From Pawn to Player: Rethinking Sansa XI

[Pod The Impaler]

This is not a protestation of innocence as much as a refusal to recognise their authority to deliver the sentence. So, Sandor would dispute that the Brotherhood serves any higher justice with their actions, but that they are serving up pretty rationalisations. And what does Sandor say when Mycah is brought up?

Here it would seem that Sandor acknowledges the monarchy’s absolute right to declare sentences, but of course, his actions throughout the series give the lie to these statements. Either Sandor doesn’t believe it, or he’s a hypocrite for fleeing the “justice” the iron throne would have for him. To be sure, over the course of these five books, the notion that justice flows from monarchs, rightful or otherwise, must have been invalidated a thousand times over.

Maybe this whole concept of "justice" should be in its own thread, but as it relates to what the Hound said to the BWB:

The Hound was not just acknowledging the crown's right to declare sentences (etc.) - in fact he is poking holes in it at the same time.

Remember, the BWB told themselves they were out there bringing justice in King Robert's name, as per the Hand (Eddard Stark's) command. Bring "the King's justice" to Ser Gregor and the others raiding the Riverlands. Even the term "the King's justice" means both the right to do such things under the law, but also it is a title applied to the regime's chief executioner.

Well, Mycah was hunted down for the supposed crime of harming a prince of royal blood - royal blood because King Robert was supposedly his father.

The Hound's "right" to hunt down Mycah stems from the same laws (and same King) as the BWB. He really is no different from them in this respect. Who is mired in hypocrisy then?

Law and justice are not the same thing.

The Brotherhood start out as law enforcers but are later made outlaws for following lawful commands and actually trying to bring people to justice for their crimes.

The Hound was within the law when he was supporting a cause that was fundamentally unjust. What he did to Mycah was perfectly legal, but it was unjust, it was legally-sanctified murder - and he knows it. He does not deny he killed a helpess boy, only that the BWB have any right to call him a murderer.

The Hound, in his cynicism, had it correct about the BWB in their knightly and legalistic pretensions.*

That is why Arya can succeed in "defeating" the Hound where the BWB fails. She goes after him for it being unjust - she doesn't give a damn about the law, she wants justice for her friend being killed.

(* This may actually be a catalyst for the change in the BWB from the Lightning Lord to Stoneheart. Different sorts of justice.)

[Valkyrja]

I think Sandor's actions are explainable by the fact that in the first case, he considered himself in service to the monarch, required to obey the monarch's orders, while in the latter, he considered himself a broken man - an outlaw, no longer bound to obey the law.

This is highlighted by his quote "I am my own dog now". Perhaps Sandor, who has defected from his service to the monarchy in large part *because* of the injustices he witnessed/experienced in that service ('even a dog gets tired of being kicked'), and who does not put any store in the gods, believes he is now only answerable to himself. And in being answerable to himself, he does not escape the injustices he has committed. Just look at how tormented he is, as he lays dying, about what (to him at least) seems to be the injustice he allowed to befall Sansa ('I stood there in my white cloak and let them beat her').

I don't really know where I'm going with this exactly, only to say that Sandor is well aware of his own moral crimes and failings. It is not the fact that the BwB are trying him for 'crimes' even that bothers me, but the method of the trial by fire.....it seems like sticking the knife in and twisting. Sandor does not escape unscathed (the burns on his arm), and that, along with Arya later refusing to him him the gift of mercy and leaving him to die upon the banks of the Trident, and the fact that he is now (presumably) serving in silence, acting as the Gravedigger, that seems like as much 'true' justice (in terms of 'spirit of the law' vs 'letter of the law') as you are going to get in the world of ASoIaF. That said, if he is apprehended for his 'crimes' at Saltpans (which were not his), and found guilty, whether by the BwB or someone in power, that will be yet another perversion of justice, no matter how morally 'guilty' Sandor may be of things he has done in the past. Just imo.

P.S. I agree that perhaps justice in Westeros/ASoIaF might need its own thread. I also think as Pod pointed out, there is a difference between this sort of group/ruler's blanket-justice (see also: Stannis Baratheon!) and the sort of personal justice that Arya desires to give her friend Mycah (some may say revenge, but I do think Arya is just as idealistic as Sansa in some ways and truly wanted 'bad people' to be brought to justice).

[Lady Lea]

(I'm writing a reply, Daidalos, but it's turning out a bit long...)

[Pod The Impaler]

By the way, since we bring up The Hound, do people realize why Sandor Clegane wept and was wracked-with-guilt over what he had done ? The Hound had killed someone who was similar to himself. Mycah was just some boy who had dreams of being a knight, and ultimately died for it. So did Sandor, until his knightly brother showed him what knights do to harmless little boys. His moral crisis point comes from realizing the hypocrisy of his harming an innocent boy just because he had the power to get away with it. Hence the guilt and tears, the personal hell and desire (later) to be destroyed for what he had become.

Fire ? Fire is the instrument of his moral reckoning. When he has faced the fires, he faces the facts about who he takes orders from, and then faces the fact of what he has become. Sansa has a connection in King's Landing, and Arya from tne BWB to the Saltpans - Sansa representing what he has served, and Arya what he has done.

[brashcandy]

Aside from appealing to societal norms or contemporary notions of right and wrong, there is always personal preference. We like Sansa, therefore we want her family avenged and the Starks restored in the North. We pity and sympathize with Sandor, therefore we forgive him of his sins. Justice is what we feel like it is. The moral implications are a secondary concern, if they are considered at all. This position requires little in the way of justification, but it’s pretty unconvincing if you want to persuade others of your point of view.

So, do you guys think that “justice” is a worthwhile concept to have in mind when we discuss ASoIaF? Do you have any thoughts regarding how Sansa’s situation lends itself to considerations of justice, and how do you ground it?

