The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on vol 2

[The Lord of the Crossing]

5 hours ago, Wylla Manderly said:

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

So if Jon considered insubordination such a serious offense why did he let the most insubordinate Night's Watch brother who ever lived get away with it (Mance Rayder)?  Double-standards.  Jon is guilty of double-standards.  When there is double-standards there is no justice.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

g 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...

Quote

Payne seems adequate at being a guard, killer or just relatively common grunt.  You do realize most of the jobs for a steward don't really necessitate Slynt being able to really talk? Like butchering, hunting, and wielding and shooting it, hell just simple brick laying are all skills to which Slynt could do without being able to speak-he only needs to obey simple directions.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

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.

He has something to lose-his life. He could kill himself-which I don't really see how that is worse for the watch than flat out executing the guy. Slynt would be at greyguard, he'd be an out-shape, old, Joke, he couldn't possibly pose a threat to Jon given how far he is and how no one is going to support him now. I did not say people would find Slynt being mutilated would be more preferable-I said I can't anyone having really more outrage over it than Jon's executing the man and that it was more appropriate given the Watch's situation. 

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

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.

Yeah the lands that come within immediate vicinity of the greyguard are mostly known Stannis supporters who are alive and, can spare more than enough to find and hang the turncoats especially if they hear said turncoats are raping and pillaging their lands-they need supplies for winter.

And again it's almost winter, this hypothetical band of brothers (which are going to be very few-there's only 30 men at the castle and Slynt not being a commander would lucky to just get one-anymore is just a miracle)would have to be on the run constantly during a winter to which can last for years. 

The greyguard is literaly going to be seen as their best bet. Even if Slynt was in command-to which doesn't have to be. 

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

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

Quote

They don't respect him and think he's crazy for allowing thousands of "savages" inas well as trying to get a walker to study. Where are you getting executing Slynt got his followers to actually respect Jon? They feared him certianly(not a particularly given he leaves himself so vulnerable-I can't decide if it's naïveté or simple hubris), but to say any of the people apparently outraged at Slynt's  death would have respected Jon less or wouldn't respect him in general if Jon mutilated Slynt I find not reasonble.

[Bernie Mac]

5 hours ago, Wylla Manderly said:

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.

No, it is not.  He makes the decision in a split second. It was impulsive. 

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

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

except he was

"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.

 

If Jon did not think he was going to desert or plot against him in the future he would not have executed him. 

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

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

Hell I can't believe I forgot this but Stannis. Yeah, he took Davos' fingers tips for his smuggling. Like one of the mostappatently  "just guys in series used mutilation as punishment.

[Ygrain]

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, it is not.  He makes the decision in a split second. It was impulsive. 

impulsive:

"acting or done without forethought"

Dunno about you, but that part you have just quoted sounds awfully much like forethought to the decision to have Slynt executed. Jon is simply a fast thinker, so he is able to go through the alternatives on the spot.

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hell I can't believe I forgot this but Stannis. Yeah, he took Davos' fingers tips for his smuggling. Like one of the mostappatently  "just guys in series used mutilation as punishment.

You mean, the guy who consorted with a fire witch to murder his brother, and whom the moral compass of Westeros described as harsh? I don't know if GRRM intended Stannis to be likeable but I'm really not a Stannis fan, sorry.

[Ygrain]

27 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

If Jon did not think he was going to desert or plot against him in the future he would not have executed him. 

And if it wasn't for the mutinous insubordination, these reasons by themselves would have been no grounds to have Slynt executed.

[Unacosamedarisa]

8 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

You mean, the guy who consorted with a fire witch to murder his brother, and whom the moral compass of Westeros described as harsh?

He's also recently picked up the habit of burning people alive. 

[Bernie Mac]

38 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

impulsive:

"acting or done without forethought"

Dunno about you, but that part you have just quoted sounds awfully much like forethought to the decision to have Slynt executed. Jon is simply a fast thinker, so he is able to go through the alternatives on the spot.

