Sansa is slowly killing Sweetrobin

[chrisdaw]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Does it matter, if Sansa kills Sweetrobin?

If she will or will not kill family for power might be an edge she's going to teeter along, a red line that if she were to cross there'd be no coming back from.

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

On 10/29/2022 at 10:41 AM, Kierria said:

Sweetrobin is slowly being poisoned.  It is not yet a crime of murder because the child is still alive but Sansa is part of the insidious plot to murder the child and take all that is his.  Will Sansa go through with the murder?  The odds are close to even but does lean lightly to Sansa doing the crime. 

Look back on Sansa's past and tell me what you think.  Tell me what you think will happen. 

She will murder the child.  Sansa is a big idiot.  This is another decision which she will regret.  Not because of compassion but because it will end very badly for her.  

[SeanF]

13 hours ago, MissM said:

When she was asked in front of a Robert she lied about not knowing what happened. She knew. Her intention was to not piss off her future sadistic husband and ruin her betrothal. Self-interest. Sansa and the other adults looked upon poor Mycah as completely insignificant, his life mattered naught because of his station in life. Sansa lied and lost her wolf. Arya told the truth, protected an innocent boy and also lost her wolf in a different way. Cersei is on Arya's list because of what she did to Lady. Then later on, Sansa goes on to not only blame her sister, who is already suffering from the weight of everything that happened - Sansa wishes Arya was dead. Are you not going to address this point? Her lie in front of the King was selfish and her treatment of Arya was cruel post-Trident. 

 

That’s not the same as betraying her family.

I’d agree that Sansa’s comment to Arya and her attitude towards Mycah are both horrible.  Ned and Arya are the only two present who actually view Mycah as a human being.  Sansa does not.

[Springwatch]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

 Ned and Arya are the only two present who actually view Mycah as a human being.  Sansa does not.

What the heck? When does Ned ever say or think anything about Mycah's humanity? When does Sansa ever deny it? This is getting ridiculous.

[Mourning Star]

On 11/4/2022 at 4:00 PM, Springwatch said:

Meaning me? No fan fiction. Pure factful goodness, from the text.

In the spirit of mischief, I have to ask would it be honourable for Sansa to leave all the inconvenient bits out of her testimony, so as to make her family member look good? Is that how honourable Starkdom works?

The idea that Sansa gave an account at all to Robert is fan fiction.

Honorable usually includes telling the truth, yes.

Not telling the truth when called upon to do so in defense of a family member is a betrayal.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Mourning Star

[Springwatch]

28 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

The idea that Sansa gave an account at all to Robert is fan fiction.

Straw man. At no point have I said Sansa gave an account to Robert. Obviously.

What I gave (because it seemed to necessary, and still does) was a reminder what the truth actually looks like. What I wrote was all facts lifted from the text - all the things that would make a bad impression on Joff's royal parents.

28 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Honorable usually includes telling the truth, yes.

Certainly. But concealing evidence so that a family member can win a court case is not honourable.

28 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Not telling the truth when called upon to do so in defense of a family member is a betrayal.

Oh, she was going to tell the truth in the end, she knew that. Ned didn't put her on the stand to say 'can't remember' and go home. What we are looking at here is a winsome child who has been manipulating adults since she was three years old (because that's what courtesy is, right?) What we see here is how Sansa always behaves in a pinch - puts on her prettiest dress, makes herself as beautiful as possible, and goes out and pleads like a cute little angel. No doubt she would have allowed Robert to comfort her tears, and hear her story. Not that she had any choice.

In the end, no-one had any choice, because within 5 seconds, Arya had tackled her to the ground and beat her up in front of the king and court. Case over.

[Mourning Star]

13 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Straw man. At no point have I said Sansa gave an account to Robert. Obviously.

It's a fan fiction account that is not from ASoIaF.

13 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

What I gave (because it seemed to necessary, and still does) was a reminder what the truth actually looks like. What I wrote was all facts lifted from the text - all the things that would make a bad impression on Joff's royal parents.

You can debate what version of the truth is fair, but I find it hard to see any angle where refusing to speak here can be considered honest or honorable, especially when confronted by an account we know to be false.

"You and the butcher boy beat him with clubs while you set your wolf on him."

13 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Certainly. But concealing evidence so that a family member can win a court case is not honourable.

