I also agree w/ @Ygrain regarding maiming and mutilation. But again, to each their own. 

And to make it easy to understand Martin gives us Jon's thoughts throughout. So, what is the argument now? Only one that could be attempted is that "Jon is lying to himself!" And frankly, seeing some of the arguments here I'm kinda surprised it hasn't been used yet. :lol:

TL;DR - to state that it was vengeance, personal, unjust is just plain wrong.

@Ygrain, couldn't add another quote by editing but Slynt playing charade! :lmao:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...