It was done in a split second, it was impulsive, he chose to murder a man in a split second, man who he hated and wanted dead.  The chapter is pretty clear on Jon's hatred for the man and how changed his mind from a jail cell or tied to a donkey to execution. 

 

36 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

And if it wasn't for the mutinous insubordination, these reasons by themselves would have been no grounds to have Slynt executed.

A future 'mutiny' that may or may not happen is still Jon executing him for something he actually has not done. It is Jon who makes up these possible scenarios to justify him murdering him. 

It is not justice, being sentenced to death for future crimes you may or may not do is far from justice. 

 

 

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

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. 

What facts did I twist?  The person I replied to was, wrongly, under the impression that the crown had ordered Jon to be killed on Slynt's arrival. This is simply not true, Jon is unlikely to have even been on Tywin's radar at that point. 

9 hours 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.

He was also responsible for bringing a group of wildlings over the wall and murdering Qhornin Halfhand. 

There were doubts about were his loyalty lay by some. 

 

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

He's also recently picked up the habit of burning people alive. 

Which isn't all that much out of the ordinary, either, when we talk manners of execution. Maegor the Cruel had Poxy Jeyne burned alive, after some septon declared her witch. Burning was apparently one among many execution methods.

The idea that people in a medieval setting who behead people with their own hands are somehow 'better' than men who hang or burn people is pretty ridiculous. As is the idea 'good guys' in Westeros don't geld rapists, maim thieves, and put down all the many offenders who deserve to be executed by the laws and customs of the land.

This may be a fantasy novel, but it is not a fairy-tale setting.

Jon Snow shows with his behavior that he isn't a stickler to the rules. Take Robb - the boy made a fool of himself with the whole Jeyne affair, with his trust in Theon, with his very coronation. But we can at least he is a stickler for the rules. Rickard Karstark murdered some innocent boys without the leave of his king, and thus the man's life is forfeit, and Robb takes it upon himself to put down a man who was once one of his greatest supporters.

The Starks are nothing if rigid sticklers to the rules. Cregan Stark marched down south to restore Rhaenyra to the Iron Throne and put down Aegon II as the vile traitor and pretender that he was - yet when Aegon II was betrayed and poisoned by his own sworn men he took it upon himself avenge the king he himself had intended to kill and punish his murderers. Because treason is treason.

Eddard Stark went to war to avenge his father and brother, intending to put down the Mad King as the tyrant that he was - but when Tywin and Jaime Lannister feigned loyal to Aerys and murdered him and his family Eddard Stark - quite correctly - wanted those traitors and murderers punished, never mind that they had been involved in killing a man who had also been his enemy.

That's what real justice is. That's also what the Starks usually do. They do the right thing from their perspective, and they follow their own rigid (sometimes twisted, think of Arya) moral compass.

Jon Snow doesn't fit that profile.

And he actually knows that. He knows he deserted back in AGoT. He says so himself. He also knows fucking Ygritte was breaking his vow, just as telling the wildlings stuff and getting close to them was treason, too. Jon Snow is not stupid. And he is no coward. And he really doesn't need 'defenders' who want to twist his image so his is a knight in shining armor when in fact he is not. He is just a guy making tough choices and making mistakes who got away with way too much (if we compare him to other characters).

[Ygrain]

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

It was done in a split second, it was impulsive, he chose to murder a man in a split second, man who he hated and wanted dead.  The chapter is pretty clear on Jon's hatred for the man and how changed his mind from a jail cell or tied to a donkey to execution. 

Sigh. Impulsive doesn't mean just fast, impulsive means without thinking. Jon thought his decision through, therefore it wasn't impulsive. You can use a different wording to argue your case, e.g. didn't think it thoroughly enough because it was an on the spot decision, but you simply cannot say it was impulsive when it wasn't as Jon's thinking process is described black on white. 

