Official Court of Law v 12: Theon Greyjoy alias “Reek”

[Lion of Judah]

He swore an oath to deliver Robb's message to Balon, which he did only Balon rejected it. Furthermore, by returning Theon any claim over Theon as an hostage was dismissed thus his loyalty was fully returned to his father and liege lord Balon Greyjoy.

It is only the height of hypocrisy that Robb expects his friend to betray his family for himself(Robb), especially in the regards to how he is also currently rebelling against his legitimate king out of loyalty to his own father.

Objection! Misrepresentation of text. Robb Stark did not expect Theon Greyjoy to betray his family, his proposal was for an alliance with Balon Greyjoy in which Balon would be recognized once again as king of the Iron Isles.

How does one swear an oath to deliver a message? I have never heard of such a thing, do the ravens swear such an oath as well? That argument doesn't hold up, he swore an oath of service to Robb Stark.

Robb Starks rebellion against the crown was something that Theon Greyjoy endorsed and participated in by taking and advocating Robb's proposal to Balon. Now you argue the legitimacy of the rebellion in defense of the accused. The rebellion is not on trial, Theon Greyjoy is on trial and he participated in this rebellion willingly.

[Lion of Judah]

The problem with ignoring lordship is that in Westeros, a death-penalty-happy society, pretty much every lord is going to have killed or ordered the death of someone through execution at some point. In order for all of these not to be murders, we have to accept them as lawful killings.

But then what makes it lawful? Due process? The right verdict? What happens if an executioner knows, or strongly suspects, the man isn't guilty, but kills him anyway? (Ilyn Payne?) Is he as guilty of the "murder" as the lord who sent him there? Farlen can't be the first innocent man unjustly sentenced; going by the Dunk and Egg stories, had Dunk not chosen trial by combat, Baelor Breakspear, the Mary Sue of Westeros, would be up against it for colluding in having an innocent man maimed. In this case, due process was followed, it's just that the Westerosi justice system is bollocks.

I think it's arguable either way. Certainly Theon could be done for perverting the course of justice and causing death that way. But, as Groat suggests, I think some legal reasoning needs to be applied to work out whether the killing was actually lawful and therefore not murder, rather than just looking at and saying "yup, he killed him, also I hate him, he's guilty".

But this court has precedence which was cited earlier that this court does not view a lord as the ultimate spokesman in all legal matters. We consider what we know from the text when judging such matters, so in the Westerosi setting it may not be deemed illegal but in the courts POV it's an illegal act.

[Runaway Penguin]

What about two more counts of murder as specified here?

As to the decisions of Lords, Right of Conquest is quite sketchy loophole, because taken as absurdum it would mean there are no crimes. When a robber kills his victim to death and takes possession of its belongings, he is just exercising right of conquest by this reasoning.

While some societies work on this basis, we, enlightened inhabitants of Westeros and Free Cities, know better. Even if practically often "might makes right", if nobody has enough power to oppose it, we shall keep true to the basic principles of civillization - and same as the smallfolk and lesser houses shall do their part, so shall lords.

[Minsc]

Objection! Misrepresentation of text. Robb Stark did not expect Theon Greyjoy to betray his family, his proposal was for an alliance with Balon Greyjoy in which Balon would be recognized once again as king of the Iron Isles.

How does one swear an oath to deliver a message? I have never heard of such a thing, do the ravens swear such an oath as well? That argument doesn't hold up, he swore an oath of service to Robb Stark.

Robb Starks rebellion against the crown was something that Theon Greyjoy endorsed and participated in by taking and advocating Robb's proposal to Balon. Now you argue the legitimacy of the rebellion in defense of the accused. The rebellion is not on trial, Theon Greyjoy is on trial and he participated in this rebellion willingly.

It is hypocrisy to claim that Theon's siding with his father against his father's enemies is treason, when Robb is currently raising arms his father's enemies. Thus, if Theon is to be considered guilty for his acts it is important to look at whether not the individual he is supposedly committing treason against had any legitimate right to rule.

I argue neither are guilty as both have a foremost duty to serving the honor of their house thus justifying their actions when turning against an outsider individual whom they might also share a loyalty to as that is still subservient to that which they hold towards their house.

[Lion of Judah]

What about two more counts of murder as specified here?

