Offical Court of Law v 15 Jon Snow

[Morienthar]

1. Treason

The Defendant is charged with three counts of treason:-

1.1 The Defendant permitted wildlings to enter South of the Wall, in violation of his duties to the Realm;-Not Guilty,His Oaths are to the Realms of Men,Not just the people south of the wall

1.2 The Defendant attempted to lead an army of wildlings against Lord Roose Bolton, lawfully appointed Warden of the North, in order to avenge the supposed death of Lord Stannis Baratheon, and to slay his natural son, Lord Ramsay Bolton;-Guilty,Stripped of Title of Lord Commander and Confined to the Ice Cells for a period of 10 Years

1.3 The Defendant assisted Lord Stannis Baratheon to wage war against Lord Roose Bolton, by providing him with military advice, and his army with accommodation and supplies.-Not Guilty,He asked for Help and Stannis came,Stannis is fighting wars on both sides of the Wall.It would be unwise not to advise him

2. Oathbreaking

The Defendant is charged with three counts of Oathbreaking:-

2.1 The Defendant breached his pledge of neutrality, by assisting Lord Stannis as set out in charge 1.3, and by attempting to march on Winterfell, as set out in charge 1.2;-Guilty of 1.2,Not Guilty of 1.3,Sentence same as above

2.2 The Defendant breached his oath of chastity by committing acts of fornication with the wildling woman, Ygritte.-No,Oaths against having Sex,Dismissed.

2.3 The Defendant breached his pledge of neutrality by attempting to kidnap Jeyne Poole (alias “Arya Stark”) the wife of Lord Ramsay Bolton;-Guilty,Confined to the Ice Cells for 7 years.

3. Mutiny

The Defendant is charged with three counts of Mutiny:-

3.1 The Defendant disobeyed an order to execute the wildling woman, Ygritte, given by his superior officer, Qhorin Halfhand;-Not Guilty,there were no Orders at all.

3.2 The Defendant attempted to desert his post, by riding South to join Robb Stark; -Found Guilty,But dismissed.

3.3 The Defendant attempted to strike his superior officer, Ser Alliser Thorne, upon hearing of the arrest of his natural father, Lord Eddard Stark;-Guilty,Community Service and a Demotion

4. Murder

The Defendant slew Lord Janos Slynt without trial.-Dismissed.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

I guess we have a ruling. Who's next?

[Jon Wolfwalker]

I'm all for fun but, this seems like D&D people who have shit to do.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

It's a round about way to get a discussion in. Also if you don't like it, don't play.

[Nyrhex]

It's a round about way to get a discussion in. Also if you don't like it, don't play.

Discussion? I thought this was trying to give your opinion in a pseudo-legal phrasing of why charachters you hate need to suffer a painfull death, and charachters you love should get away with a crime...

After all, this court ruled in post #52 that Jon should not be executed for an attempted murder because half the judges used the "he was already sentenced to half a night in jail/pardoned", even though OP clearly states that we do not recognise other courts' authority...

It's a nice attempt to get people to explain how they view the charachters in the books, but there is no real discussion here.

[LordStoneheart]

Charges dismissed...

(I read nearly the whole post in a 1940s fast-talking/high-britches radio voice...)

[Lord Ronin]

Not guilty of all charges

[danm_999]

Discussion? I thought this was trying to give your opinion in a pseudo-legal phrasing of why charachters you hate need to suffer a painfull death, and charachters you love should get away with a crime...

After all, this court ruled in post #52 that Jon should not be executed for an attempted murder

Nobody used this charge except you though. And honestly? It'd be aggravated assault with a deadly weapon at best, especially with the lack of mens rea on Jon's part and Thorne's provocation.

because half the judges used the "he was already sentenced to half a night in jail/pardoned", even though OP clearly states that we do not recognise other courts' authority...

The rules say you can't use other authority to use as evidence to arrive at verdicts, there's nothing in the rules about considering circumstances or alternative authorities of the defendent when recommending sentencing. That's fair game.

And clearly you can't fine, exile, strip of land, imprison or sentence Jon to community service, so your only courses are death or pardon. Most people felt a death sentence was innapropriate.

[Nyrhex]

Nobody used this charge except you though. And honestly? It'd be aggravated assault with a deadly weapon at best, especially with the lack of mens rea on Jon's part and Thorne's provocation.

1. It's charge 3.3. I brought up an extra charge in the same spirit, like in other threads people add charges if OP forgot some.

2. At least, you mean. And Throne saying that Jon's father turns out to be a traitor is cause to kill him? So Jon has a right to kill half the population of Westeros now? Jon had wanted to kill Thorne then, and at other times. We see it when he grabs Thorne by the neck after Slynt sentances him to hang, and we see it when he tries to goad Thorne like he did Slynt at breakfest.