Others have been addressing the issues regarding Sandor and the BWB so I'm going to speak to this question of Sansa and "justice". I recently noted in another thread that Martin is challenging us to rethink our notions about justice, atonement and other such related concepts having to do with fair play and morality. What we've seen so far is in the series is justice that is most often in service to power, and power that is most often built on immoral laws/actions. The system is essentially corrupt, and we've seen the signs of that corruption in nearly every institution and organization within the society.

I think this is why I've often been a proponent of personal relations and agency within the story. What we've seen with regard to Sansa, has been a stripping away of that agency and freedom, which I think we can all appreciate is fundamentally unjust to her personhood. Lots of readers put the emphasis on Sansa reclaiming the North for her family, and becoming a good Queen. In their minds, this is the kind of justice that she (and her family) deserves and will ultimately make her happy. I'm not so sure. I think when we analyse her arc, and consider her wider relevance as a woman in an oppressive patriarchal society, justice has to be considered separate from whatever political influence Sansa might have in the future. For me, the focus is not on Sansa delivering justice, but rather on finding that satisfaction within herself; not reclaiming the North, but reclaiming her identity.

The society has to change, but it's not going to do so via the top down; justice flowing from that direction is often arbitrary and self serving. Sansa can be a force for change and can make a wonderful Queen, but the system upon which she rules has to be fundamentally revised.

[brashcandy]

By the way, since we bring up The Hound, do people realize why Sandor Clegane wept and was wracked-with-guilt over what he had done ? The Hound had killed someone who was similar to himself. Mycah was just some boy who had dreams of being a knight, and ultimately died for it. So did Sandor, until his knightly brother showed him what knights do to harmless little boys. His moral crisis point comes from realizing the hypocrisy of his harming an innocent boy just because he had the power to get away with it. Hence the guilt and tears, the personal hell and desire (later) to be destroyed for what he had become.

Fire ? Fire is the instrument of his moral reckoning. When he has faced the fires, he faces the facts about who he takes orders from, and then faces the fact of what he has become. Sansa has a connection in King's Landing, and Arya from tne BWB to the Saltpans - Sansa representing what he has served, and Arya what he has done.

Well Mycah was the butcher's boy and Sandor calls himself a butcher, so I do think Martin wanted us to be aware of that symbolic connection and how Sandor was in effect doing damage to his own self. I think that in terms of his guilt and regret, it especially hits him when he is faced with someone who has suffered from his actions. He cannot brush away Arya's pain, just as he can't with his own pain over Sansa's treatment in King's Landing. Sandor is not a monster, so he can be aware that he's done wrong, but feeling real guilt over it only emerges when he's personally involved in the drama. His feelings for Sansa necessitate his emotional breakdown and Arya's feelings over Mycah don't simply show him that he was wrong, but makes him feel it.

[Valkyrja]

By the way, since we bring up The Hound, do people realize why Sandor Clegane wept and was wracked-with-guilt over what he had done ? The Hound had killed someone who was similar to himself. Mycah was just some boy who had dreams of being a knight, and ultimately died for it. So did Sandor, until his knightly brother showed him what knights do to harmless little boys. His moral crisis point comes from realizing the hypocrisy of his harming an innocent boy just because he had the power to get away with it. Hence the guilt and tears, the personal hell and desire (later) to be destroyed for what he had become.

Fire ? Fire is the instrument of his moral reckoning. When he has faced the fires, he faces the facts about who he takes orders from, and then faces the fact of what he has become. Sansa has a connection in King's Landing, and Arya from tne BWB to the Saltpans - Sansa representing what he has served, and Arya what he has done.

All good points, Pod. I agree about the fire (it is also a force of purification, a la gold and iron), and when you take into consideration what was said ('the red god is not done with you yet' -- sry paraphrase, don't have books handy atm), it seems that fire, both literally and symbolically, is something that Sandor may never be able to escape from. It has defined his existence for so long, at first shaping him into something full of rage. Perhaps, if he is to remain in the story, his (continued?) trials by fire will shape him into something....else. :)

*Also, I feel like I must note that I am well-aware that we should not 'woobify' our characters here. But, when the point was originally mentioned about being upset by Sandor's BwB trial by flaming sword, I think that is a bit different. GRRM does this all the time.....shows us characters who have done shitty things (esp. to children) and then, later on....he makes us feel for them all the same. Just look at Jaime. Even though it may have been some kind of perverse karmic/cosmic 'justice' that he loses his hand, many readers still feel for him nonetheless due to the PoV structure. Same with Theon, who becomes a creature so pitiable in his transformation as Reek, and then back to Theon, that one cannot help but at least feel *something* for him, even if he 'got what he deserved' (rather more I think, but that's another story). Given that Sandor doesn't even have an actual PoV in the series, and given that we are witnessing the scene from-- of all people-- Arya's perspective (she who wants him punished more than anyone), the fact that readers can feel something for him in this scene is a testament to GRRM's ability to create an incredibly compelling character. :)

[Lady Lea]

<snip>

IMO, justice is the most relative of relative concepts, and, most importantly, if you're looking for it, the last place you should look at is the law. If there's one thing learnt in law school is that the law and justice are completely unrelated concepts, and indeed the law cares very little about it. So one can look at a situation from a legal point of view, or a justice point of view, and those povs will rarely, if ever, coincide. I know it sounds cynical, but it's true in Westeros, and it's true in our world.

When Gregor and his men went around burning the Riverlands, Ser Darry said the smallfolk wanted "justice", but what they really wanted was to "pay him back in his bloody coin" and "vengeance". What Ned thought was "a small measure of justice" was sentencing Gregor and his men to death, but he made no mention of Tywin Lannister, and he said he couldn't give back anyone their homes or their crops (even though he stripped Gregor of his lands and incomes and holdings). So, law? check. Justice? no.