As to the decisions of Lords, Right of Conquest is quite sketchy loophole, because taken as absurdum it would mean there are no crimes. When a robber kills his victim to death and takes possession of its belongings, he is just exercising right of conquest by this reasoning.

While some societies work on this basis, we, enlightened inhabitants of Westeros and Free Cities, know better. Even if practically often "might makes right", if nobody has enough power to oppose it, we shall keep true to the basic principles of civillization - and same as the smallfolk and lesser houses shall do their part, so shall lords.

SeanF will address the issue you brought up with the charges. You bring up a valid point about this right of conquest argument because it's being applied in such a general sense that one has to question the interpretation and how it's being applied. It's disingenuous to view every such act as a right of conquest.

[Lion of Judah]

It is hypocrisy to claim that Theon's siding with his father against his father's enemies is treason, when Robb is currently raising arms his father's enemies. Thus, if Theon is to be considered guilty for his acts it is important to look at whether not the individual he is supposedly committing treason against had any legitimate right to rule.

I argue neither are guilty as both have a foremost duty to serving the honor of their house thus justifying their actions when turning against an outsider individual whom they might also share a loyalty to as that is still subservient to that which they hold towards their house.

I'm not arguing with Theon siding with Balon and even still how can we conclude that Balon's enemies are Theon's enemies when Balon didn't raise Theon. What I am arguing against is the notion that Theon acted within his rights when considering the oaths he swore when he committed criminal acts in Winterfell. It's not hypocritical to uphold the honor of ones house, but it is to take oaths and break them at first opportunity. Also Robb's proposal did not view Balon Greyjoy as an enemy and Theon knew this, so how was Theon in the right to treat Robb Stark as an enemy knowing the contents of his proposal?

[The Red Hand]

I'm not arguing with Theon siding with Balon and even still how can we conclude that Balon's enemies are Theon's enemies when Balon didn't raise Theon. What I am arguing against is the notion that Theon acted within his rights when considering the oaths he swore when he committed criminal acts in Winterfell. It's not hypocritical to uphold the honor of ones house, but it is to take oaths and break them at first opportunity. Also Robb's proposal did not view Balon Greyjoy as an enemy and Theon knew this, so how was Theon in the right to treat Robb Stark as an enemy knowing the contents of his proposal?

Theon never swore any oaths to Robb.

[Lion of Judah]

Theon never swore any oaths to Robb.

He did so when he participated in Robb Starks rebellion against the crown, his actions conclude that he accepted Robb Stark as King in the North. Did he or did he not endorse and participate Robb Starks rebellion against Joffrey?

[Groat]

Theon never swore any oaths to Robb.

It's never actually stated he swore oaths to Robb, but neither is it ever stated that the Pipers or Tullys or Umbers ever swear to Robb too. Theon was with the Northern and River lords who were chanting "King of the North", which to me constitutes an oath of fealty, albeit an irregular one.

[Alester Florent]

Verdict

The Defendant is charged with having unlawfully and intentionally killed the following:-

1.1 Goodman Farlen, the Kennelmaster of Winterfell.

While the suggestion that this was a lawfully sanctioned execution is persuasive, this judge is alarmed by the admitted actions of the Defendant in perverting the course of justice to facilitate the execution. By due process of law, the execution must be considered lawful, and therefore the Defendant is reluctantly found not guilty. This judge recommends fresh charges be brought of perverting the course of justice, and of procuring the death of Farlen.

1.2 One unnamed miller’s wife.

The miller's wife was killed by Gelmarr, not Theon. There is no indication that he ordered her death. The Defendant might be found guilty of this on grounds of joint enterprise, but following precedents set by the court, I am inclined to find him not guilty.

1.3 The children of the said miller’s wife.

Guilty by own admission.

1.4 Ralph Kenning, garrison commander of Moat Cailin.

While the law of Westeros does not acknowledge euthanasia as a valid defence to murder, I am inclined to apply a less morally binary viewpoint and consider this as a mercy killing. Not guilty.

1.5 Master Benfred Tallhart

Slain by Aeron Greyjoy. The Defendant is not guilty.

2. The Defendant is charged with falsely imprisoning Lords Bran and Rickon Stark, Maester Luwin, and the servants of Winterfell.

