Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?

[Lord Lannister]

10 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

How many times is this going to be discussed in these forums?

Until everyone recognizes Jon is an evil person who deserved to be stabbed by Bowen clearly. 

[Odej]

30 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

How many times is this going to be discussed in these forums?

 

11 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

Great... another Janos Slynt, oppressed hero thread... 

Jon made plenty of questionable choices. Beheading Slynt wasn't one of them.

 

I'm new here so I had never discussed about, but I saw many coments in other posts of people saying Jon did the wrong thing. I really don't understand why they think that, for me Jon's decision was obviously right. So I wanted to know from those who disagree why they think that, but I've already reached the conclusion that it's just Jon hate, there's no other option.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Odej said:

 

I'm new here so I had never discussed about, but I saw many coments in other posts of people saying Jon did the wrong thing. I really don't understand why they think that, for me Jon's decision was obviously right. So I wanted to know from those who disagree why they think that, but I've already reached the conclusion that it's just Jon hate, there's no other option.

Some people struggle with the idea that this is a medieval world where capital punishment for murder, mutiny, insubordination, and treason is the norm, especially in armies.

[Thandros]

2 hours ago, Ivan Tsarevich said:

I don't think this line of reasoning really conforms to the ideal of justice... it should be blind, and people should not be punished for what they might do in the future. The primary function of the NW, however, is not to act as a court of law, or as a penal colony... it is a military organisation, and its raison d'être is not to mete out justice, but to protect the realms of men. If it were otherwise, then how could anyone be forgiven for their crimes even if they wished to take the black?

Actually it does conform to the ideas of justice. Considering whether a criminal would reoffend is something judges should and I believe do consider in sentencing. Janos has committed a crime. If spared death (death being a reasonable punishment which in this case you  could argue it is) he will commit further crimes and lead others possibly into committing crimes then enacting a punishment which will protect the innocent (relative term here) from his villainy would be in the spirit of justice. The idea of justice being blind I think means that it shouldn't be who you are that determines what happens to you. Instead it should be how you live your life, how you act and think and what you've done and why that determines how you are punished. Janos slynt is clearly a slime who'll do any horrible deed for his own advancement and has already tried to extrajudicially execute Jon for a crime other more reasonable people have basically taken the view he was innocent of. He had every reason to suspect Slynt would commit further crimes of a worse nature than his initial one and acted accordingly.

[James West]

Jon was not only wrong to murder Janos Slynt, he acted unjustly.  The murder of Janos Slynt was very inappropriate.  Jon was a failure at the wall because he lacked ethics.  I can see why Bowen Marsh felt the need to remove Jon.

[TheNecromancerofMirkwood]

9 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Makes sense. I goad my enemies with promotions all the time.

Bingo! Slynt was being promoted to command a fortress, not a small thing. But he would be away from Castle Black and his buddies like Marsh and he would be cold. But it was definitely a promotion.

[The Young Maester]

1 hour ago, Odej said:

 

I'm new here so I had never discussed about, but I saw many coments in other posts of people saying Jon did the wrong thing. I really don't understand why they think that, for me Jon's decision was obviously right. So I wanted to know from those who disagree why they think that, but I've already reached the conclusion that it's just Jon hate, there's no other option.

Yeah it’s no problem. Understandable why you’d start a thread about it.

Their is an old thread that is based on this topic. It has like a whopping 20 odd pages of absolute funny, and very bewildered content. This one

It might make your head hurt.

EDIT: Also their allot of more threads talking about it. Cant be asked to link it due to the high numbers that exist. But it gives you an idea of how much attention an event that involves a random nobody who’s whole purpose in this series was to be a tool gets.

[Kierria]

21 hours ago, Odej said:

Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers.

 What do you guys think of Jon's decision?

It was morally and politically a bad move.  Jon repeatedly received mercy for his own very bad behavior..  He deserted, assaulted Thorne, and rejected an assignment he didn't like.  Janos Slynt deserved mercy from Jon, the Lord Commander.  Jon got second, third chances.  Slynt at least deserved another chance.  Jon was a very dangerous ass of a commander.    

[Lord Lannister]

2 hours ago, Odej said:

 

I'm new here so I had never discussed about, but I saw many coments in other posts of people saying Jon did the wrong thing. I really don't understand why they think that, for me Jon's decision was obviously right. So I wanted to know from those who disagree why they think that, but I've already reached the conclusion that it's just Jon hate, there's no other option.

Well welcome! Sorry for jumping to conclusions with my first post. But yeah, Slyntgate is a thing. It's mostly just a smokescreen for Jon/Stark hating like you say,. 