IMO Sandor was right in his assessment of Dondarrion's group. They were sent only to carry out the death sentences on Gregor and his men, they had no authority whatsoever over him or anyone else. Their "justice" was merely vigilantism. Many of them had personal vendettas against certain people, but, like Sandor said, they still wanted to mantain a veneer of legitimacy and so they arranged "trials". They were only hypocrites. Everyone shouted accusations at Sandor - for crimes that they knew he had not commited. If Arya wasn't there they wouldn't have found a single thing to accuse him of. He was given a "trial", with a bunch of false witnesses, and they did not even know what they were trying him FOR - they wanted a death sentence and just went along with it until they found something that stuck. The whole thing reminded me a lot of

.

And Mycah? We may know that he was an innocent boy who did not deserve to die that way. But Sandor worked for the Queen, and she said the Prince had been attacked by Mycah. His job was to do whatever the Queen said. What's the punishment for hurting the Royal Prince? Death. If the Queen says it happened the way it did, and the King does nothing, and the Royal Prince corroborates the story, what do you think a sworn shield should do? Start an independent investigation and question witnesses and look for evidence at the site of the crime? No. In Brazilian law today, if a superior orders a soldier to do something (even kill someone) and the order does not sound unreasonable, the soldier can do it, and it won't be a crime (it will for the superior, of course). In that reasoning, having Amory Lorch stab a baby in a brothel is unreasonable, having Gregor rape and pillage the smallfolk and their fields is unreasonable, but saying that a teenager (he was much older and bigger than Arya) hurt the Royal Prince (and indeed he was hurt, even if Mycah did not really do it) and therefore should be punished is not unreasonable. Is it justice? No. But it is the law.

So Sandor was given trial by battle. Him, on one corner, with no armour, after having been beaten. Dondarrion, on the other corner, with full plate, and a bloody flaming sword. At least he got rid of the armour. I'm afraid I must disagree with you in that I do not believe that Sandor would have done the same. He says fighting with fire (Gregor, Tyrion, Beric) is for cowards. He believes in strong arms and sharp steel, not tricks. In a trial by battle, the winner is supposed to win because he was right and the other person should die because he was either guilty or falsely accusing someone, right? Well Sandor won. Beric (aka

- '"tis only a flesh wound!") dies and is brought back to life. How is that fair? If Sandor had died, would anyone bring him back to life? And when he's found not guilty, after sustaining 3rd degree burns to his left arm (imagine that shit without painkillers), they still steal all his gold and leave him on the road to fend for himself. JUSTICE!!!

I don't know if any of Sandor's actions can be interpreted in a way that lets us know what he thinks about the monarchy's absolute right to declare sentences. Like I said, the Mycah incident was not, imo, unreasonable, and the Dondarrion thing was clearly a farce from the beginning. WRT Sandor's desertion, he had decided he no longer recognised Joffrey's authority over him (remember he wanted to join Robb Stark), but that doesn't mean he would therefore accept whatever notion of justice a bunch of dirty outlaws conjured up. Just because Sandor DID recognise the Baratheon's autority in AGOT, that doesn't mean he still does in ACOK and ASOS, and the fact he deserts shows that he doesn't, so why should he get back to receive whatever punishment they had in store for him?

To answer your question, no, imo, there is no such thing as justice in ASOIAF, nor in the real world. There isn't an arbitrer or authority to decide on matters of morality - only God, if you believe in God (or the Gods in the case of ASOIAF), and his (their) justice is not of this earthly world.

You are right, in that

we can&rsquo;t appeal to the monarch, nor to the nobility&mdash;whatever &ldquo;justice&rdquo; these institutions dispense is only incidental to their main purpose: securing their own power. There are exceptions where nobles strive to be just, but they can&rsquo;t be considered normative; there is no functional mechanism in place that ensures that nobles rule over their subjects benevolently. In fact, the series abounds with examples of purported corrective mechanisms that have failed to keep power in check: the broken institutions of knighthood and the Faith, for instance.

But this also applies to the real world. The law exists, not to provide justice, but to keep the ruling class in a dominant position. (My Sociology professor would be so proud). We like to think that the justice system works for everyone but that is not true. If I can afford the most expensive lawyer in the country and I steal something, will I get the same jailtime than if my maid's son steals something? Has anyone ever punished Roose Bolton for raping common women? What about when a common man rapes a noble woman?

As to your other question,

what does it mean to wish for justice for a particular character? Let&rsquo;s consider Sansa, Littlefinger, and Sandor.

I agree that LF is guilty of many crimes, against the whole realm and not just Sansa. From a legal POV, in a perfect world, he (and Cersei, Tyrion, Tywin, Qyburn, Varys, etc etc etc) should all be given a fair trial and be punished accordingly. Their wealth should be used to rebuild the realm after the chaos they concocted.

From a justice POV, I don't know. Where does justice end and vengeance begin? I do not presume to understand of justice. If the punishment devised by the law (death sentence, probably?) is unsatisfactory for the victims (after all the dead will stay dead), I do not know what else may be done.

If you want to judge them all with modern law, though, and in particular Sandor, I'd say to call him a murderer you'd have to find something better than the death of Mycah. Like I said, it was unfair, yes. But not illegal, not in Westeros, and not by modern standards, imo. He was given a reasonable order and carried it out. Cersei (and Robert) should be the ones punished for it. Sandor has probably killed many many people. But from his acts that we see, I don't remember any one right now that would give him a prison sentence for murder.

So yes, I can be outraged by his treatment at the hands of the BWB. He is NOT guilty of a crime, and even if he WAS (say, if he knew for certain what had happened and then killed Mycah anyway, with no death sentence waiting for HIM if he did not comply with the Queen's order), that "trial" was a complete and utter farce. Calling it "haphazard" is like calling LF's actions throughout the series "poor judgement".

As to this question:

(Not to digress overmuch, but something to consider: in the absence of a fair legal system, is it more moral to seek to right wrongs on one&rsquo;s own than it is to do nothing at all?)

