[OB] The Skybreakers don't actually care about Justice

[luminos]

Oathbringer is amazing, but I am disappointed by how the Skybreakers were portrayed throughout the book.  We are told that they only care about following and enforcing the laws, because they cannot let their own personal opinions guide their course.  In essence, they are supposed to be champions of a purely procedural type of justice, sometimes to the point of madness.  Instead, they turn out to be pretty false in this regard.  And I don't think this is a case of an intentional contrast.  I think Sanderson just failed to portray what a commitment to procedural justice is actually like.  

There are two parts that illustrate this fairly well.  The first is the test that the apprentices are given with the escaped prisoners.  The twist is supposed to be that the guy in charge of the prison is the most guilty.  This is messed up in a number of ways, and thats actually fine, because it is clear that its supposed to show us the way that pure devotion to procedural justice is perverted.  The Skybreakers don't care about the suffering that has been caused, they just care about the follow through that they execute as a result of that suffering.  They aren't really interested in good or evil either.  But the details of this case are perverse in exactly the wrong way.  In spite of how they justify themselves, this is not a defense of procedural justice, but arbitrary cruelty in defiance of procedure.  The problem is that the administrator is not executed for breaking a law.  

Case A:  The administrator's neglect of the prison is unlawful, and merits legal intervention.  In which case the lawman who knows ahead of time of the administrators malfeasance, but allows it to continue to make his own job easier later on, has become complicit in that neglect, and has abandoned the law.  The after the fact execution of the administrator does not resolve this, but compounds the legal injustice.  Wanton cruelty has been tacitly allowed not to uphold the law, but to subvert it.

Case B:  The administrator, though evil, is not doing anything illegal in the technical sense.  Which is the only sense that matters from a zealot of pure procedure who does not do compromise.  His execution does not serve a legal purpose, but rather an extra-legal moral one.  The Skybreakers would only have the fact that the admin was evil and that his actions caused a great deal of harm as their reason for killing him.  But again, this is not what their oaths tell them to do.  In fact, they would be bound by those oaths to protect the admin, at least legally, in spite of the loathing they feel about him. 

In my next post, I'll go over the second case that shows the Skybreakers don't care about Justice, which is the stronger example in my mind.  In my third post, I'll examine what I think Sanderson got right, what I think the Skybreakers are really about, and ask a few pointed questions aimed at the writer and proofreaders who apparently all missed this.

[AndrolGenhald]

4 minutes ago, luminos said:

The administrator's neglect of the prison is unlawful, and merits legal intervention.  In which case the lawman who knows ahead of time of the administrators malfeasance, but allows it to continue to make his own job easier later on, has become complicit in that neglect, and has abandoned the law.

The problem with this is that Ki explained that no law had been broken, so there was no malfeasance. It sounded to me like the law simply stated that the administrator had to maintain the prison, and it was up to him to judge whether or not he was doing so effectively. This is a problem with the law, the administrator shouldn't be the one to decide if he is doing his job effectively, so by not dealing with it earlier the Skybreakers are adhering to the law even when it is suboptimal. It's only once the convicts escaped that a law had been broken and the Skybreakers were able to intervene.

[luminos]

Okay, but that falls under case B, where it was unlawful for them to execute the administrator.  

The best case I can make on behalf of the Skybreaker position is:
Letting prisoners be malnourished and poorly managed is lawful, up until the point where such neglect gives them the opportunity to escape.  The escape is not a case of the administrator breaking the law, but it does constitute evidence that his prior actions crossed the line.  This is iffy, but can work.  The problem is that we have to assemble this scenario from our own fanciful interpretations, rather than facts as they are presented.  But it might be fine.  Sanderson did a poor job of presenting the scenario in a way that made sense, but thats an issue of presentation and not the underlying scenario

[AndrolGenhald]

1 minute ago, luminos said:

Okay, but that falls under case B, where it was unlawful for them to execute the administrator.

He did do something illegal though by letting the prisoners escape. Based on the context I think the law is something along the lines of "The administrator will maintain the prison and ensure that no convicts escape", but "maintain the prison" isn't clarified, so the administrator deemed posting a single guard and letting the prisoners set up their own hierarchy to be sufficient maintenance. As soon as the prisoners escaped though, he did break the law.

[Leyrann]

It falls partly under case B, but it was not unlawful for them to execute the administrator, as he had broken a law once the convicts had escaped: He was supposed to make sure they remained there, by law, and as soon as they did not, he had broken that law.

Law: You are supposed to make sure the prisoners stay in the prison.

Using the 'salary', partly meant to be used to maintain the prison, for own ends: Not unlawful.

Lettting the prisoners escape: Unlawful.