I agree that not speaking was dishonorable in this situation. You can debate fan fiction alternate universes of what Sansa may have said had she spoke up all you want, but it's pretty clearly dishonorable to not speak up in the face of falsehood when called upon to in defense of your own sister.

13 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Oh, she was going to tell the truth in the end, she knew that. Ned didn't put her on the stand to say 'can't remember' and go home. What we are looking at here is a winsome child who has been manipulating adults since she was three years old (because that's what courtesy is, right?) What we see here is how Sansa always behaves in a pinch - puts on her prettiest dress, makes herself as beautiful as possible, and goes out and pleads like a cute little angel. No doubt she would have allowed Robert to comfort her tears, and hear her story. Not that she had any choice.

In the end, no-one had any choice, because within 5 seconds, Arya had tackled her to the ground and beat her up in front of the king and court. Case over.

More fan fiction.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Mourning Star

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

Not telling the truth when called upon to do so in defense of a family member is a betrayal.

I disagree. Also, she was called to give the truth to determine what exactly happened, not to defend Arya. It seemed to be an inquisitorial proceeding, not an adversarial one.

[Springwatch]

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

It's a fan fiction account that is not from ASoIaF.

IT IS IN THE TEXT.

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

You can debate what version of the truth is fair, but I find it hard to see any angle where refusing to speak here can be considered honest or honorable, especially when confronted by an account we know to be false.

"You and the butcher boy beat him with clubs while you set your wolf on him."

There are no versions of the truth, there is just the truth, which we can read out of the books.

Joffrey lied about Mycah. But honestly, Mycah is of no importance to Robert. What Robert's interested in is the wound on the back of Joff's head, and the wolf bites. Calling Joff a liar would achieve little.

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I agree that not speaking was dishonorable in this situation. You can debate fan fiction alternate universes of what Sansa may have said had she spoke up all you want, but it's pretty clearly dishonorable to not speak up in the face of falsehood when called upon to in defense of your own sister.

I'm saying honourable means honourable to both sides. I'm also saying that the full truth is not going to make the king feel kindly to Arya, for example, she clubbed Joff from behind.

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

More fan fiction.

No. This is justified by the text.

Cat tells us that Sansa has been a little lady and courteous since she was three years old. Sansa herself constantly thinks that courtesy is a lady's armour. Note, courtesy, not silence. Multiple times we see Sansa in a 'court' situation - she puts on her favourite dress, makes herself beautiful, and pleads. That is: in front of the Small Council after the coup, in front of Joff on the iron throne when she's pleading for Ned, and in front of the Lords Declarant in the Eyrie. It's habitual behaviour.

Also, at Darry her father is with her and wants her story told. She has no choice. If Arya hadn't intervened, then in the next seconds, Sansa would have continued or Ned would have prompted her. This is not fanfic. We know this because Ned wanted Sansa's testimony.

And stop accusing me of fanfic. You are gaslighting me. Cut it out.

[Mourning Star]

6 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Also, at Darry her father is with her and wants her story told. She has no choice. If Arya hadn't intervened, then in the next seconds, Sansa would have continued or Ned would have prompted her. This is not fanfic. We know this because Ned wanted Sansa's testimony.

This is still fan fiction no matter how you seem to want to justify it. It's a fine exercise in imagination, especially if it makes sense to you, but I'm not interested in engaging with it.

Nobody is gaslighting you, what you describe are hypothetical events that did not happen in the story, that's fan fiction no matter how much you think it makes sense.

21 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I disagree. Also, she was called to give the truth to determine what exactly happened, not to defend Arya. It seemed to be an inquisitorial proceeding, not an adversarial one.

Seemed pretty adversarial to me. 

"You and the butcher boy beat him with clubs while you set your wolf on him."

Edited November 7, 2022 by Mourning Star

[Craving Peaches]

17 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Seemed pretty adversarial to me. 

"You and the butcher boy beat him with clubs while you set your wolf on him."

Cersei is making an accusation. This happens in both types of proceedings. Sansa is being called upon to tell the truth, not to 'defend' Arya. The Truth is what's wanted, not who has the better argument. Inquisitorial proceedings.

[Springwatch]

20 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

This is still fan fiction no matter how you seem to want to justify it. It's a fine exercise in imagination, especially if it makes sense to you, but I'm not interested in engaging with it.

Nobody is gaslighting you, what you describe are hypothetical events that did not happen in the story, that's fan fiction no matter how much you think it makes sense.