It's pure Philosophy of Law, and I won't get into that, but there are many books about it - there isn't a right or wrong answer to it. But remember, no legal system is fair. Not in Westeros, not in modern day America, not in Brazil, not in Russia, not in Sierra Leone, etc. So it's a slippery slope. If you want to take justice in your own hands, like the BWB, that's fine. But you'd have to admit that it's vigilantism. You can't pretend that you are really just trying to fill in for an unfair legal system or that it is justice you seek.

WRT Sansa's right to Winterfell, yes she does have a right to it. Just like you have a right to your property. If she doesn't have a right to Winterfell because the system is unjust - well, where is the line? Is capitalism also unjust? Is communism unjust? Is anarchism unjust? Should property even exist? It's true that she has lands because she is part of the prevailing social order. And I have my property, my house, my car, because I am part of a privileged social class. If every judge who was ruling over property rights used the argument that all property is oppresive to the masses so none of the two parties disputing a piece of land should get it - well one may think that he is being just, but he is also not following the law...

[Valkyrja]

I think this is why I've often been a proponent of personal relations and agency within the story. What we've seen with regard to Sansa, has been a stripping away of that agency and freedom, which I think we can all appreciate is fundamentally unjust to her personhood. Lots of readers put the emphasis on Sansa reclaiming the North for her family, and becoming a good Queen. In their minds, this is the kind of justice that she (and her family) deserves and will ultimately make her happy. I'm not so sure. I think when we analyse her arc, and consider her wider relevance as a woman in an oppressive patriarchal society, justice has to be considered separate from whatever political influence Sansa might have in the future. For me, the focus is not on Sansa delivering justice, but rather on finding that satisfaction within herself; not reclaiming the North, but reclaiming her identity.

^This. I agree so much. Also, given GRRM's exploration of identity throughout the series, an issue that is extremely relevant. My biggest fear wrt to my favourite characters (and especially the Starks) is that they will not reclaim their identities. I don't even mean a simplistic view of 'we are Starks, rah, rah!" I don't mean, however important it may be, a generic family identity is the be and end all. I think their Stark identities are extremely important, but they have been greatly deconstructed thus far, in various ways. Also, not only have the characters been separated from their families, but they have also lost what they *thought* was their identities, or at least, the way they defined themselves individually, at some point along the way. I would love to see them reclaim their identities in both a familial and personal way, all the while leaving room for the personal growth they have experienced. I know they may each have to tread some rather dark paths before the end of the series, but I hope it is not too much to wish that they will emerge 'stronger', yes, but with something of themselves remaining/renewed. (I dunno, maybe I just have been traumatized by reading a series that shall remain nameless in which the main character was on a journey of self-renewal and self-discovery throughout, only to, in the end, lose her memory completely. I have never hating an ending of a book so much!!!). :P

[Valkyrja]

So Sandor was given trial by battle. Him, on one corner, with no armour, after having been beaten. Dondarrion, on the other corner, with full plate, and a bloody flaming sword. At least he got rid of the armour. I'm afraid I must disagree with you in that I do not believe that Sandor would have done the same. He says fighting with fire (Gregor, Tyrion, Beric) is for cowards. He believes in strong arms and sharp steel, not tricks. In a trial by battle, the winner is supposed to win because he was right and the other person should die because he was either guilty or falsely accusing someone, right? Well Sandor won. Beric (aka

- '"tis only a flesh wound!") dies and is brought back to life. How is that fair? If Sandor had died, would anyone bring him back to life? And when he's found not guilty, after sustaining 3rd degree burns to his left arm (imagine that shit without painkillers), they still steal all his gold and leave him on the road to fend for himself. JUSTICE!!!

:bowdown:

Thanks for saying it much better than I could. :D

[brashcandy]

^This. I agree so much. Also, given GRRM's exploration of identity throughout the series, an issue that is extremely relevant. My biggest fear wrt to my favourite characters (and especially the Starks) is that they will not reclaim their identities. I don't even mean a simplistic view of 'we are Starks, rah, rah!" I don't mean, however important it may be, a generic family identity is the be and end all. I think their Stark identities are extremely important, but they have been greatly deconstructed thus far, in various ways. Also, not only have the characters been separated from their families, but they have also lost what they *thought* was their identities, or at least, the way they defined themselves individually, at some point along the way. I would love to see them reclaim their identities in both a familial and personal way, all the while leaving room for the personal growth they have experienced. I know they may each have to tread some rather dark paths before the end of the series, but I hope it is not too much to wish that they will emerge 'stronger', yes, but with something of themselves remaining/renewed. (I dunno, maybe I just have been traumatized by reading a series that shall remain nameless in which the main character was on a journey of self-renewal and self-discovery throughout, only to, in the end, lose her memory completely. I have never hating an ending of a book so much!!!). :P

Oh yeah I totally agree. I think the personal growth and identity is more important than this "STARKNESS" simply because identities as we know aren't some static essence that we are invested with at birth. By all means, all the Starks should be able to wear their names proudly and be free from persecution, but we have to appreciate that being a Stark does not mean they will all behave in the same way or have the same goals and aspirations. And all this talk of justice relates to other characters like Jon and Jaime and the vows they swear and should supposedly honour with their lives. As Jon discovers at the Wall, vows can be interpreted to exclude others and restrict the bonds of friendship and humanity. Where is the justice in allowing men to freeze to death or burning a whole city down like Aerys planned? Throughout the series, when people have divorced themselves from political ties, public vows and "the game," they've managed to do more good than bad. Sandor refuses to buy into the hypocrisy from the outset by not becoming a knight, and later on does challenge Joffrey by shouting "Enough" when he has Sansa beaten. Law and justice - as Lady Lea said - are not the same thing, but there is some sense of personal responsibility and morality that keeps hope alive for a better society to come.

