Jump to content

Aerys' Madness is no Excuse


Craving Peaches

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

I mean, he's mad mad.

At the time where he gave the order I don't think he was mad mad though. Because he understands the consequences of his action and he has rationalised a reason for doing so. So he's not completely lost touch with reality, which is what I believe would be required for him to be not guilty.

12 minutes ago, frenin said:

The question is... ¿Why no one stopped this?

Because 'muh honour' or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think GRRM really explores the notion of how madness or insanity factors into one's agency of action. I think it's pretty clear that Aerys is a horrible person because of his cruelties. His Targaryen madness reflects one of the costs of their magical power. The dragon ruler dynasty is full of sick, incestuous, self-obsessed elitists who grow paranoid about the prospect of losing their power. Despite their real power and their in-story lore as the wise rulers of the world, their inner weaknesses are as clear as day.

Now, I do think GRRM uses Arya, Bran, and Sansa to explore the lines between innocence and culpability. Certainly Arya has done some terrible things, Bran has committed supernatural abominations, and Sansa may soon play some role in Sweetrobin's murder, wittingly or otherwise. It's pretty obvious that they are walking down some dark paths, though where exactly they are on the path of culpability is not exactly clear. I imagine that they will pull back at some point, and that will reveal something about their own inner strengths, despite the tarnish of their transgressions remaining.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I don't think GRRM really explores the notion of how madness or insanity factors into one's agency of action. I think it's pretty clear that Aerys is a horrible person because of his cruelties. His Targaryen madness reflects one of the costs of their magical power. The dragon ruler dynasty is full of sick, incestuous, self-obsessed elitists who grow paranoid about the prospect of losing their power. Despite their real power and their in-story lore as the wise rulers of the world, their inner weaknesses are as clear as day.

Now, I do think GRRM uses Arya, Bran, and Sansa to explore the lines between innocence and culpability. Certainly Arya has done some terrible things, Bran has committed supernatural abominations, and Sansa may soon play some role in Sweetrobin's murder, wittingly or otherwise. It's pretty obvious that they are walking down some dark paths, though where exactly they are on the path of culpability is not exactly clear. I imagine that they will pull back at some point, and that will reveal something about their own inner strengths, despite the tarnish of their transgressions remaining.

 

In the case of Arya, Bran, and Sansa (if Sansa does become a murderer) there are mitigating factors.  Namely, they are children, who have had appalling things done to them.  

Arya has had to witness the murder of those she loved, and is full of rage at the world.  Bran has been part-paralysed, and is being manipulated by a creepy tree god.  Sansa has had to witness the murder of her father, abuse at the hands of the Lannisters, attempted murder by her aunt, and is in the hands of a creepy paedophile.

Those are all big extenuating factors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He probably is. I've had close experience with persons that suffers chronic psychotic outbreaks (my best friend has been hospitalized over and over because of this) and while they are in one of these outbreaks, they are not deluded or alien to reality, but their mindset gets completely warped. Besides, it is said that Aerys II was a somewhat normal youth, although excentric. Key events deepened his irrational side over the years.

Modern mental health terms cannot be applied to Westeros. I don't recall any maester adressing those issues as we do now, so I just keep with mad, a word that in the case of Aerys II is more or less the same as psychotic.

On 10/12/2022 at 4:09 PM, Craving Peaches said:

It does not excuse the attrocities he commited. Quite simply because, in my opinon, he isn't really that mad, at least not mad enough.

Did he have delusions of grandeur? Certainly.

Is he paranoid? Absolutely.

But this does not make him pyschotic.

Similarly, quotes like this:

Show that he isn't completely out of touch with reality. He can still apply some twisted logic/reasoning and then act upon it. He's not burning the city because he's gone nuts, he's burning the city as his funeral pyre - if he can't have it then no one can.

He is made as in cruel, not mad as in insane.

I conclude that Aerys, were he tried today, could not use insanity as a defence. Because he has not shown 'total alienation of reason'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2022 at 3:09 PM, Craving Peaches said:

It does not excuse the attrocities he commited. Quite simply because, in my opinon, he isn't really that mad, at least not mad enough.

Did he have delusions of grandeur? Certainly.

Is he paranoid? Absolutely.

But this does not make him pyschotic.

Similarly, quotes like this:

Show that he isn't completely out of touch with reality. He can still apply some twisted logic/reasoning and then act upon it. He's not burning the city because he's gone nuts, he's burning the city as his funeral pyre - if he can't have it then no one can.

