The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on vol 2

[Minsc]

12 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

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.

This sounds more like wanting to engage Thorne himself, rather than order his execution.

And sorry but offing Thorne would ensure discipline because no Thorne, no plotting and undermining discipline.

He could have. Do you think that showing Thorne as incompetent would shame him less than being cheeky to him?

You must show me the part where Jon tells him to shove something up his arse. Also, I am not sure which insult you mean - the part where he told him he would love to see him teach Ghost juggle,, or whatever it was?

So now we're into demeaning Mormont?

He let Jon go off the hook for attacking Thorne because Jon had saved his life. Had the wights not attacked, Jon would have been punished somehow for the severe breach of discipline.

Other than that, there was nothing to punish.

 

Wanting your officers to start conflicts with you because you have personal grudges with them doesn't ensure discipline. Jon was thinking like a boy caring more about his grudge than the well being of the Watch. 

More than likely Jon feared that Jeor would side with Thorne. Thus he organized his fellow recruits to disobey direct orders. Jon actually did what he suggests Slynt would be guilty of when deciding to execute him. 

So telling someone to shove something up their arse is what is required for execution?  Jon both mocked and physically attacked Thorne on multiple occasions. 

Jeor was an awful commander that ruled through favoritism. 

The Wrights occurred the night of Jon's attack on Thorne at best. If Slynt deserves execution for disobeying Jon and insulting him. Then surely Jon deserved a quicker punishment than just being sent to his room for a day for attacking a superior. Jon did it in full view of Jeor to boot.  

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, Minsc said:

Wanting your officers to start conflicts with you because you have personal grudges with them doesn't ensure discipline. Jon was thinking like a boy caring more about his grudge than the well being of the Watch. 

But this is not just about Jon's personal grudge, it's also about Thorne being Slynt's conspirator. If Thorne oversteps, no more conspiring. 

2 hours ago, Minsc said:

More than likely Jon feared that Jeor would side with Thorne.

Any textual support for such an assessment?

2 hours ago, Minsc said:

Thus he organized his fellow recruits to disobey direct orders. Jon actually did what he suggests Slynt would be guilty of when deciding to execute him. 

Wow. Just wow. Do you really think that GRRM wanted the readers to think that Thorne was in the right here?

2 hours ago, Minsc said:

So telling someone to shove something up their arse is what is required for execution?  Jon both mocked and physically attacked Thorne on multiple occasions. 

You know what? You claim the situations are comparable, collect the quotes and occasions on which Jon mocks Thorne, and let's take a look.

2 hours ago, Minsc said:

Jeor was an awful commander that ruled through favoritism. 

Bullshit.

2 hours ago, Minsc said:

The Wrights occurred the night of Jon's attack on Thorne at best. If Slynt deserves execution for disobeying Jon and insulting him. Then surely Jon deserved a quicker punishment than just being sent to his room for a day for attacking a superior. Jon did it in full view of Jeor to boot.  

You need to re-read your ASOIAF. Jon was to be confined in his room until Mormont convened with his officers what was to be done with him. The confinement wasn't a punishment, it was imprisonment until punishment was decided.

[Lord Varys]

Jon was undermining discipline and morale at the Wall when he was mocking Alliser Thorne, the master-at-arms at Castle Black. He did a nice thing for his friends but he did undermine the discipline and morale at the Watch.

It is a double standard on side of the reader to side with Jon there because Thorne was a thug - but what if he had been a good instructor and Jon had just not liked him?

In a military institution you also obey the fucking chain of command. You don't go through informal channels and try to change policy but you accept that your superiors know best and do your fucking duty. Going through Aemon was a huge breach of protocol and actually approaching the Lord Commander would have been even worse.

The one to complain about that the training is bad is the master-at-arms, not his superior officers. Because as recruits you are in the charge of the master-at-arms, not somebody else.

Jon is a great friend (or was it, until he became Lord Commander - then he was a shitty friend for no reason) but he was a lousy recruit and should definitely not have been rewarded for his behavior the way he was. He never sees the Watch as a place where he can do his fucking duty - he always sees it as place he can use to become a great ranger. To win the very glory his is forbidden to win by his vow.

Thorne has every right to be pissed about Jon Snow. The boy messed with things he had no right to involve himself with, and he did that from the start.

This doesn't mean he isn't an ass. It just means Jon broke the rules of the military institution he was living in from the start.