 

Quote

A future 'mutiny' that may or may not happen is still Jon executing him for something he actually has not done. It is Jon who makes up these possible scenarios to justify him murdering him. 

It is not justice, being sentenced to death for future crimes you may or may not do is far from justice. 

I believe you ignored the question I poised somewhere above: when a judge passes a sentence in present-day legal system, isn't the future risk to the society taken into question when determining the severity of the sentence? That's exactly the same what Jon did. Do you have a problem with the judge taking into consideration the criminal's past record as well as character and extrapolating if the sentence is actually going to have any effect?

 

 

A side-note on the changes of European punitive system throughout the ages: mutilation and torture came to be considered inhumane long before the death penalty.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

Guess I'm back.

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

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? 

Why not just one chance? Why not check to see if he'd obey after being punished? Slynt's first punishment was execution.

I don't know if you've ever been told to do something you didn't want to do, but being told again doesn't often instill a desire to obey. Some form of incentive is needed (in this case, not being punished again would be fine incentive).

Jon's response to Slynt's initial refusal was to do absolutely nothing. Why should Slynt expect any other response from his continued refusal? Slynt should've been punished immediately. Continued refusal in the face of punishment shows refusal to change. Continued refusal in the face of nothing shows nothing. Slynt never had opportunity to change, because Jon had never given him reason to.

Being executed for a crime that, only one day prior, was met with no punishment is absurd. One chance would've been enough.

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

impulsive:

"acting or done without forethought"

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Impulsive doesn't mean just fast, impulsive means without thinking. Jon thought his decision through, therefore it wasn't impulsive. You can use a different wording to argue your case, e.g. didn't think it thoroughly enough because it was an on the spot decision, but you simply cannot say it was impulsive when it wasn't as Jon's thinking process is described black on white. 

If you're going to argue using the dictionary, you should look up forethought, too:

forethought:

"careful consideration of what will be necessary or may happen in the future."

Forethought isn't just thinking about something before doing it. It's careful consideration. Jon's thoughts when choosing to execute Slynt directly contradict his prior, more carefully considered thoughts. Impulsive fits just fine.

[The Sunland Lord]

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hell I can't believe I forgot this but Stannis. Yeah, he took Davos' fingers tips for his smuggling. Like one of the mostappatently  "just guys in series used mutilation as punishment.

Entirely different circumstances.

Davos was judged by Stannis for smuggling, after saving Storm's Enders lives with the formers' supplies. Knowing Stannis he'd probably would've judged Davos more harshly if he just cought him for smuggling btw. 

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I don't know if you've ever been told to do something you didn't want to do, but being told again doesn't often instill a desire to obey. Some form of incentive is needed (in this case, not being punished again would be fine incentive).

I'd say being told explicitely "this is your last chance" pretty much qualifies.

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

 

If you're going to argue using the dictionary, you should look up forethought, too:

forethought:

"careful consideration of what will be necessary or may happen in the future."

Forethought isn't just thinking about something before doing it. It's careful consideration. Jon's thoughts when choosing to execute Slynt directly contradict his prior, more carefully considered thoughts. Impulsive fits just fine.

The crux of forethought is, giving thought to future action. The crux of impulsive is, not giving thought to anything,  future action included. Try harder next time, and don't teach a linguist meanings of words.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/forethought

Deliberation, consideration, or planning for the future; foresight.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/forethought

BrE

1. 

advance consideration or deliberation

2. 

thoughtful anticipation of future events

AmE

1. 

a thinking or planning beforehand; premeditation

2. 

prudent thought for the future; foresight

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forethought 

1: a thinking or planning out in advance : premeditation

2: consideration for the future

 

 

[Ygrain]

10 hours ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

He's also recently picked up the habit of burning people alive. 

Well, yeah, that embarrassing little details, as well :-)

[kissdbyfire]

10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

What facts did I twist?  The person I replied to was, wrongly, under the impression that the crown had ordered Jon to be killed on Slynt's arrival. This is simply not true, Jon is unlikely to have even been on Tywin's radar at that point.