[luminos]

Part 2

The second case I want to examine is that of Singers vs. Voidbringers.  When it becomes public knowledge that the Singers are just trying to reclaim land that was once theirs, Nale (and by extension most of the Skybreaker order) reasons that they have to serve Odium now, because he leads the singers, and they have a right to their ancient lands.  To their credit, Nale does at least try to reason by way of analogy to determine that ownership is legally due to the Parsh.  And further, Nale is definitely crazy, so its okay if we find gaping holes in his logic.  But there is still a massive flaw here.

The parsh do not have a legal claim.  They have a moral, or ethical, or sentimental claim.  But it never rises to the level of a claim that has legal establishment.  Laws are super messy.  You can have all sorts of laws that are arbitrary, or unjust, or just weird.  But its not an actual law until its actually established.  I do in fact think the Parsh deserve a good bit of what they are fighting for.  But this misses the legal side of the question, which is not about what should happen, but about resolving disputed claims.  The humans also have a claim to the same land on the very practical principle of "we've been holding onto it for a while, so that makes it ours".  It is not a morally satisfying position, but in terms of purely procedural justice, it is a position that has to be respected to a certain degree. 

And this is where I think the Skybreakers completely betray any commitment to procedural justice they claim to support.  Someone who is committed the law in a procedural sense does not care if they think their client is guilty.  In fact, they are bound by oaths to completely disregard their opinion on whether or not their client deserves to be sentenced or not.  The only thing that matters is representing them fairly in a purely procedural manner.  Any advocate who abandoned a client and joined the opposing side because conclusive evidence showed wrongdoing on the part of their client would be a traitor to justice.  They would not only be scorned by their friends and allies, but even the opponents that they sought to join would reject them completely for such a crass abandonment of justice.  And yet, the order of Skybreakers does this almost to a man.  The laws of the kingdoms of men are their clients, which they have sworn to represent dispassionately, without regard to whether those laws are wrong or right.  And yet when evidence comes out that those laws have a poor foundation, they abandon them completely. 

Now of course, all justices, all officers of the law, and all advocates will interpret the laws differently.  It is not a failure of procedural justice that two well informed and intelligent people can see the same set of laws in the same circumstances, and arrive at very different ideas of how those laws should be applied in the purely procedural sense of "should".  So of course, if some Skybreakers reasoned that they should be advocates of Parsh laws, I'd respect that, and even consider it a good portrayal of the Skybreaker cause.  But the fact that they all as a unit make this decision shows that they are actually being guided by a separate principle, one that is not based on justice.  And I will discuss that next.

[Calderis]

Other than in Azir itself, your not going to see anything approaching the level of defined legal structure you see in any developed country on earth. This is partly the setting, and partly the societal structure. 

The man charged with the upkeep of the prison had no legal codes to follow. There were no legal requirements for maintainance, or the treatment of prisoners (beyond stay of execution). 

The money he received was his to do with as he pleased so long as the prison functioned without prisoners going free for exactly the reason that the Skybreakers hands were tied. You can't act to enforce laws that do not exist. 

[luminos]

15 minutes ago, Leyrann said:

It falls partly under case B, but it was not unlawful for them to execute the administrator, as he had broken a law once the convicts had escaped: He was supposed to make sure they remained there, by law, and as soon as they did not, he had broken that law.

Law: You are supposed to make sure the prisoners stay in the prison.

Using the 'salary', partly meant to be used to maintain the prison, for own ends: Not unlawful.

Lettting the prisoners escape: Unlawful.

Thats nonsensical.  Are you saying that this country has a law so badly written that if any prisoner escaped, for any reason, the administrator would be guilty and subject to execution?  At the very least, we aren't told this is the case, so assuming it is a big stretch.  But even making this assumption, this points to a bigger problem.  

Heres a hint:  Suppose a country passed a law saying that if a person urinates in public, all foreign dignitaries are to be executed.  Would a skybreaker be upholding the law if they started executing random foreign dignitaries on such an occasion?  
(Extra hint:  What makes something a law, as distinguished from an arbitrary proclamation issued by someone with a high opinion of themselves?)

[Leyrann]

First of all, stop making such agressive comments.

Second, we're not talking about written laws, we're talking about agreements.

Third, the Skybreakers aren't advocates. They're some hybrid between judges and police force. Lawkeepers.

[luminos]

Just now, Leyrann said:

First of all, stop making such agressive comments.

Second, we're not talking about written laws, we're talking about agreements.

Third, the Skybreakers aren't advocates. They're some hybrid between judges and police force. Lawkeepers.

Cool, I'll stop telling you my opinion

[AndrolGenhald]

10 minutes ago, luminos said:

Thats nonsensical.  Are you saying that this country has a law so badly written that if any prisoner escaped, for any reason, the administrator would be guilty and subject to execution?