And, sure, Mormont wasn't exactly the greatest commander. Giving Waymar a command was favoritism ... and stupidity. Naming Thorne master-at-arms in the first place was ... incompetence. They need Tyrion to see that Thorne isn't exactly a great instructor when one look at the yard would have been enough. One talk with a recruit going through the training of Alliser Thorne. The idea of the great ranging also turned out to suck ... as expected in light of the fact that they were dealing with an army of zombies on their lands.

[MostlyMoody]

Tbh I've been swayed by the pro-Jon arguments.

I too now agree that he is a one-dimensional, boring character with no emotions.

=]

[Varysblackfyre321]

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Jon was undermining discipline and morale at the Wall when he was mocking Alliser Thorne, the master-at-arms at Castle Black. He did a nice thing for his friends but he did undermine the discipline and morale at the Watch.

 

 

True to a degree.  Jon has no right to threaten(especially with death), cajole or shame, the other recruits into disobeying Alliser's directions(even if Jon thinks their dumb), and his behavior should justify reprimand. I mean even in modern day if a new military recruit cajoled, threatened or shamed, his peers to not follow the lawful orders of their drill-sergent would anyone be actually say that recruit doesn't deserve chastisement. Of course not.. Don't see him acting too innapriopate through trying to get Aemon to take Sam under his wing.  I agree his actual conduct makes Mormont's taking the boy as his steward clear that Jon isn't being chosen because of his exemplary acts conduct.  Dissapointed Mormont didn't ever punish Jon for this, or really anything he did(he execute Jon for trying to stab Thorne's face but let him know such behavior will have reprecussions).

 

 

[Rufus Snow]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What else would be the reason why Ned doesn't maim or mutilate people? He is a lord, he has the power. And he does behead people with his own hands. He would have no issues with cutting off noses, hands, feet, balls, etc. - because all that are, in this world, actually minor punishments. The people still live afterwards. They are not dead.

'Friend of the Watch' Ned can simply send them to the Wall, then wait for them to run back. If they do, fine. Head off.

I admit I am just making an assumption here, and so are you. But my assumption is a lot simpler to administer, it serves the North (criminals removed) and the Watch (able-bodied recruits) and I also believe it better suits the personality of the character as written. GRRM writes a man who is dutiful, and will administer justice as part of that duty. He doesn't revel in it. We only 'see' two acts of justice (that I can recall) at Ned's hands as Warden of the North: the execution of Gared, and the exiling of Jorah Mormont. I think if Ned was going to mutilate anyone, Jorah would have been in line for it... but that's an assumption, too, of course.

 

 

[kissdbyfire]

14 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

'Friend of the Watch' Ned can simply send them to the Wall, then wait for them to run back. If they do, fine. Head off.

I admit I am just making an assumption here, and so are you. But my assumption is a lot simpler to administer, it serves the North (criminals removed) and the Watch (able-bodied recruits) and I also believe it better suits the personality of the character as written. GRRM writes a man who is dutiful, and will administer justice as part of that duty. He doesn't revel in it. We only 'see' two acts of justice (that I can recall) at Ned's hands as Warden of the North: the execution of Gared, and the exiling of Jorah Mormont. I think if Ned was going to mutilate anyone, Jorah would have been in line for it... but that's an assumption, too, of course.

And will add what I said up thread: Ned understands the needs of the NW better than most, and definitely better than any other high lord/lord in a position to punish criminals. It makes a lot more sense for him to send lesser offenders, or those offenders he will not sentence to death, to the Wall instead of maiming and mutilating them. 

And he meant to chop Jorah's head off, only Jorah exiled himself before Ned could get to him. 

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

'Friend of the Watch' Ned can simply send them to the Wall, then wait for them to run back. If they do, fine. Head off.

No, you cannot send just any criminal to the Watch. The criminal actually has to agree to go there. If he doesn't want to go you can't send him against his will. Criminals end up at the Watch when they are given a choice between the proper punishment and taking the black.

Many take the black in such scenarios but not all of them. Losing a finger or getting your nose slit might very well be preferable to end up at the Watch, especially if you have something to lose - a farm, say, a family, etc.

In addition - you do recall that Cregan Stark actually wanted to execute all the people he found guilty of murdering King Aegon II, right? It was apparently Ser Perkin the Flea who demanded to be allowed to take the black, and many of the other condemned men followed his lead (all but the Kingsguard fellow and Larys Strong), implying that Lord Cregan actually had no intention to sending those men to the Wall.