3. In the blink of an eye, Jon had vaulted onto the table, dagger in his hand. Pyp made a grab for him, but he wrenched his leg away, and then he was sprinting down the table and kicking the bowl from Ser Alliser’s hand. Stew went flying everywhere, spattering the brothers.Thorne recoiled. People were shouting, but Jon Snow did not hear them. He lunged at Ser Alliser’s face with the dagger, slashing at those cold onyx eyes, but Sam threw himself between them and before Jon could get around him, Pyp was on his back clinging like a monkey, and Grenn was grabbing his arm while Toad wrenched the knife from his fingers.

Jon clearly intends to kill Thorne. People like Jon so much they handwave his attempt to kill Thorne in fit of rage, as if it's a legitimate outburst of emotions. It's not. You heard bad news. Someone you hate repeats them. That is no fucking reason to try and kill him.

The rules say you can't use other authority to use as evidence to arrive at verdicts, there's nothing in the rules about considering circumstances or alternative authorities of the defendent when recommending sentencing. That's fair game.

And clearly you can't fine, exile, strip of land, imprison or sentence Jon to community service, so your only courses are death or pardon. Most people felt a death sentence was innapropriate.

As for as evidence that can be submitted, posters can submit any argument they deem relevant. However we cannot use any pardons (save in one instance) or prior convictions as evidence in the matter. Our court will not recognize the judgement of any other court or ruling body. In the event that a defendant is charged with an offence against another character, judges are entitled (but not obliged) to find that defendant Not Guilty, if the latter has pardoned or forgiven them.

Half the judges dismissed the charge or found Jon not guilty based on Jeor's ruling (or lack of such). Had Thorne forgiven Jon, that might be ok, but it's clearly not the case.

Again, this is not a thread for discussion. The charges were laid out, and fans gave thier verdict mostly based on how they percieve the charachter. Jon is clearly guilty based on basic logic, but the fans voted in bulk and he gets nothing. Can he be stripped of his title of LC? Yes. Can he be sent to an Ice Cell? Yes. Can he get to do some duties for the Watch? Yes. But no, it's either death, or nothing for some reason. So because many fans found him not guilty or sentenced him lightly, based on how much they like the charachter, he gets nothing.

[danm_999]

1. It's charge 3.3. I brought up an extra charge in the same spirit, like in other threads people add charges if OP forgot some.

Yeah, and they don't get included unless the judge (the thread creator, in this case SeanF) acquieses. Because you changed 3.3 to 'attempted murder', doesn't mean that everybody else voted for that. People don't add their own charges in the mix willy nilly. That's never how these threads have worked. That's not how juries work either, they don't decide the charges, they decide the verdicts.

2. At least, you mean.

Yep, I speak in ranges because it's going to depend on where you're from, and what the laws are like there. Where I'm from, that'd be agg. assault with a deadly weapon, for the reasons I detailed (lack of mens rea, provocation). Hence why I voted how I did. If SeanF had presented the charge as attempted murder, I wouldn't have.

and And Throne saying that Jon's father turns out to be a traitor is cause to kill him?

Nope. But it's a mitigating factor in what I'd consider an agg. assault to the extent I wouldn't execute Jon over it.

So Jon has a right to kill half the population of Westeros now?

Nope, and that'd pretty clearly be genocide, not agg. assault.

Jon had wanted to kill Thorne then, and at other times.

No mens rea for that, even with Jon's POV, which you so kindly provided. Closest you get is slashing at his eyes, which could easily be argued down to grevious bodily harm.

We see it when he grabs Thorne by the neck

Err, after Thorne grabs him. So again, best you'd pull off in that one is assault (not even agg. assault since he's using bare hands here). Murder, in most nations, requires much, much more.

after Slynt sentances him to hang, and we see it when he tries to goad Thorne like he did Slynt at breakfest.

Huh? Here's the scene;

Ser Alliser Thorne reached for his sword hilt. Go on, Jon thought. Longclaw was slung across his back. Show your steel. Give me cause to do the same.

Jon merely thinks he'd like to execute Thorne for bearing steel. But he doesn't do or say anything to 'goad' Thorne. Murder requires actus rea, or the guilty act, which Jon simply does not provide.

Jon clearly intends to kill Thorne.

The only time he 'clearly intends' anything is when he tries to throttle Thorne, but even the verb 'throttle' isn't a clear indication of lethality, and it's after Thorne has laid hands on him. I really can't see this as anything other than assault.

People like Jon so much they handwave his attempt to kill Thorne in fit of rage, as if it's a legitimate outburst of emotions. It's not. You heard bad news. Someone you hate repeats them. That is no fucking reason to try and kill him.