He is made as in cruel, not mad as in insane.

I conclude that Aerys, were he tried today, could not use insanity as a defence. Because he has not shown 'total alienation of reason'.

Madness is not the same as insanity, and it was just a label applied by those who opposed Aerys.

He did have a bit of a fire-induced violent-sexual mania, however, but he never did anything so mad as to steal the daughter and fiancée of the high lords who were positioned to be his allies, abandoning his wife and children (whom he considered to be two heads of the dragon), and then ignoring the fallout as the realm went to war -- all because he is convinced (again) that this will produce a magical baby to fulfill a 10,000-year-old prophecy. Now that's madness -- if that's what really happened, which is unlikely, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2022 at 2:09 PM, Craving Peaches said:

It does not excuse the attrocities he commited. Quite simply because, in my opinon, he isn't really that mad, at least not mad enough.

Did he have delusions of grandeur? Certainly.

Is he paranoid? Absolutely.

But this does not make him pyschotic.

Similarly, quotes like this:

Show that he isn't completely out of touch with reality. He can still apply some twisted logic/reasoning and then act upon it. He's not burning the city because he's gone nuts, he's burning the city as his funeral pyre - if he can't have it then no one can.

He is made as in cruel, not mad as in insane.

I conclude that Aerys, were he tried today, could not use insanity as a defence. Because he has not shown 'total alienation of reason'.

I've never really understood the insanity defense.  How is that a defense?

A rabid dog isn't in control of its own actions anymore but you still need to put them down.

There is no excuse for committing crimes or atrocities, from my view.  Regardless of whether a person is mentally ill, fully in command of themselves, had a bad childhood, whatever - they still did it and with a recidivism rate of over 75% among criminals, and WELL over that with violent criminals....yeah.  About the only exceptions seem to be things like...an abused woman killing her husband, or a man killing a man he found in bed with his wife or kid, stuff like that.  Definitely not the right way to handle it, but understandable to a degree and not indicative of psychosis or a pattern of behavior.

I know I'm definitely on the more....lets say...harsh...side of things on this topic but the statistics and logical arguments, from my POV, really do seem to only support one side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ring3r said:

I've never really understood the insanity defense.  How is that a defense?

From what I understand:

For most crimes, there is a mental element involved as well as the actual act/conduct of the crime. You can't be found guilty unless the prosecution can show both elements are present.

For example, with murder, the act would be e.g. the killing blow, but the prosecution would also have to show that the murder was either carried out intentionally (the 'wicked intent') or that the accused had 'wicked recklessness', e.g. they had total disregard to whether their actions would kill someone. So looking for a specific person and shooting them vs spontaneously shooting wildly into a room full of random people without a specific target.

However, if someone is insane, and the requirements for this are quite strict, they could be found 'Not Guilty', because the mental element of the crime would not be there. Their condition would have to be such that at the time when the act of the crime was carried out, they had shown 'total alienation of reason' e.g. they were completely detached from reality.

From Aerys' quote in the Original Post however, I do not think he has shown the requisite 'total alienation of reason'. I believe his quote shows that he was still aware of what was going on, and was not detached from reality (at least to the extent required). He was able to understand what the consequences of his actions would be, and rationalised a justification for doing so. To me it seems that he knew what was going on. Therefore it could not excuse him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aerys was not insane enough to escape guilt.  A disabled like Aegon Frey would be incapable of guilt but not Aerys.  Aerys had enough presence of mind to know better.  A lawyer could argue emotional distress and post trauma from his time in captivity but it will not swing any modern jury.  Nor will it absolve him in any trial besides combat.  

Aerys could discern right from wrong.  He showed mercy to Dontos and Brandon's squire as he should have.  We can agree on the merits of those decisions.  He just really went into rage mode and knew he was going to die a horrible death when the Lannisters reach his Red Keep.  Aerys would have faced humiliation, sham public trial, trumped up charges, and then executed in public.  His body would be desecrated in public.  He chose to destroy the city to take his enemies with him. The deaths of the citizens is an incidental which he was willing to pay.  Aerys is not the only high and mighty who would choose mutual destruction.  Corner Tywin in like fashion and he might do the same thing.  Too high of a pride and out of this world belief in entitlement can push people when their status is threatened.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

From what I understand:

For most crimes, there is a mental element involved as well as the actual act/conduct of the crime. You can't be found guilty unless the prosecution can show both elements are present.