Cregan seems to be a stronger version of Ned. A man roughly in his same age who was following a similar set of rules. Cregan could punish the king's murderers - Ned couldn't after the murder of Aerys and his family. But he wanted to, just like his ancestor Cregan Stark.

Also, if you are a friend of the Watch you don't want to drown the men there in scum and criminals. You want that good and honorable men take the black.

A Stark would likely not deny you the wish to the take the black if you declare you want to do it - like Luwin urged Theon to do, indicating that Ser Rodrik would most likely agree - but I'm pretty sure they are, on average, more inclined to see criminals dead or punished according to their crime then to send them to the Wall.

Quote

I admit I am just making an assumption here, and so are you. But my assumption is a lot simpler to administer, it serves the North (criminals removed) and the Watch (able-bodied recruits) and I also believe it better suits the personality of the character as written. GRRM writes a man who is dutiful, and will administer justice as part of that duty. He doesn't revel in it. We only 'see' two acts of justice (that I can recall) at Ned's hands as Warden of the North: the execution of Gared, and the exiling of Jorah Mormont. I think if Ned was going to mutilate anyone, Jorah would have been in line for it... but that's an assumption, too, of course.

Oh, I never said I think Ned would have liked to maim or mutilate people - just that I think he would have done it, anyway, because it was part of the job of being a lord. Whether the whole First Men thing means you have to do your maiming and mutilating yourself, too, is unclear at this point, but one actually assumes it means just that. Which also means most of the men living by the rules of the Starks would be very experienced maimers, mutilaters, and executioners (and the worse Starks would also be very experienced torturers).

Overall, mutilation and maiming seems to be more reserved for commoners. Nobles would likely get away with a fine or be not punished at all for minor offenses. But when we are talking execution vs. another sentence then this possibility comes up, of course.

Mormont wasn't exiled, by the way. Ned came to execute him and the man fled. And he apparently no intention to send him to the Wall - presumably because a man such as this was unsuited to serve beside a man like Benjen Stark.

[Rufus Snow]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Mormont wasn't exiled, by the way. Ned came to execute him and the man fled. And he apparently no intention to send him to the Wall - presumably because a man such as this was unsuited to serve beside a man like Benjen Stark.

 

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And he meant to chop Jorah's head off, only Jorah exiled himself before Ned could get to him. 

Thank you, both. I was mis-remembering...

 

As to the bolded, that's another assumption. It's just a 'what if...', we simply don't know whether or not Ned would allow Jorah to beg for the Wall the second he saw Ice, as it never came to that. I believe part of the stricture to 'swing the sword' is to allow the man who passes the sentence to have a final reconsideration, so it can't be ruled out for Jorah with any certainty.

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, you cannot send just any criminal to the Watch. The criminal actually has to agree to go there. If he doesn't want to go you can't send him against his will. Criminals end up at the Watch when they are given a choice between the proper punishment and taking the black.

Well, that may be how it's supposed to go, but Rorge, Biter and Jaqen were so 'willing' that they had to be chained to a cart, for one instance...

Unfortunately, there's just not enough in the text to settle this little diversion, though my personal preference would be for crims in the north being offered the choice between the Wall or being used for tree decorations...

[Minsc]

5 hours ago, Ygrain said:

But this is not just about Jon's personal grudge, it's also about Thorne being Slynt's conspirator. If Thorne oversteps, no more conspiring. 

Wow. Just wow. Do you really think that GRRM wanted the readers to think that Thorne was in the right here?

You know what? You claim the situations are comparable, collect the quotes and occasions on which Jon mocks Thorne, and let's take a look.

Bullshit.

You need to re-read your ASOIAF. Jon was to be confined in his room until Mormont convened with his officers what was to be done with him. The confinement wasn't a punishment, it was imprisonment until punishment was decided.

Once more a good commander wouldn't want one of his officer to fight his orders. Jon is hoping here that one does because he has long personal grudge against them. 

I have agreed that Jon's actions are more sympathetic. However, one isn't excused from disobeying orders in the military just because that seems a nice thing to do. Readers can sympathize with Jon, but that doesn't mean the NW should allow it. 

Jeor makes awful decision after awful decision throughout the books. 

There was little logic for why Jeor should need to convene the officers to make a decision. Jon had openly attacked a superior officer with a knife. Furthermore, Jeor had witnessed Jon's attempt himself. Did Jon require a gathering of officers to decide Slynt's fate? If Thorne had pulled steel would Jon have asked his officers how to react. Nope, Jon would have executed both with no problem.