There is a portion of the fan base for better or worse that's so into their favorite characters they not only have actively promote them, but discredit their rival characters. 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Bingo! Slynt was being promoted to command a fortress, not a small thing. But he would be away from Castle Black and his buddies like Marsh and he would be cold. But it was definitely a promotion.

A good officer would have seen it as an opportunity.  Slynt was a bad officer.

Still, it’s clear from Jon’s POV that he welcomed the chance to part Slynt’s “greasy head from his neck.”

That does not make it unjust, however.  The execution was quite legitimate.

[Darryk]

I think a part of Jon wanted revenge for Ned, else he may have dealt more leniently with Slynt.

That said, on a legal basis, he was completely within his rights to execution Slynt for treason.

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

I don't think this forum tackles this question enough.

 

[Nathan Stark]

39 minutes ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

I don't think this forum tackles this question enough.

 

I think this question gets too much time. It's pretty clearly a bad faith argument by those who only want to hate on a specific character.

[Loose Bolt]

6 hours ago, Kierria said:

Jon repeatedly received mercy for his own very bad behavior..  He deserted, assaulted Thorne, and rejected an assignment he didn't like.

In Westeros pedigree matters and in the North anyone with Stark blood is more equal than anyone without it. So son of butcher should have known his lower status and did not challenge his natural master. Or as member of master race Jon had right to execute a filthy peasant who dared to defy his authority.

[Hugorfonics]

8 hours ago, Odej said:

 

I'm new here so I had never discussed about, but I saw many coments in other posts of people saying Jon did the wrong thing. I really don't understand why they think that, for me Jon's decision was obviously right. So I wanted to know from those who disagree why they think that, but I've already reached the conclusion that it's just Jon hate, there's no other option.

I'll take that as my cue. So, right off the bat I'm not a Jon hater(I'm on your side), I think he's a good chap. I also think Jon was legally in his rights to do, well basically anything (for example marching on Ramsay, letting the wildlings in, not executing Mance, etc). Now having said all that, Jon Snow was murdered. If that was the plan then executing Janos was the correct move. But despite Jon's eagerness to ignore Melisandres warnings, I think we should assume Jon did not want to be murdered. So, yea, fucked up. Killing Janos was wrong wrong wrong. 

Over half of the voters at Castle Black at one time voted for Janos. (Bowen Marsh was his spokesmen!) The opposition party of Slynt was/is real, large, and extremely anti Snow. (Jon's father did bribe Janos into King making, he is a warg and did ride with the wildlings)

Jon gave Janos 24hrs to pack, or plot. The plot failed and not one member of the anti Snow Party did a thing. As the leader of the Anti Snow Party Janos was weak, stupid and ineffective. As it's martyr he birthed a tyrant. A few questionable calls later, followed by three quick stabs and executing Janos was not the correct move.

 

Despite GRRMs love of killing off his characters not one (excluding Prologues and Epilogues) has died without altering the plot. Thus Janos cannot be different

[FictionIsntReal]

On 12/28/2021 at 2:52 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

The only wrong there was not killing his co-conspirators, fetching a few more blocks wouldn't have tired Dolorous Edd that much.

Refusing an order was Janos' decision, not a "conspiracy". Alliser Thorne, for example, obeys Jon Snow's order even as he denounces him.

23 hours ago, Aebram said:

If Jon had punished Slynt but let him live, the man would have been resentful as well as disloyal. He'd have become an even bigger problem for Jon, and possibly a danger.

Speculative, and of course Jon himself engages in similar speculation about him being a danger (although a "bigger" one is another story, as he was already resentful of Jon beating him for LC).

21 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

Great... another Janos Slynt, oppressed hero thread... 

He has so many admirable qualities.

10 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

How many times is this going to be discussed in these forums?

Until GRRM gives people something else to talk about.

10 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

Until everyone recognizes Jon is an evil person who deserved to be stabbed by Bowen clearly. 

Those are actually separate issues. Jon arguably did violate his NW oaths, even if executing Slynt wasn't an example of that.

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

Some people struggle with the idea that this is a medieval world where capital punishment for murder, mutiny, insubordination, and treason is the norm, especially in armies.

Jon's own thoughts indicate that being thrown in an ice cell would be the normal punishment, but Slynt in particular is troublesome enough to kill right then.

9 hours ago, Thandros said:

Janos slynt is clearly a slime who'll do any horrible deed for his own advancement and has already tried to extrajudicially execute Jon for a crime other more reasonable people have basically taken the view he was innocent of.

Slynt & Jon have beef aside from this order. That interferes with the notion of justice being "blind". Jeor Mormont might have made a different decision if Slynt had similarly defied him.

9 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Slynt was being promoted to command a fortress, not a small thing. But he would be away from Castle Black and his buddies like Marsh and he would be cold. But it was definitely a promotion.