Not guilty. The majority of the inhabitants of Winterfell were allowed their freedom during the Defendant's occupation. Those who were not were lawfully incarcerated as prisoners of war.

3. The Defendant is charged with waging war against Lord Robb Stark, whom he had accepted as his King.

As a subject of King Robb Stark, to raise arms against him was surely treason. However, to have denied his father's sovereignty would equally have been treason. When faced with two competing treasons and no other alternative, it is surely not in the interests of justice to convict. Charges dismissed.

4. The Defendant is charged with having reaved the Stony Shore, as commander of the ship “Sea Bitch”.

By the apparent articles of war in application, this seems to have been legitimate as an act of Westerosi warfare. Charges dismissed.

5. The Defendant is charged with having abetted a forcible marriage, by giving away Mistress Jeyne Poole, alias Lady Arya Stark, to be married to Lord Ramsay Bolton, against her express wishes.

This judge is in two minds as to whether this charge is capable of amounting to a crime. In any case, the Defendant was coerced. Not guilty.

6. The Defendant is charged with having eaten rats in the dungeon of the Dreadfort, without having received the permission of their owner, Lord Roose Bolton, Warden of the North.

Guilty.

Sentence

For the count of theft, the Defendant is sentenced to a nominal fine of one copper star.

For the two counts of murder, the normal punishment would be death by the sword. However, in light of genuine remorse shown by the Defendant, and the suffering endured by the Defendant since the commission of these crimes rendering him infirm of mind and body, I am inclined to mitigate the sentence substantially. The Defendant is to be pardoned and sent to the Wall.

[Lion of Judah]

I just realized that I haven't passed my judgement on these charges...

[Ame]

If a judge commits a murder; and finds somebody is on trial for that crime in his court room; the defendant is hated so thinks he will be found guilty by jury so waves the trial by jury right, the judge finds the defendant guilty and sentences him/her/it to death then the defendant is executed. Lets say the day after the execution the evidence is found that the judge is guilty of the original murder.

Such a judge in the United States in 2013 is guilty of first degree murder.

So there is legal basis to find Theon Greyjoy guilty.

Like any judge Theon is guilty of any crime he commits on an innocent person knowing the person is innocent. Roman texts also regularly refer to unjust judges as being guilty of crimes; for example the Emperor Valerian is described as being punished for the crime of unjust punishments to Christians by being enslaved to the Persians after his defeat. If Ancients know something is a crime so do medieval people.

[Minsc]

I'm not arguing with Theon siding with Balon and even still how can we conclude that Balon's enemies are Theon's enemies when Balon didn't raise Theon. What I am arguing against is the notion that Theon acted within his rights when considering the oaths he swore when he committed criminal acts in Winterfell. It's not hypocritical to uphold the honor of ones house, but it is to take oaths and break them at first opportunity. Also Robb's proposal did not view Balon Greyjoy as an enemy and Theon knew this, so how was Theon in the right to treat Robb Stark as an enemy knowing the contents of his proposal?

Balon and Alannys Greyjoy both raised Theon for nine out of nineteen years, thus one cannot claim that Balon had no part in raising Theon. Robb became an enemy of his House, once Balon decided to wage war against Robb in how once that occurred only hostility come from the interactions between Greyjoy and Stark.

Therefore, this forced Theon into having to make the decision of either siding with Robb or his family when ordered by Balon to raid and pillage the North. However, while Theon might hold a friendship with Robb the legal system of Westeros dictates that his first duty is towards his blood family thus meaning he was obligated to go against Robb.

[Lion of Judah]

1.1 Guilty-He knew the kennelmaster was innocent and executed him to protect Ramsay Bolton. Sentence: Death by hanging

1.2 Guilty-She was attacked by men following orders by Theon, while his hand did not do the deed he is complicit in the act. Sentence: Death by hanging

1.3 Guilty-He claims this had to be done so he would not look weak. Sentence: Death by hanging

1.4 Not Guilty-It was mercy

1.5 Guilty-He was killed for telling the truth and calling Theon Greyjoy a traitor. Sentence: Death by hanging

2. Not Guilty-He fought and won Winterfell and as the new lord sort to solidify his standing by jailing the previous rehire.