Jeor on the other hand went easy on Jon out of favoritism for his status as a Stark bastard. If Jon had just been a common recruit and had attacked an officer Jeor wouldn't have delayed the punishment. Rather his head would either be on a block before evening or his confiment would be in the ice cells not his own room. 

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

even in modern day if a new military recruit cajoled, threatened or shamed, his peers to not follow the lawful orders of their drill-sergent would anyone be actually say that recruit doesn't deserve chastisement.

Note the bolded. I'm pretty sure that if the drill-sergeant's orders led to one of their peer's humiliation and injury, the recruits would be perfectly legitimate not to follow such orders.

[Rufus Snow]

16 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Once more a good commander wouldn't want one of his officer to fight his orders. Jon is hoping here that one does because he has long personal grudge against them. 

No, he wants Thorne to 'put a foot wrong', because as things stand, Jon knows - heck, everyone knows -  that Thorne is acting against him behind his back, but Jon is unable to counter that because Thorne has done nothing openly, yet...

16 minutes ago, Minsc said:

I have agreed that Jon's actions are more sympathetic. However, one isn't excused from disobeying orders in the military just because that seems a nice thing to do. Readers can sympathize with Jon, but that doesn't mean the NW should allow it. 

Jeor makes awful decision after awful decision throughout the books. 

There was little logic for why Jeor should need to convene the officers to make a decision. Jon had openly attacked a superior officer with a knife. Furthermore, Jeor had witnessed Jon's attempt himself. Did Jon require a gathering of officers to decide Slynt's fate? If Thorne had pulled steel would Jon have asked his officers how to react. Nope, Jon would have executed both with no problem.

Now, here I disagree - I don't think Jon expected to execute Thorne, he expected to FIGHT him. It would finally bring Thorne's treachery fully into the open, and Jon would defeat him in a head-to-head fight, call it trial by combat if you like.

The question is whether all of Slynt/Thorne's croneys would stand with them and thereby begin a civil war within the Watch. Whatever happened, if Thorne drew his sword, then the situation would no longer be boiling under the surface, but the factions would be declared and in open conflict.

16 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Jeor on the other hand went easy on Jon out of favoritism for his status as a Stark bastard. If Jon had just been a common recruit and had attacked an officer Jeor wouldn't have delayed the punishment. Rather his head would either be on a block before evening or his confiment would be in the ice cells not his own room. 

He didn't 'delay punishment', he delayed a judgment. There was clearly more than Jon's actions to consider. Thorne had provoked the attack, almost certainly deliberately, and Mormont had to consider the whole situation. I believe it was supper time, so not a good time to start proceedings, the day was nearly done. Jon was remanded pending judgment; I don't think it's stated what happened to Thorne, but he was no innocent either.

As to 'favoritism for his status as a Stark bastard', spoken like someone who's never had to check their own privilege. Yes, this is a feudal society where people's status is due mostly to birth. It runs top to bottom, north to south, and sunrise to sunset. It's not personal. It's just the water they swim in. Thorne gets more than he's worth because he's a knight, Slynt gets to blather on about his lordship despite being born a butcher's whelp, Cotter Pyke might have earned a command, but they still sneer at his bastardy. Granting someone their status is not 'favouritism', it is simply the way things are done. You and I may take exception to it from outside that universe, but inside that universe, you'd have to be a madman to say so.

[Minsc]

So Jon would have just ordered the other brothers of the NW to stand aside and allow him and Thorne to duel it out? That seems doubtful, but even if that was the case it just absolutely sacrificing all pretensions of caring about ensuring discipline and morale in the NW. Moreover, what would be Jon's response if in said duel it ends with Thorne cleaning Jon's cloak?  Does Jon then resign as Lord Commander and had over his command?

No there wasn't more to consider. Jon had attacked a superior officer with a knife in front of Jeor's own eyes. Thorne calling Jon a bastard and referencing the news of Ned's treason doesn't excuse that in the slightest. In a place like the NW one cannot have possibility of discipline if one allows the attacking of brothers much less superiors over insults. Heck, maybe Slynt should be excused from ignoring orders as he believes Jon was being rude.