[Queen of Winter]

Well Mycah was the butcher's boy and Sandor calls himself a butcher, so I do think Martin wanted us to be aware of that symbolic connection and how Sandor was in effect doing damage to his own self. I think that in terms of his guilt and regret, it especially hits him when he is faced with someone who has suffered from his actions. He cannot brush away Arya's pain, just as he can't with his own pain over Sansa's treatment in King's Landing. Sandor is not a monster, so he can be aware that he's done wrong, but feeling real guilt over it only emerges when he's personally involved in the drama. His feelings for Sansa necessitate his emotional breakdown and Arya's feelings over Mycah don't simply show him that he was wrong, but makes him feel it.

Curiously enough though....remember this:

In AGoT when Cersei wanted Ser Ilyn to kill Lady, Ned interrupted her stating that he would do it because (paraphrasing here) "The wolf is of the North, she deserves better than a butcher."

Ironic no? ;)

EDIT: grammar

[Lyanna Stark]

There's also what we realise throughout the series that concepts like "justice" becomes just like "beauty", "goodness" or "freedom": all ideals, but none of them reachable in reality. Some might find this depressing, but I find it refreshing instead.

[Daidalos]

IMO Sandor was right in his assessment of Dondarrion's group. They were sent only to carry out the death sentences on Gregor and his men, they had no authority whatsoever over him or anyone else. Their "justice" was merely vigilantism. Many of them had personal vendettas against certain people, but, like Sandor said, they still wanted to mantain a veneer of legitimacy and so they arranged "trials". They were only hypocrites. Everyone shouted accusations at Sandor - for crimes that they knew he had not commited. If Arya wasn't there they wouldn't have found a single thing to accuse him of. He was given a "trial", with a bunch of false witnesses, and they did not even know what they were trying him FOR - they wanted a death sentence and just went along with it until they found something that stuck. The whole thing reminded me a lot of

.

First point, Sandor's "trial" at the hands of the BWB was not that much more farcical than either of Tyrion's trials; they are all mockeries of justice to varying degrees. Even the legitimate trials sanctioned by the law in Westeros are unjust.

Second point, to make clear, I don't think the BWB's trial of Sandor was just, only that THEY thought it was; they invoked "justice" to legitimise what they were doing. It may have been a thin veneer, but it was not entirely an excuse--otherwise they would have declared Sandor guilty and simply executed him.

Third point, my discussion of that scene simply aimed to illustrate how different characters might grapple with justice, not endorse their efforts.

And Mycah? We may know that he was an innocent boy who did not deserve to die that way. But Sandor worked for the Queen, and she said the Prince had been attacked by Mycah. His job was to do whatever the Queen said. What's the punishment for hurting the Royal Prince? Death. If the Queen says it happened the way it did, and the King does nothing, and the Royal Prince corroborates the story, what do you think a sworn shield should do? Start an independent investigation and question witnesses and look for evidence at the site of the crime? No. In Brazilian law today, if a superior orders a soldier to do something (even kill someone) and the order does not sound unreasonable, the soldier can do it, and it won't be a crime (it will for the superior, of course). In that reasoning, having Amory Lorch stab a baby in a brothel is unreasonable, having Gregor rape and pillage the smallfolk and their fields is unreasonable, but saying that a teenager (he was much older and bigger than Arya) hurt the Royal Prince (and indeed he was hurt, even if Mycah did not really do it) and therefore should be punished is not unreasonable. Is it justice? No. But it is the law.

I don't dispute that what Sandor did was legal in Westeros. But I would also add that the defence "I only followed orders" was not considered legitimate at Nuremburg, and shouldn't be used to excuse anyone's actions.

As for what Sandor should have done, well... The entire institution is corrupt and self-serving, so the right thing to do would have been not to be there in the first place, but failing that, the order shouldn't have been followed. This might inconvenience Sandor (yeah, I know, understatement), but I haven't ever seen it argued that if you can't do the moral thing, do what's convenient.

So Sandor was given trial by battle. Him, on one corner, with no armour, after having been beaten. Dondarrion, on the other corner, with full plate, and a bloody flaming sword. At least he got rid of the armour. I'm afraid I must disagree with you in that I do not believe that Sandor would have done the same. He says fighting with fire (Gregor, Tyrion, Beric) is for cowards. He believes in strong arms and sharp steel, not tricks. In a trial by battle, the winner is supposed to win because he was right and the other person should die because he was either guilty or falsely accusing someone, right? Well Sandor won. Beric (aka

- '"tis only a flesh wound!") dies and is brought back to life. How is that fair? If Sandor had died, would anyone bring him back to life? And when he's found not guilty, after sustaining 3rd degree burns to his left arm (imagine that shit without painkillers), they still steal all his gold and leave him on the road to fend for himself. JUSTICE!!!

Perhaps you're right that Sandor wouldn't have resorted to such methods. I retract that statement. However, I can't muster that much indignation over the unfairness of the situationen nonetheless, considering what Sandor has done. (Yes, I think the killing of Mycah is that black a mark.) This doesn't mean that it was "justice" what the BWB did--I also retract the "haphazard" comment. Again, the point was that the BWB were not entirely out for vengeance, but that they believed they served a higher cause: justice.

I don't know if any of Sandor's actions can be interpreted in a way that lets us know what he thinks about the monarchy's absolute right to declare sentences. Like I said, the Mycah incident was not, imo, unreasonable, and the Dondarrion thing was clearly a farce from the beginning. WRT Sandor's desertion, he had decided he no longer recognised Joffrey's authority over him (remember he wanted to join Robb Stark), but that doesn't mean he would therefore accept whatever notion of justice a bunch of dirty outlaws conjured up. Just because Sandor DID recognise the Baratheon's autority in AGOT, that doesn't mean he still does in ACOK and ASOS, and the fact he deserts shows that he doesn't, so why should he get back to receive whatever punishment they had in store for him?