Literally anyone can read the chapter and know you are arguing dishonestly. I'm finished with you.

[Mourning Star]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

Cersei is making an accusation. This happens in both types of proceedings. Sansa is being called upon to tell the truth, not to 'defend' Arya. The Truth is what's wanted, not who has the better argument. Inquisitorial proceedings.

When Mycah is already in a bag I suppose the distinction does not seem meaningful to me.

I agree that Sansa is called on to tell the truth, which she does not do.

The fact that accusations are being made, and in the end punishment exacted, tells me this was not just an informational session.

But, you are entitled to a different viewpoint.

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, Mourning Star said:

The fact that accusations are being made, and in the end punishment exacted, tells me this was not just an informational session.

In both types of proceeding there will be accusations made and punishments handed out. Inquisitorial proceedings are not just an informational session. It's still a trial, it's an alternative to the common law adversarial proceedings. It is used in civil law systems.

[Mourning Star]

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

In both types of proceeding there will be accusations made and punishments handed out. Inquisitorial proceedings are not just an informational session. It's still a trial, it's an alternative to the common law adversarial proceedings. It is used in civil law systems.

We could get into the distinctions between types of trials but why is this at all meaningful here?

The key difference between adversarial and non-adversarial systems is the need for a accuser, which we have, and the role of the government in investigation, which is debatable here. The distinction between common law and civil law is different, and one could find both types of trial in both types of system.

This was a king hearing a dispute, and it's not clear what the codified laws of Westeros are.

But again, I don't think it really matters what one calls it.

Sansa was called on to tell the truth when accusations she and we know to be false are leveled at her sister and a boy who has already been killed. She does not tell the truth.

To me this is a betrayal no matter how you categorize the proceedings.

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

We could get into the distinctions between types of trials but why is this at all meaningful here?

Because you said Sansa was 'called on to defend' Arya which is not what happened. Sansa was called upon to tell the truth.

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

The key difference between adversarial and non-adversarial systems is the need for a accuser

In both systems there is an accuser. The judge takes a different role in inquisitorial systems compared to adversarial.

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

To me this is a betrayal no matter how you categorize the proceedings.

How is she betraying her family when she does not side with the Lannisters? Betrayal requires Sansa to either intend to betray her family, which she obviously did not, or to be very reckless about whether what she was doing/saying would be a betrayal of her family. This is not shown either, as Sansa avoids disclosing any information, which is cautious and not reckless.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Craving Peaches

[Mourning Star]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Because you said Sansa was 'called on to defend' Arya which is not what happened. Sansa was called upon to tell the truth.

Ned, in defense of his daughter, calls on Sansa to testify after Cersei's accusations.

Prince Joffrey was pale as he began his very different version of events. When his son was done talking, the king rose heavily from his seat, looking like a man who wanted to be anywhere but here. "What in all the seven hells am I supposed to make of this? He says one thing, she says another."
"They were not the only ones present," Ned said. "Sansa, come here." Ned had heard her version of the story the night Arya had vanished. He knew the truth. "Tell us what happened."

We don't know what "truth" Sansa told Ned, but it sure seems like he believed it would help defend Arya.

And, we do know the events from Sansa's perspective.

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

In both systems there is an accuser. The judge takes a different role in inquisitorial systems compared to adversarial.

Actually, a crucial difference between adversarial and non-adversarial systems is the need for an accuser in an adversarial system. In a non adversarial, or inquisitorial, system there does not have to be an accuser. For instance, we can see this requirement enshrined in the Magna Carta, article 38.

But again, I do not see why the distinction is even relevant here.

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

How is she betraying her family when she does not side with the Lannisters? Betrayal requires Sansa to either intend to betray her family, which she obviously did not, or to be very reckless about whether what she was doing/saying would be a betrayal of her family. This is not shown either, as Sansa avoids disclosing any information, which is cautious and not reckless.

Sansa knows the truth, she is called on to tell the truth in defense of her sister against accusations that have already seen one person killed, and she does not tell the truth. This is a betrayal in my book, call it whatever you want.

[Craving Peaches]

13 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Ned, in defense of his daughter, calls on Sansa to testify after Cersei's accusations.

To testify to tell the truth, not to defend Arya. No doubt it would help Arya, but that is not what Robert is asking her to do, nor is it what Ned is asking her to do. They are both asking her to tell the truth.