For example, with murder, the act would be e.g. the killing blow, but the prosecution would also have to show that the murder was either carried out intentionally (the 'wicked intent') or that the accused had 'wicked recklessness', e.g. they had total disregard to whether their actions would kill someone. So looking for a specific person and shooting them vs spontaneously shooting wildly into a room full of random people without a specific target.

However, if someone is insane, and the requirements for this are quite strict, they could be found 'Not Guilty', because the mental element of the crime would not be there. Their condition would have to be such that at the time when the act of the crime was carried out, they had shown 'total alienation of reason' e.g. they were completely detached from reality.

From Aerys' quote in the Original Post however, I do not think he has shown the requisite 'total alienation of reason'. I believe his quote shows that he was still aware of what was going on, and was not detached from reality (at least to the extent required). He was able to understand what the consequences of his actions would be, and rationalised a justification for doing so. To me it seems that he knew what was going on. Therefore it could not excuse him.

I understand it from the legal sense, if a person is so far gone that they can't control their actions or cannot tell right from wrong, you can argue that there was no intention behind their actions.

That, I understand.  The bit I don't understand is not removing them from the planet regardless.  They're dangerous, they're not going to get better, and they did something heinous.  The rabid dog argument.  You still put down a rabid dog....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Young Aerys had some asshole character traits ... but the guy was not sadistic like quite a few other historical Targaryens (Maegor, Daemon, Aemond, Aerion, etc.) nor otherwise cruel.

He develops a genuine mental illness, apparently some form of paranoid schizophrenia or related condition. As he grows older his mad episodes get more frequent and they can have terrible consequences for innocent bystanders. The best examples for this we get are his reactions to the deaths of his many children, especially when his son Jaehaerys died.

The Duskendale episode worsened his general mental health, increased his paranoia and may have also given him severe PTSD.

By the time of Harrenhal and the Rebellion the guy was clearly beyond what one would view as 'sane' or 'mentally healthy'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

By the time of Harrenhal and the Rebellion the guy was clearly beyond what one would view as 'sane' or 'mentally healthy'.

I have no doubt that he was not mentally healthy, just that at the time of the crime he wasn't insane (enough) to legally excuse him, because of the quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ring3r said:

That, I understand.  The bit I don't understand is not removing them from the planet regardless.  They're dangerous, they're not going to get better, and they did something heinous.  The rabid dog argument.  You still put down a rabid dog....

If Aerys was so insane that he was a threat to others and it was in our modern times he would likely be in a psychiatric hospital where he could do no one else (or himself) harm.

If you mean after he'd commited his crimes, well he'd probably be in prison because I don't think his 'madness' is enough to get him off.

Humans aren't really comparable to dogs though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

If Aerys was so insane that he was a threat to others and it was in our modern times he would likely be in a psychiatric hospital where he could do no one else (or himself) harm.

If you mean after he'd commited his crimes, well he'd probably be in prison because I don't think his 'madness' is enough to get him off.

Humans aren't really comparable to dogs though...

I dunno.  It's nearly impossible to have somebody involuntarily committed unless they actually get violent, and even then, they usually do a short stint and get released and just keep doing it.

As far as whether they're comparable....depends how heinous their behavior, IMO.  But again, I know I'm pretty far to one side on that particular issue lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I have no doubt that he was not mentally healthy, just that at the time of the crime he wasn't insane (enough) to legally excuse him, because of the quote.

One quote doesn't mean he was lucid, sane, or (completely) in control of himself and his actions.

For instance, whatever we know about Aerys' general character and behavior makes it increasingly unlikely the guy was *mentally there* when he treated Rhaella the way her did after those burnings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

One quote doesn't mean he was lucid, sane, or (completely) in control of himself and his actions.

It doesn't, but it does show he had capacity for rational thought remaining, because it indicates he understood the consequences of his actions, and that he came up with a reason for doing so. It does not mean he was sane. It means he was not insane enough to excuse him.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

For instance, whatever we know about Aerys' general character and behavior makes it increasingly unlikely the guy was *mentally there* when he treated Rhaella the way her did after those burnings.

It's not just about not being mentally there. He has to be completely removed from reality. Completely gone. And this has to coincide with when he did the crime. I think the quote shows that he wasn't completely gone when he gave the order. So I think he's guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...