Would Sandor's view be this, had it been precisely articulated: "Back when I killed that boy, I only executed my lawful monarch's command. Accordingly, it was no crime, and I cannot be held responsible. Since then, I have had a change of heart and no longer recognise Joffrey's authority. Therefore, I have no obligation to surrender myself to his justice for deserting."

You don't think it's hypocritical to invoke the aegis of Joffrey's authority to absolve himself of the killing of Mycah, but refuse that same authority when he is at fault?

And no, he shouldn't submit to the outlaws' brand of justice, and I don't think I said he should have.

But this also applies to the real world. The law exists, not to provide justice, but to keep the ruling class in a dominant position. (My Sociology professor would be so proud). We like to think that the justice system works for everyone but that is not true. If I can afford the most expensive lawyer in the country and I steal something, will I get the same jailtime than if my maid's son steals something? Has anyone ever punished Roose Bolton for raping common women? What about when a common man rapes a noble woman?

Not to dispute any of this, but the legal system HAS progressively become more fair.

If you want to judge them all with modern law, though, and in particular Sandor, I'd say to call him a murderer you'd have to find something better than the death of Mycah. Like I said, it was unfair, yes. But not illegal, not in Westeros, and not by modern standards, imo. He was given a reasonable order and carried it out. Cersei (and Robert) should be the ones punished for it. Sandor has probably killed many many people. But from his acts that we see, I don't remember any one right now that would give him a prison sentence for murder.

Er, it was definitely murder by modern standards. Maybe not everywhere in the world, but killing on the order of your superior would definitely count as murder. As stated previously, at Nuremberg, "just following orders" was not considered a valid excuse.

So yes, I can be outraged by his treatment at the hands of the BWB. He is NOT guilty of a crime, and even if he WAS (say, if he knew for certain what had happened and then killed Mycah anyway, with no death sentence waiting for HIM if he did not comply with the Queen's order), that "trial" was a complete and utter farce. Calling it "haphazard" is like calling LF's actions throughout the series "poor judgement".

Granted, but, again, considering the monstrosity of injustice that he previously supported, I find it difficult to become outraged on his behalf. He stumbled from one perverse court into another.

It's pure Philosophy of Law, and I won't get into that, but there are many books about it - there isn't a right or wrong answer to it. But remember, no legal system is fair. Not in Westeros, not in modern day America, not in Brazil, not in Russia, not in Sierra Leone, etc. So it's a slippery slope.

Yes, no justice system is perfectly fair, but there are significant differences between systems. I don't think it controversial to say that, for the most part, our contemporary system is more fair than Westeros's.

WRT Sansa's right to Winterfell, yes she does have a right to it. Just like you have a right to your property. If she doesn't have a right to Winterfell because the system is unjust - well, where is the line? Is capitalism also unjust? Is communism unjust? Is anarchism unjust? Should property even exist? It's true that she has lands because she is part of the prevailing social order. And I have my property, my house, my car, because I am part of a privileged social class. If every judge who was ruling over property rights used the argument that all property is oppresive to the masses so none of the two parties disputing a piece of land should get it - well one may think that he is being just, but he is also not following the law...

Again, it's a question of degrees, but the injustice appears grosser in the case of medieval aristocracies. And I'm more concerned with the moral question rather than the legalities of it all. (In the same vein, should Daenerys consider it her right to sit the Iron Throne? I say NO.) So I'm not moved by Sansa's automatic right to Winterfell--had some other ruler been installed rather than Ramsay, some other ruler whose stewardship of the North promised to be better than the Starks', I wouldn't have minded at all.

[Daidalos]

There's also what we realise throughout the series that concepts like "justice" becomes just like "beauty", "goodness" or "freedom": all ideals, but none of them reachable in reality. Some might find this depressing, but I find it refreshing instead.

It might be refreshing in a literary work, but it's also nihilistic. And while these ideals might not perfectly attainable in reality, I think history has shown that it is possible to make significant progess in working towards them. Therefore, I don't think we should dispense with these terms when we discuss a work as grey as ASoIaF, because then our view would be all the poorer. Our analysis might benefit from considering how the various institutions of this fictional world encourage things like "freedom," "justice," and "goodness," rather than how certain characters fail to live up to these ideals. Otherwise, we might delude ourselves into thinking that all it takes is a righteous monarch to sit the Iron Throne for all the problems that plague Westeros to disappear.

[Elba the Intoner]

Hi all. I haven't read through everything yet (was away for Labor Day weekend and still catching up) but I wanted to comment on this discussion of justice in ASOIAF. This is a great question Daidalos and does probably deserve it's own thread. But thinking about it (and btw I am a lawyer by training and worked for a few years in a law firm though haven't worked since my kids were born) I can't help thinking how this is an overall theme of the story, especially that it starts out with a form of "justice" or punishment being given. The first POV after the prologue in GOT is Bran going to see the Night's Watch deserter being beheaded. This sets the tone if you think about it as this is the first thing we see, and this is just after seeing the prologue where the deserter has seen some scary shit that has obviously freaked him out. It's even mentioned that the deserter (forgetting his name atm) looked more scared and insane than dangerous and we know he did not just desert because he wanted to leave the Night's Watch.

On the other hand we have Ned explaining to Bran why a deserter is dangerous, because they know the penalty for desertion and are still willing to do so and break the law. But we as readers know that it wasn't just about this guy deciding that "screw it I've had enough of this cold dismal place and I"m leaving". So, was what Ned did in beheading the guy in the name of the King justice? He was following the law, sure, but that's not really justice.

And what Brash said about how this relates to Sansa and the Stark's reunion or regaining of Winterfell really explains this well:

The society has to change, but it's not going to do so via the top down; justice flowing from that direction is often arbitrary and self serving. Sansa can be a force for change and can make a wonderful Queen, but the system upon which she rules has to be fundamentally revised.