[teej6]

13 minutes ago, Minsc said:

So Jon would have just ordered the other brothers of the NW to stand aside and allow him and Thorne to duel it out? That seems doubtful, but even if that was the case it just absolutely sacrificing all pretensions of caring about ensuring discipline and morale in the NW. Moreover, what would be Jon's response if in said duel it ends with Thorne cleaning Jon's cloak?  Does Jon then resign as Lord Commander and had over his command?

No there wasn't more to consider. Jon had attacked a superior officer with a knife in front of Jeor's own eyes. Thorne calling Jon a bastard and referencing the news of Ned's treason doesn't excuse that in the slightest. In a place like the NW one cannot have possibility of discipline if one allows the attacking of brothers much less superiors over insults. Heck, maybe Slynt should be excused from ignoring orders as he believes Jon was being rude.

You keep going on about the Thorne situation but if you look at the text it was Thorne who went for his sword first: ”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.” Thorne went for his sword with no provocation on Jon’s part. What did you expect Jon to think or do in such a situation? Any brilliant suggestions? Thorne is a known toadie of Slynt who dislikes Jon and he’s reaching for his sword and you have Jon thinking go on... give me a cause to do the same, which is completely normal and justified under the circumstances. Or are you suggesting Jon should just give Thorne a big hug and say cheers? If you read through, Thorne backs down cause he knows he’s in the wrong and drawing sword against the LC would mean mutiny. As for men’s morale, again Jon did nothing to provoke Thorne and his thoughts are a consequence of Thorne’s actions and not the other way around.

As to the bolded, could you show me where in the text it states that Jon attacked Thorne “in front of Jeor’s own eyes”? You can’t cause there’s no such text. Mormont may or may not have been in the common hall, we don’t know cause the text does not state/indicate that he was present, and since we know that Mormont was accustomed to taking his meals in his chambers, it’s safe to assume he wasn’t.

As to Mormont not punishing Jon, that’s just BS. We know Jon was relieved of his duty and confined to his cell until Mormont and the officers decided on what to do with him. Can you show me any passage in the text that Mormont or any other officer was contemplating to let Jon off the hook before Othor? No you can’t? Do we know what punishment Jon would have received had Othor not happened? No we don’t. So your argument that Jon was not punished appropriately for attacking Thorne does not hold much weight. We have insufficient information on what or how severe Jon’s punishment would have been because GRRM decided to change the narrative at that exact moment. Infact, Mormont’s following statement to Jon: “And to think I had high hopes for you” should tell you that Jon’s future was bleak if anything.

[Rufus Snow]

41 minutes ago, Minsc said:

So Jon would have just ordered the other brothers of the NW to stand aside and allow him and Thorne to duel it out?

It could go either way: either everyone stands in shocked awe and watches Jon kill Thorne in self defence, or else everyone piles in - but it's all a 'what if' because Thorne backed down. We have to deal with what was written, not what wasn't written - and what was written was that Thorne reached for his sword, and Jon thought about the possibility of bringing the conflict to a head.

55 minutes ago, Minsc said:

No there wasn't more to consider.

Constant goading by a known bully is good for morale, too, is it? These days it's generally known as 'beasting' or 'hazing', and it's a disciplinary matter.

 

59 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Heck, maybe Slynt should be excused from ignoring orders as he believes Jon was being rude.

The core point of the thread, was Slynt's punishment justified. Slynt's offense wasn't 'ignoring orders', it was mutiny. He flat out says he will not follow orders. In the plural; not one order, but any order, all orders, he put himself outside the chain of command. That is mutiny.