3. Guilty-He participated in Robb Starks rebellion and took Robb Stark's terms to balloon Greyjoy. These actions are testament to the fact that he acknowledge Robb as his King. Sentence: Death by hanging

4. Guilty-Piracy maybe the Iron Born way, but it's still illegal in the kingdoms. Sentence: Death by sword

5. Guilty-And not because he was present at the marriage, the fact that he continued to lie about Jeyne after he escaped makes him complicit. Sentence: Forfeiture of all claims to the Seastone chair

6. Guilty-Theon murdered to protect his friend Ramsay Bolton and endorsed Ramsay as his lord. Ramsay ordered him not to eat and he did, thus he should be punished. Sentence: 1,000,000 gold dragons

[Lion of Judah]

If a judge commits a murder; and finds somebody is on trial for that crime in his court room; the defendant is hated so thinks he will be found guilty by jury so waves the trial by jury right, the judge finds the defendant guilty and sentences him/her/it to death then the defendant is executed. Lets say the day after the execution the evidence is found that the judge is guilty of the original murder.

Such a judge in the United States in 2013 is guilty of first degree murder.

So there is legal basis to find Theon Greyjoy guilty.

Like any judge Theon is guilty of any crime he commits on an innocent person knowing the person is innocent. Roman texts also regularly refer to unjust judges as being guilty of crimes; for example the Emperor Valerian is described as being punished for the crime of unjust punishments to Christians by being enslaved to the Persians after his defeat. If Ancients know something is a crime so do medieval people.

Correct. Hard to think that this would have to be explained in such a way, but surprise!

[The Red Hand]

He did so when he participated in Robb Starks rebellion against the crown, his actions conclude that he accepted Robb Stark as King in the North. Did he or did he not endorse and participate Robb Starks rebellion against Joffrey?

It's never actually stated he swore oaths to Robb, but neither is it ever stated that the Pipers or Tullys or Umbers ever swear to Robb too. Theon was with the Northern and River lords who were chanting "King of the North", which to me constitutes an oath of fealty, albeit an irregular one.

In the books Theon never swore an oath nor do we know if he shouted out Robb's name. At the time of the Whispering Wood Theon was still a ward of Ned, no? I think it's an un-safe assumption to say that his prescense at Robb's side constitutes support of him as king or an admission of Theon being his subject. Also, Greatjon Umber first declared Robb as king so it's safe to say house Umber was behind him.

[Minsc]

5. Guilty-And not because he was present at the marriage, the fact that he continued to lie about Jeyne after he escaped makes him complicit. Sentence: Forfeiture of all claims to the Seastone chair

This is an absurd punishment that seems to focus on punishing a shared victim, moreover there is nothing that implicit saying that his lie is malicious and quite frankly could be intended to further ensure Jeyne's protection.

[Minsc]

In the books Theon never swore an oath nor do we know if he shouted out Robb's name. At the time of the Whispering Wood Theon was still a ward of Ned, no? I think it's an un-safe assumption to say that his prescense at Robb's side constitutes support of him as king or an admission of Theon being his subject. Also, Greatjon Umber first declared Robb as king so it's safe to say house Umber was behind him.

Furthermore, in how Theon's presence during that affair was as a captive one can fully argue that it was given under distress in how he could hardly confer with his house rather or not to accept Robb's rule as King of the North without threat to his person.

[Lion of Judah]

In the books Theon never swore an oath nor do we know if he shouted out Robb's name. At the time of the Whispering Wood Theon was still a ward of Ned, no? I think it's an un-safe assumption to say that his prescense at Robb's side constitutes support of him as king or an admission of Theon being his subject. Also, Greatjon Umber first declared Robb as king so it's safe to say house Umber was behind him.

It's unsafe if we consider just his presence, but when coupled by his actions in support of King Robb then that IMO is enough to assume he swore fealty to Robb as his king.

[Groat]

In the books Theon never swore an oath nor do we know if he shouted out Robb's name. At the time of the Whispering Wood Theon was still a ward of Ned, no? I think it's an un-safe assumption to say that his prescense at Robb's side constitutes support of him as king or an admission of Theon being his subject. Also, Greatjon Umber first declared Robb as king so it's safe to say house Umber was behind him.

Just to play devils advocate, what about Roose Bolton. he doesn't chant King of the North, nor is there any text that he bent the knee and swore an oath to Robb as king. Would you consider Roose's role in the RW treason then?