13 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Actually, a crucial difference between adversarial and non-adversarial systems is the need for an accuser in an adversarial system. In a non adversarial, or inquisitorial, system there does not have to be an accuser. For instance, we can see this requirement enshrined in the Magna Carta, article 38.

Both of them require an accuser of some sort because there is a prosecutor in both systems. Also, England is a common law system, so why bring up the Magna Carta to show features of inquisitorial systems? All it says is that witnesses are needed for an official to make an accusation. This says nothing about whether there is an accuser in inquisitorial proceedings or not.

Quote

The adversarial system or adversary system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a judge or jury, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly.^[1][2][3] It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems (i.e. those deriving from Roman law or the Napoleonic code) where a judge investigates the case.

The adversarial system is the two-sided structure under which criminal trial courts operate, putting the prosecution against the defense.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Craving Peaches

[Mourning Star]

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

To testify to tell the truth, not to defend Arya. No doubt it would help Arya, but that is not what Robert is asking her to do, nor is it what Ned is asking her to do. They are both asking her to tell the truth.

You're supposed to tell the truth no matter what system you are in. I do not see any actual distinction here.

Also, again, she is called on by the defense, Ned.

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

Both of them require an accuser of some sort because there is a prosecutor in both systems. Also, England is a common law system, so why bring up the Magna Carta to show features of inquisitorial systems? All it says is that witnesses are needed for an official to make an accusation. This says nothing about whether there is an accuser in inquisitorial proceedings or not.

Because the ecclesiastical court system in Europe, including England, was an inquisitorial system and this distinction (the need for an accuser) was a big deal. If you are interested in the subject, the history is very interesting, but just to give you a brief synopsis I'll quote Wikipedia:

Beginning in 1198, Pope Innocent III issued a series of decretals that reformed the ecclesiastical court system. Under the new processus per inquisitionem (inquisitional procedure), an ecclesiastical magistrate no longer required a formal accusation to summon and try a defendant. Instead, an ecclesiastical court could summon and interrogate witnesses of its own initiative. If the (possibly secret) testimony of those witnesses accused a person of a crime, that person could be summoned and tried. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran affirmed the use of the inquisitional system. The council forbade clergy from conducting trials by ordeal or combat.

As a result, in parts of continental Europe, the ecclesiastical courts operating under the inquisitional procedure became the dominant method by which disputes were adjudicated. In France, the parlements — lay courts — also employed inquisitorial proceedings.^[4]

In England, however, King Henry II had established separate secular courts during the 1160s. While the ecclesiastical courts of England, like those on the continent, adopted the inquisitional system, the secular common law courts continued to operate under the adversarial system. The adversarial principle that a person could not be tried until formally accused continued to apply for most criminal cases. In 1215 this principle became enshrined as article 38 of the Magna Carta: "No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his law, without credible witnesses brought for this purposes."

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

You're supposed to tell the truth no matter what system you are in. I do not see any actual distinction here.

Also, again, she is called on by the defense, Ned.

She is called on by Ned and Robert to tell the truth. Not to defend Arya. Telling the truth would help defend Arya. But that is not what she is being asked to do.

2 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Because the ecclesiastical court system in Europe

This isn't an ecclesiastical court system. Arya is not being tried by a religious court. Nor was the section of the Magna Carta you quoted specifically relating to the ecclesiastical court system. 

17 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

In a non adversarial, or inquisitorial, system there does not have to be an accuser. For instance, we can see this requirement enshrined in the Magna Carta, article 38.

Article 38 is not relating specifically to ecclesiastical courts, so I fail to see why you bring it up as support to show what an inquisitorial court looks like. The ecclesiastical courts didn't need an accuser, but Arya isn't being tried in one of those. 

You said that the inquisitorial proceedings didn't need to have an accuser, citing Article 38 of the Magna Carta as evidence, but Article 38 says that someone can't be tried without witnesses. There is nothing in there that says inquisitorial proceedings don't need an accuser. And even if they did have an accuser, that wouldn't make Arya's trial adversarial.

Look at what Robert does. He is asking the questions to determine the truth. Ned isn't calling upon and questioning his witnesses, Cersei isn't cross-examining his witnesses in turn. Robert is the one doing the questioning. Therefore in my view it has far more in common with inquisitorial proceedings than adversarial proceedings.