Quote

 A Dance with Dragons - Jon II
I am giving you a chance, my lord. It is more than you ever gave my father. "You mistake me, my lord," Jon said. "That was a command, not an offer. It is forty leagues to Greyguard. Pack up your arms and armor, say your farewells, and be ready to depart at first light on the morrow."
"No." Lord Janos lurched to his feet, sending his chair crashing over backwards. "I will not go meekly off to freeze and die. No traitor's bastard gives commands to Janos Slynt! I am not without friends, I warn you. Here, and in King's Landing too. I was the Lord of Harrenhal! Give your ruin to one of the blind fools who cast a stone for you, I will not have it. Do you hear me, boy? I will not have it!"
"You will."
Slynt did not deign to answer that, but he kicked the chair aside as he departed.
He still sees me as a boy, Jon thought, a green boy, to be cowed by angry words. He could only hope that a night's sleep would bring Lord Janos to his senses.
The next morning proved that hope was vain.
Jon found Slynt breaking his fast in the common room. Ser Alliser Thorne was with him, and several of their cronies. They were laughing about something when Jon came down the steps with Iron Emmett and Dolorous Edd, and behind them Mully, Horse, Red Jack Crabb, Rusty Flowers, and Owen the Oaf. Three-Finger Hobb was ladling out porridge from his kettle. Queen's men, king's men, and black brothers sat at their separate tables, some bent over bowls of porridge, others filling their bellies with fried bread and bacon. Jon saw Pyp and Grenn at one table, Bowen Marsh at another. The air smelled of smoke and grease, and the clatter of knives and spoons echoed off the vaulted ceiling.
All the voices died at once.
"Lord Janos," Jon said, "I will give you one last chance. Put down that spoon and get to the stables. I have had your horse saddled and bridled. It is a long, hard road to Greyguard."
"Then you had best be on your way, boy." Slynt laughed, dribbling porridge down his chest. "Greyguard's a good place for the likes of you, I'm thinking. Well away from decent godly folk. The mark of the beast is on you, bastard."
"You are refusing to obey my order?"
"You can stick your order up your bastard's arse," said Slynt, his jowls quivering.
Alliser Thorne smiled a thin smile, his black eyes fixed on Jon. At another table, Godry the Giantslayer began to laugh.
"As you will." Jon nodded to Iron Emmett. "Please take Lord Janos to the Wall-"

 

[the trees have eyes]

I gotta bring out the old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

The people who endlessly repeat that Slynt did not deserve death simply don't think in a way that the people for whom his execution is entirely justified and unremarkable (in the context of Westeros) are ever going to be able to communicate with effectively.  You'll never find a way of expressing an argument that will reach them.  It might seem obvious from the text that GRRM wanted to have Jon conflicted over Slynt yet prepared to use him until he tried to destroy Jon's command in public.  You can quote as much and as often as you want to illustrate this point but there are two or three people in this and the previous threads who simply won't hear it: the fact that Jon was conflicted in the first place overrides everything else for them and although I find that a facile interpretation bordering on the obtuse you have to accept that there are some people who simply don't and won't shift from that position.

Given this thread seems largely to express the same arguments as the first two and to have the same posters expressing the same points in almost the same language it begins to feel like madness.

I'll just say again GRRM has given the best advocacy of an independent judiciary you could want.  For some people Slynt could do anything and Jon would be "unjust" in executing him.  The principle of an independent judiciary is of course incontestable but you would need a much greyer example of a potential miscarriage of justice to make me think he was trying to illustrate that point.

PS I gave up at P4 so if you all found a way out of this box I take it all back 

PPS I'm still shocked that one guy is still advocating that Jon should have cut Slynt's tongue out.  Oh, and he seems to have won a couple of converts too.  Maybe it's the heat  I'might lie down and put a wet towel on my head....

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

I gotta bring out the old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

The people who endlessly repeat that Slynt did not deserve death simply don't think in a way that the people for whom his execution is entirely justified and unremarkable (in the context of Westeros) are ever going to be able to communicate with effectively.  You'll never find a way of expressing an argument that will reach them.  It might seem obvious from the text that GRRM wanted to have Jon conflicted over Slynt yet prepared to use him until he tried to destroy Jon's command in public.  You can quote as much and as often as you want to illustrate this point but there are two or three people in this and the previous threads who simply won't hear it: the fact that Jon was conflicted in the first place overrides everything else for them and although I find that a facile interpretation bordering on the obtuse you have to accept that there are some people who simply don't and won't shift from that position.

Given this thread seems largely to express the same arguments as the first two and to have the same posters expressing the same points in almost the same language it begins to feel like madness.

Well put. 

2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'll just say again GRRM has given the best advocacy of an independent judiciary you could want.  For some people Slynt could do anything and Jon would be "unjust" in executing him. 

One of the main issues IMO.

Jon had reasons to dislike and distrust Slynt, but that doesn't mean his decision was made because of those feelings. That's why we have his thoughts throughout. Alas...

2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

The principle of an independent judiciary is of course incontestable but you would need a much greyer example of a potential miscarriage of justice to make me think he was trying to illustrate that point.

PS I gave up at P4 so if you all found a way out of this box I take it all back 

You may have missed a few good chuckles, but nothing new in terms or arguments and such.

2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

PPS I'm still shocked that one guy is still advocating that Jon should have cut Slynt's tongue out.  Oh, and he seems to have won a couple of converts too.  Maybe it's the heat  I'might lie down and put a wet towel on my head....