The problem is, you haven't established the intent to kill in the instance we're charging, even when we're uniquely fortunate here to be given the defendant's true inner thoughts. In the other instance where he thinks to himself he'd like to execute Thorne, he doesn't actually do anything, hence there's no crime but thought crime.

Half the judges dismissed the charge or found Jon not guilty based on Jeor's ruling (or lack of such).

Before Sean F lay judgement, I count only 3 people (Windows of Winter Blow Cold, post #8; Ser Edmure Tully, post #44, caraveggio post #19) finding Jon innocent on the basis of Mormont's ruling, whilst the rest found him guilty (myself included), or innocent on the basis of other factors (Thorne's provocation).

So unless you're arguing only 6 people ruled, this claim doesn't pass the smell test

Had Thorne forgiven Jon, that might be ok, but it's clearly not the case.

That's not really how criminal proceedings work.

Again, this is not a thread for discussion. The charges were laid out, and fans gave thier verdict mostly based on how they percieve the charachter.

I agree favouritism is a problem, but you don't seem to working inside the rules established to solve that, and seem to be making some rather big assumptions (that Jon intended to kill in the incident charged in 3.3, that half the judgements are bunk) yourself. Really, the court was not terribly biased to Jon because it actually found Jon guilty of this charge in the form, they just disagreed death was an appropriate sentence.

Jon is clearly guilty based on basic logic,

It's not basic logic though is it, because it's only basic logic to you the charge should be attempted murder. And when discussing whether someone should be executed for what Jon was ultimately found guilty of, attempting to assault a superior, it's also not basic logic to say that necessarily demands the death penalty.

but the fans voted in bulk and he gets nothing. Can he be stripped of his title of LC? Yes. Can he be sent to an Ice Cell? Yes. Can he get to do some duties for the Watch? Yes. But no, it's either death, or nothing for some reason.

Because sentencing options have been set prior. No other character tried has been given specific sentencing options, and in fact the tradition has been to whittle down sentences considered unjust.

Basically, you are proposing creative sentencing that has heretofore been absent, and I think that actually might be a cool we could incorporate in future threads, but it's not what was presented in the rules up to this point.

[Faydra]

I'm not a Jon fan (he bores me to death), but I can't find this character guilty.

[Alester Florent]

Again, this is not a thread for discussion. The charges were laid out, and fans gave thier verdict mostly based on how they percieve the charachter. Jon is clearly guilty based on basic logic, but the fans voted in bulk and he gets nothing. Can he be stripped of his title of LC? Yes. Can he be sent to an Ice Cell? Yes. Can he get to do some duties for the Watch? Yes. But no, it's either death, or nothing for some reason. So because many fans found him not guilty or sentenced him lightly, based on how much they like the charachter, he gets nothing.

As acknowledged above, favouritism is a problem. But all the same, it's done by the votes. In this case it was actually fairly clear-cut on that basis. Fully half the tallied votes were for full acquittal; two more were for symbolic sentences (apology, or continuance of Wall service). No judges recommended stripping of titles, and only three (just over 10%) a term of imprisonment. After acquittal, death was the most popular option and more than half of those who found the defendant guilty recommended death.

I can't fault the overall verdict on that basis.

[The Prince of Newcastle]

Treason

1.1 – Not Guilty. The Realm is not the full terminology. It is the ‘realms of Men’. Wildlings are men. He was protecting them from a great threat and in doing so protecting the rest of the realm.

1.2 – Guilty. Jon did indeed attempt this. He has his reasons, but I feel they are more personal than for the good of the NW.

1.3 – Guilty. Jon did indeed do this. How he could refuse is another matter however.

Oathbreaking

2.1 – Guilty as outlined above

2.2 – Not Guilty. Jon was charged with doing what ever it takes to infiltrate the Wildlings by his superior officer. This was part of that, regardless of wether he enjoyed it or not.

2.3 – Not Guilty. This was the work of the Red Woman.

Mutiny

3.1 – Not Guilty. This was merely a test of character from his superior officer and I believe he actually passed the test because of this.

3.2 – Not Guilty. If we start executing every brother who skips town for the night, we’d be defended by corpses (Paraphrasing)

3.3 - Not Guilty. Men fight. This was a provoked attack as well. I am sure he is not the only brother to fight with his own.

Murder

4.1 – Not Guilty. As LC of the NW, Jon was well with in his rights to execute this traitor. He gave him numerous chances which were refused and this is the end result. A job well done.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

Nyrhex, this could just as easily have been a thread that said "should Jon Snow be executed for the crimes of..." but it was couched in a fun form instead.

danm_999, I think I need to point out I voted for DISMISSAL of the charges based on pardons/forgiveness rather than not guilty. There is a fine difference. I also pointed out that I don't believe the charges meet the standard of muitiny.