Jon was trying to do good while doing well. He wanted to improve the Wall by restoring a fortress, and also move an enemy away (part of his problem at the end is that too many of his friends were away). Janos Slynt is a relative newcomer to the Watch with no loyalty to the institution, and he served a political faction which denies any aid to the Watch and instead hopes the wildlings break through to hurt the separatists in the North.

7 hours ago, Kierria said:

and rejected an assignment he didn't like

When did Jon do that?

[TheNecromancerofMirkwood]

5 hours ago, Darryk said:

That said, on a legal basis, he was completely within his rights to execution Slynt for treason.

Repeated insubordination, not treason. A subtle, if fine, distinction. Had Slynt only disobeyed the first time, he would have been fine. But it was his public refusal in front of not just the Night's Watch, but also Stannis's men AND Melisandre's followers (yes, they technically are Stannis's...but we know the deal). Literally he made his bed and got his head struck off for it.

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Over half of the voters at Castle Black at one time voted for Janos. (Bowen Marsh was his spokesmen!) The opposition party of Slynt was/is real, large, and extremely anti Snow. 

In a military organization there are no parties. The men of the Night's Watch get to choose their Lord Commander, but once he has been chosen, there is no legitimate opposition party. Everybody is supposed to obey the one higher in rank and especially the Lord Commander, regardless of who they voted for during the election. In a war situation especially, you are not free to have your own agenda within a military organization. Slynt, with his military background, knew this well. The way I see it, he didn't have an "opposition party", but, moron as he was (and trusting "his friends in King's Landing"), he was probably used by Thorne to test how Jon would react to open defiance. If Slynt had been successful, it would have undermined Jon's authority, and would have been a clear sign that Thorne and Marsh could also do as they pleased. 

[Julia H.]

8 hours ago, Kierria said:

It was morally and politically a bad move.  Jon repeatedly received mercy for his own very bad behavior..  He deserted, assaulted Thorne, and rejected an assignment he didn't like.  Janos Slynt deserved mercy from Jon, the Lord Commander.  Jon got second, third chances.  Slynt at least deserved another chance.  

He deserted... He went about as far as Mole Town, then returned. Yes, he was planning to desert, but he didn't desert. Mormont admits that no boys get executed for riding to Mole Town at night if they are back and report for duty in time. Maester Aemons has spent a lifetime on the Wall, and he knows a lot about how things work there:

Quote

"A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose."

How many young boys may have ridden South from the Wall with the intentention of desertion at a difficult moment but turned back before it was too late with perhaps no one even knowing what their plan originally was? No one gets executed for thinking of desertion - it is not only for Jon's benefit that a certain tolerance exists and that there is a window within which these boys can turn back if they decide to stay. Without that, the Night's Watch would have even fewer men. Anyone can have a crisis, and as Aemon says, everyone must choose one day. 

 

Assaulted Thorne... Here we speak about a teenager in great distress on the one hand and an adult who is officially in a teacher / mentor position to him, who knows about the distress and uses this knowledge to provoke the teenager into an impulsive act of violence. How is Jon's action comparable to what Janos, an adult and seasoned military man did, knowingly and with cold calculation systematically undermining the authority of the Lord Commander, challenging him in front of the soldiers, not once but repeatedly disobeying his perfectly reasonable orders?

I don't know what you mean by Jon rejecting an assignment he did not like, but sure he did not do what Slynt did.

Speaking of second chances, Slynt got several chances from Jon. On top of that, for him the Wall was already a second chance, as he was sent there for his crimes. So, lots of chances. Jon had taken the black voluntarily, he had committed no crime to atone for to start with.

[Hugorfonics]

21 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

In a military organization there are no parties. The men of the Night's Watch get to choose their Lord Commander, but once he has been chosen, there is no legitimate opposition party. Everybody is supposed to obey the one higher in rank and especially the Lord Commander, regardless of who they voted for during the election. In a war situation especially, you are not free to have your own agenda within a military organization. Slynt, with his military background, knew this well

There should not be parties and certainly there's nothing formal like I kinda alluded too with the Anti Snow Slynt Party, but there are cliques. Mallister and Pyke being the most powerful but even small Chett like cliques can topple an Old Bear, nevermind that head conspirator Chett was dead when his nemesis was murdered (insert foreshadowing  music here)

30 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The way I see it, he didn't have an "opposition party", but, moron as he was (and trusting "his friends in King's Landing"), he was probably used by Thorne to test how Jon would react to open defiance. If Slynt had been successful, it would have undermined Jon's authority, and would have been a clear sign that Thorne and Marsh could also do as they pleased. 

Do they not?