Real social change often comes from the grassroots movement or revolutionary actions by the little people (From Les Miserables: "Do you hear the people sing, it is the song of ancient men, it s a music of a people who will not be slaves again"). The people have to get together and put in place a ruler or some system that will result in a more "just" society.

[Lyanna Stark]

It might be refreshing in a literary work, but it's also nihilistic.

Errh no, not seeing objective values of Truth, Beauty, Goodness is definitely NOT nihilistic. A lot of philosophical lines of thought reject that there are objective values like Truth, Goodness and Beauty. As a self professed existentialist, I am quite offended that I get lumped in with the nihilists.

Therefore, I don't think we should dispense with these terms when we discuss a work as grey as ASoIaF, because then our view would be all the poorer. Our analysis might benefit from considering how the various institutions of this fictional world encourage things like "freedom," "justice," and "goodness," rather than how certain characters fail to live up to these ideals. Otherwise, we might delude ourselves into thinking that all it takes is a righteous monarch to sit the Iron Throne for all the problems that plague Westeros to disappear.

That depends. A lot of the point of ASOIAF is that it makes us question our beliefs on what things like Justice, Truth, Honour and Goodness mean. What do they entail? Can they be easily defined? Are these ideals something that can be applied in the real world at all, or will there always be moral complexities that perhaps cannot be solved?

Assuming that we need to live up to ideals makes me think of my classes on George Berkeley and his rejection of the material (and btw I think he's bonkers, but then I always think idealists philosophers are bonkers).

EDIT: Because of copy paste fail.

[Lady Lea]

First point, Sandor's "trial" at the hands of the BWB was not that much more farcical than either of Tyrion's trials; they are all mockeries of justice to varying degrees. Even the legitimate trials sanctioned by the law in Westeros are unjust.

Second point, to make clear, I don't think the BWB's trial of Sandor was just, only that THEY thought it was; they invoked "justice" to legitimise what they were doing. It may have been a thin veneer, but it was not entirely an excuse--otherwise they would have declared Sandor guilty and simply executed him.

Third point, my discussion of that scene simply aimed to illustrate how different characters might grapple with justice, not endorse their efforts.

I never said that Tyrion's trial was fair, but your comparion is apt - they are both farcical, to a similar extent. We just recognise it more easily with Tyrion. Cersei too had decided he was guilty and then proceeded to find false witnesses for that. So no, Tyrion's trial was not legitimate either. That doesn't make the BWB situation any better.

Yes I understand that THEY thought they were being just. I am merely pointing out that they were not, and they just wanted to cover up their vigilantism. It doesn't matter if they thought they were the most just people in the world - words are wind, what matters is what they actually do. What they really wanted was blood. That's why it's tricky to ask "what does justice mean to you?". Because it will often not be something that you can obtain by lawful means.

I don't dispute that what Sandor did was legal in Westeros. But I would also add that the defence "I only followed orders" was not considered legitimate at Nuremburg, and shouldn't be used to excuse anyone's actions.

As for what Sandor should have done, well... The entire institution is corrupt and self-serving, so the right thing to do would have been not to be there in the first place, but failing that, the order shouldn't have been followed. This might inconvenience Sandor (yeah, I know, understatement), but I haven't ever seen it argued that if you can't do the moral thing, do what's convenient.

Well that's a bit of Godwin's Law at work isn't it? Can you really compare that situation to the nazis' work? There was evidence that Micah had hurt the Royal Prince, and the Queen's word. Sandor was just the executioner. Take Ser Ilyn. We know that Ned Stark was no traitor. We know he confessed to save his daughters. But the was found guilty of treason. IS Ser Ilyn a murderer for executing him? Should he have questioned the order? IMO, no.

It is very different than following orders to round up innocent people and put them in gas chambers, or do medical experiments on them, etc.

Would Sandor's view be this, had it been precisely articulated: "Back when I killed that boy, I only executed my lawful monarch's command. Accordingly, it was no crime, and I cannot be held responsible. Since then, I have had a change of heart and no longer recognise Joffrey's authority. Therefore, I have no obligation to surrender myself to his justice for deserting."

You don't think it's hypocritical to invoke the aegis of Joffrey's authority to absolve himself of the killing of Mycah, but refuse that same authority when he is at fault?

And no, he shouldn't submit to the outlaws' brand of justice, and I don't think I said he should have.

He did desert. That is a crime. If he was captured by Lannister men, he would have been sentenced to death and he'd have understood it. It's the law, after all. It wouldn't matter if he recognised Joff's authority, because not recognising it would be the crime. However, of course he doesn't have to surrender himself, no one has an obligation to turn themselves in. But, ironically, that is the one crime they did not think of accusing Sandor.

Not to dispute any of this, but the legal system HAS progressively become more fair.

In comparison to the middle ages, sure. But it's still not fair. I will use an American example because most of you are Americans. The law in over 30 States allows a rapist custody and visitation rights for the child product of the rape. Is that fair?

The law in most Western countries also exists to keep capitalism strong. If you think capitalism is unfair (and it is, though I am a capitalist myself), then the whole system is unfair. You may say it's more fair than feudalism, but the fact is that in many countries around the world, millions of children are working for nothing so that we can have iPhones and Nike sneakers.

Er, it was definitely murder by modern standards. Maybe not everywhere in the world, but killing on the order of your superior would definitely count as murder. As stated previously, at Nuremberg, "just following orders" was not considered a valid excuse.

Well, I already explained the "reasonable order" legal theory and the circumstances of the case, and why the Nazi argument doesn't apply here. A policeman or a soldier often has to kill on their superiors orders, it is not always murder.

Granted, but, again, considering the monstrosity of injustice that he previously supported, I find it difficult to become outraged on his behalf. He stumbled from one perverse court into another.

So, because you think him guilty of a crime, you think he does not deserve a fair trial and are therefore not bothered by the way he was treated? Everyone deserves a fair trial. One injustice does not justify another, and calling THAT justice makes no sense.