You said Slynt and Thorne sent Jon to treat w/ Mance because he was the only one suited for the job b/c he'd spent time w/ the free folk or something to that effect. And that is very obviously not true. While I agree that Tywin had nothing to do w/ it, they sent Jon to treat w/ Mance hoping he'd get killed.

Here it is, so you don't have to go looking for it:

"He sent him on the same task Jon had taken when Jon killed Qhorin Halfhand, the task was to kill Mance Rayder. Due to Jon's time with the Wildlings he was the only one in a position to get close enough to the king of the Willings. If he wanted him dead would he not simply have him murdered in his cell."

2 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Why not just one chance? Why not check to see if he'd obey after being punished? Slynt's first punishment was execution.

I'd be good w/ one chance. Give him the order, and if he refuses - even w/o all the insults and attitude, chop his head off right then and there.

Quote

I don't know if you've ever been told to do something you didn't want to do, but being told again doesn't often instill a desire to obey. Some form of incentive is needed (in this case, not being punished again would be fine incentive).

 

Yes, I have been in the past (as a child) and still am at times being told to do things I don't necessarily want to do (for instance, at work). 

But I am not a member of a military organisation in a medieval type setting, so I think this is a poor comparison.

Quote

Jon's response to Slynt's initial refusal was to do absolutely nothing. Why should Slynt expect any other response from his continued refusal? Slynt should've been punished immediately. Continued refusal in the face of punishment shows refusal to change. Continued refusal in the face of nothing shows nothing. Slynt never had opportunity to change, because Jon had never given him reason to.

Being executed for a crime that, only one day prior, was met with no punishment is absurd. One chance would've been enough.

This is a very silly argument. Jon gives Slynt the order in private, and tells him to be ready to leave the next morning. Slynt says he won't go, but Jon hopes that Slynt will change his mind after sleeping on it. Mind you, at that point Slynt had insulted Jon but the order hadn't been really refused yet since Slynt was only supposed to leave the next day. 

[Lady Winter Rose]

Execution of Janos Slynt is harsh punishment, but I don't think it isn't fair. TBH, Jon didn't have to say Janos to think twice. The moment Janos insulted Jon, he's dead meat, to Jon, to any Lord he may insulted instead.

[Darth Sidious]

18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

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

Confinement in the ice cells is the appropriate punishment for what Slynt did.  Execution is not.  Think harder, kissbyfire.

[Bullrout]

To Leonardo.  Reaction to your message to me from Damsel in Distress' post.  

What you say about Mance has some truth but letting him get away without punishment for his crimes is not justice.  It was unfair to Janos Slynt, Gared, and every other man who paid the ultimate price for breaking the laws of the watch.    The execution of one watch Brother for insubordination and then soon after to let another Brother get away with his crimes is not justice.  

Damsel in Distress set the parameters of the discussion.  The execution of Janos Slynt was not justice within those parameters.  It is actually not justice under any measure of fairness because Jon allowed Mance Rayder to get away with his crimes.  

 

[Darth Sidious]

It was unjust.  It was partly personal.  Driven by Jon's desire to get even for his father's death.  And his self-induced paranoia of what Janos Slynt might (emphasis on might) do in the future.

Janos Slynt was a broken man right before he was killed.  Jon could have and should have sent him to the cells for confinement.  He might even send him on to Greyguard as a lowly cook's assistant.   The man was done plotting.  To kill a broken man who finally agreed to follow orders is just butchery.  

 

[kissdbyfire]

47 minutes ago, Buell Rider said:

Confinement in the ice cells is the appropriate punishment for what Slynt did.  Execution is not.  Think harder, kissbyfire.

The appropriate punishment is whatever the LC of the NW decides it is. If you were the LC, you could have sent Slynt to the ice cells, or you could have given him a lollipop, or whatever. Only you are not the LC of the NW.