Beer helps a lot too. In very large quantities.

[Minsc]

22 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

It could go either way: either everyone stands in shocked awe and watches Jon kill Thorne in self defence, or else everyone piles in - but it's all a 'what if' because Thorne backed down. We have to deal with what was written, not what wasn't written - and what was written was that Thorne reached for his sword, and Jon thought about the possibility of bringing the conflict to a head.

Constant goading by a known bully is good for morale, too, is it? These days it's generally known as 'beasting' or 'hazing', and it's a disciplinary matter.

 

The core point of the thread, was Slynt's punishment justified. Slynt's offense wasn't 'ignoring orders', it was mutiny. He flat out says he will not follow orders. In the plural; not one order, but any order, all orders, he put himself outside the chain of command. That is mutiny.

 

So if Thorne cleans Jon's cloak what is Jon's response?  Jon was hoping that Thorne would draw into a conflict.  Thorne acted more mature than Jon at that point with him backing down. 

Jeor had allowed that to foster with him turning a blind eye to both Jon and Thorne being snide to each other in the past. Jon's actions took it to far into the realm of physically attacking the other. If Thorne had taken a weapon and bashed Jon's face in after Jon mocked him than Thorne should have faced harsh penalty and we wouldn't sympathize with him. 

Jon was repeatedly rude to Slynt with him even calling Slynt a murderer for his arrest of Jon's father. Surely Slynt felt he was being hazed by Jon. 

[Minsc]

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Note the bolded. I'm pretty sure that if the drill-sergeant's orders led to one of their peer's humiliation and injury, the recruits would be perfectly legitimate not to follow such orders.

I highly doubt most in Westeros would object to Thorne's training methods. Furthermore, Jon resorted to physically threatening another recruit to achieve his goals. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

19 hours ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

On the second repost!  Amazing.  

Slynt's Insubordination versus Jon's attack on Alliser Thorne

I believe the watch is lenient and tolerant.  The Order is made up of men.  Testosterone is in the air.  Outbursts are tolerated or leniently punished because it's men blowing off steam.  Jon's attempted killing of Ser Alliser is an extreme outbursts but it was leniently dealt with and nobody seemed very surprised.  This is a place for men where such things happen between men.  Janos' insubordination is less offensive compared to what Jon did.  Did anybody respect Ser Alliser less because Jon tried to kill him?  I don't think so.  It's just plain silly assumption from the readers to think Jon will be less respected if he showed mercy to Janos.  He might actually win some of Janos' supporters by showing he can be fair.  

Jon is an emotional time bomb with a short fuse.

Jon has a dangerous and violent temper.  He's like a pressurized container of anger and rage.  We first saw this during Robert's visit to Winterfell during the chapter scene in the dining halls.  He is way more volatile than his Uncle Brandon Stark.  At least Brandon can control his urge to finish off Petyr.  

Jon is an emotional wreck.  Which can lead support for R+L=J because a few male Targaryens have had very volatile tempers.  Jon would fit right in with the dragon males who showed emotional instability.  He knows something is wrong in his mind.  The mental wheel starts turning and he starts making all kinds of stupid justifications for why he should instead scratch his itch to do what he knows is wrong.  We witnessed this emotional issue here at Janos execution.  We see it again in the mission to find Arya.  Jon doesn't want to get Arya because it's a violation of his vows.  He sends Mance though because the wildling man doesn't bother with vows.  Jon's hand gets caught and he chooses wildlings to escort him to attack Roose Bolton.  He says in his mind "at least no one can accuse me of making my brothers betray their oaths".  Which is bull because he sent brother Mance to get Arya.  Mance is still a brother of the watch. He is as much crow as anybody who took the black.   Jon corrupted Ed Tollett when he involved the brother to carry the spear wives from Mole's Town and made him part of his illegal mission.  

Slynt is a future threat to Jon's authority???

I do not think so.  Not after Slynt cowered in public.  Jon might actually have won over some of these men if he had stopped right there.  But he made more enemies by killing Slynt.  The silent kind.  Which is more dangerous.  It was politically stupid to kill Slynt.  

 

I said as much on the first version of this thread.  The watch show a lot of tolerance because the men come from so many backgrounds.  Their past lives prepared them differently.  Friction will happen and tempers will break.  Two brothers getting into fist fights and insulting each other do not justify their execution.  Likewise, insubordination do not justify the execution of the person.  Execution is for desertion.