Again, it's a question of degrees, but the injustice appears grosser in the case of medieval aristocracies. And I'm more concerned with the moral question rather than the legalities of it all. (In the same vein, should Daenerys consider it her right to sit the Iron Throne? I say NO.) So I'm not moved by Sansa's automatic right to Winterfell--had some other ruler been installed rather than Ramsay, whose stewardship of the North promised to be better than the Starks', I wouldn't have minded at all.

It is really a matter of opinion. If you ask someone who works on a sweatshop if they think capitalism is more just than feudalism, what do you think they will say? If you ask someone who lives on the street if they are satisfied with the legal system, what do you think they will say?

(OT PS: speaking of fair trials... you will forgive me if I don't think Nuremberg (or Tokyo for that matter) is the be all end all of fair trials...)

[Daidalos]

Errh no, not seeing objective values of Truth, Beauty, Goodness is definitely NOT nihilistic. A lot of philosophical lines of thought reject that there are objective values like Truth, Goodness and Beauty. As a self professed existentialist, I am quite offended that I get lumped in with the nihilists.

I apologise; I played fast and loose with my phrasing. In some ways, I consider ASoIaF to be nihilistic, since at times it seems void of the values, objective or otherwise, of Truth, Goodness and Beauty (however you want to capitalise them). Just as it may be wrong to see these things as Platonic ideals, it's also wrong to deny them altogether--not that I'm accusing you of doing that.

(For what it's worth, I think that many of these concepts are incoherent, and probably do not exist independently of human minds.)

That depends. A lot of the point of ASOIAF is that it makes us question our beliefs on what things like Justice, Truth, Honour and Goodness mean. What do they entail? Can they be easily defined? Are these ideals something that can be applied in the real world at all, or will there always be moral complexities that perhaps cannot be solved?

My position would be that some of these ideals are indeed worthwhile. However, the values mean little if they cannot be described precisely, and empty abstractions are useless on their own. And the first step towards solving a moral complexity lies in the definition of the terms--if people can't agree on those, resolution is indeed impossible.

[Daidalos]

I never said that Tyrion's trial was fair, but your comparion is apt - they are both farcical, to a similar extent. We just recognise it more easily with Tyrion. Cersei too had decided he was guilty and then proceeded to find false witnesses for that. So no, Tyrion's trial was not legitimate either. That doesn't make the BWB situation any better.

Yes I understand that THEY thought they were being just. I am merely pointing out that they were not, and they just wanted to cover up their vigilantism. It doesn't matter if they thought they were the most just people in the world - words are wind, what matters is what they actually do. What they really wanted was blood. That's why it's tricky to ask "what does justice mean to you?". Because it will often not be something that you can obtain by lawful means.

It seems that we're largely in agreement on this point.

Well that's a bit of Godwin's Law at work isn't it? Can you really compare that situation to the nazis' work? There was evidence that Micah had hurt the Royal Prince, and the Queen's word. Sandor was just the executioner. Take Ser Ilyn. We know that Ned Stark was no traitor. We know he confessed to save his daughters. But the was found guilty of treason. IS Ser Ilyn a murderer for executing him? Should he have questioned the order? IMO, no.

It is very different than following orders to round up innocent people and put them in gas chambers, or do medical experiments on them, etc.

You're right in pointing out the similar situation with Ser Ilyn and Ned Stark, and I'll own up to it. I don't think it dissolves your responsibility just because you were following orders, and it's highly pertinent that many horrible crimes in history have been justified by blaming someone higher in the chain of command.

He did desert. That is a crime. If he was captured by Lannister men, he would have been sentenced to death and he'd have understood it. It's the law, after all. It wouldn't matter if he recognised Joff's authority, because not recognising it would be the crime. However, of course he doesn't have to surrender himself, no one has an obligation to turn themselves in. But, ironically, that is the one crime they did not think of accusing Sandor.

The hypocrisy lies in using Joffrey's authority as an excuse when he is fleeing that same authority.

In comparison to the middle ages, sure. But it's still not fair. I will use an American example because most of you are Americans. The law in over 30 States allows a rapist custody and visitation rights for the child product of the rape. Is that fair?

The law in most Western countries also exists to keep capitalism strong. If you think capitalism is unfair (and it is, though I am a capitalist myself), then the whole system is unfair. You may say it's more fair than feudalism, but the fact is that in many countries around the world, millions of children are working for nothing so that we can have iPhones and Nike sneakers.

This probably isn't the place for this discussion, but yeah, there are many things that are unfair with our modern society. Let's leave it at that.

Well, I already explained the "reasonable order" legal theory and the circumstances of the case, and why the Nazi argument doesn't apply here. A policeman or a soldier often has to kill on their superiors orders, it is not always murder.

Not always, but in this instance...

So, because you think him guilty of a crime, you think he does not deserve a fair trial and are therefore not bothered by the way he was treated? Everyone deserves a fair trial. One injustice does not justify another, and calling THAT justice makes no sense.

I'm NOT calling it justice. I just didn't have that much sympathy for him then and there. Can you say that you were bothered when Joffrey was extra-legally assassinated? Would you be bothered if Littlefinger was killed by some outlaw, not by a headsman after having received a fair sentence?

Of course, there's no fair trial to be found anywhere in Westeros. That's kind of the problem.

It is really a matter of opinion. If you ask someone who works on a sweatshop if they think capitalism is more just than feudalism, what do you think they will say? If you ask someone who lives on the street if they are satisfied with the legal system, what do you think they will say?

I'm sure they would have few good things to say about our system. There are many things that I think are wrong with today's society. However, in sum total, our civilisation is better now than it was one thousand years ago.

(OT PS: speaking of fair trials... you will forgive me if I don't think Nuremberg (or Tokyo for that matter) is the be all end all of fair trials...)

No, you're right about that, but I wanted to point out that the "Superior orders defence" is not always a valid excuse.