I doubt it's necessitated by law, but it's certainly allowed. If you go back and look at how we've seen Nale executing surgebinders in other places he always obtains a writ of execution, and in fact one of the Viziers comments on how absurd it is to execute a child for stealing food.

10 minutes ago, luminos said:

Heres a hint:  Suppose a country passed a law saying that if a person urinates in public, all foreign dignitaries are to be executed.  Would a skybreaker be upholding the law if they started executing random foreign dignitaries on such an occasion?

Quite possibly, yes. It's not entirely clear to me if they would consider themselves required to do this, but if they did it would be within the bounds of law.

Edited November 21, 2017 by AndrolGenhald

[Leyrann]

1 minute ago, luminos said:

Cool, I'll stop telling you my opinion

I have nothing against someone telling me their opinion, but I very much dislike when people start their post with "That's nonsensical" and "Are you saying" when there are plenty of ways to have a reasonable discussion.

If you're unwilling to consider me an equal, however, I'm not going to bother writing arguments out. Go bother someone else until you're ready to act like an adult.

[Calderis]

8 minutes ago, luminos said:

Thats nonsensical.  Are you saying that this country has a law so badly written that if any prisoner escaped, for any reason, the administrator would be guilty and subject to execution?  At the very least, we aren't told this is the case, so assuming it is a big stretch.  But even making this assumption, this points to a bigger problem.  

Yes. That's exactly it. Because there's a legal structure designed of the will of a small group of leaders. Not, in fact, an actual legal structure. 

A law is decided in world by whoever has the legal right to create it, which varies nation to nation. 

In most Vorin countries the laws are established by a mixture of the religious views set in place during the hierocracy, and the will of the Highprinces or their equivalent. 

As to the Voidbringers, again your trying to base it in real world law, and that isn't the case. 

The land was stolen from the listeners/singers. A crime must be redressed. End of story. Nale said it himself before he killed Ym, 'justice does not expire."

Edited November 21, 2017 by Calderis

[luminos]

8 minutes ago, AndrolGenhald said:

I doubt it's necessitated by law, but it's certainly allowed. If you go back and look at how we've seen Nale executing surgebinders in other places he always obtains a writ of execution, and in fact one of the Viziers comments on how absurd it is to execute a child for stealing food.

Yeah, there is precedent.  To an extent, its easy to understand this is being an extension of Nale's madness, since he clearly has something messing with his sense of right and wrong, and this affects his ability to be just.  And the Skybreakers follow him, so they will reflect his flaws to a degree.  I think things don't actually go off the rails too badly until this book.  Here, we have Nale and other Skybreakers give a reasonably good description of the commitment to procedural justice, and a justification for why someone would want to do that.  But the cases where it is supposedly applied are all bizarrely off the mark.  It no longer looks like they have a corrupt form of justice, but that what they say is unconnected to what they do.

Edited November 21, 2017 by luminos

[luminos]

2 minutes ago, Leyrann said:

I have nothing against someone telling me their opinion, but I very much dislike when people start their post with "That's nonsensical" and "Are you saying" when there are plenty of ways to have a reasonable discussion.

If you're unwilling to consider me an equal, however, I'm not going to bother writing arguments out. Go bother someone else until you're ready to act like an adult.

I am not saying you are nonsensical.  I am stating my argument in strong terms because I think the strong position I am taking is correct.  I am sorry if this came across as a personal attack, it was not meant that way.  I don't intend to hide my true meaning behind soothing words, but I also don't intend to be a jerk.  I will endeavor to present my argument more carefully though, if that helps

[Leyrann]

Just now, luminos said:

I am not saying you are nonsensical.

Huh, I must be illiterate.

12 minutes ago, luminos said:

Thats nonsensical.

 

[Darvys]

People, remember that Skybreakers are before anything else Knights radiant, there is no ideal binding them to enforce the laws, they can choose to but they are not obligated. They could choose to swear to the Law as their 3rd but that's to each knight's discretion. Remember that in the past, Skybreakers enforced the laws of the silver kingdoms which we can assume were fair, in the present they are at leisure to ignore any nonsensical law governments can come up with. 

@luminos It's not exactly the singer's claim to the land that Nale bows to, it's Odium's by right of conquest. In his mind humanity's contest for ownership of the land ended in defeat at the death of Honor, now that the new master is back he feels obligated to serve him, this is why some of us assume he was so ruthless in his attempt to forestall this desolation, he knew what his honor would demand of him if it were to happen.

[Leyrann]

@luminos I assume that downvote was accidental?

Edit: nevermind

Edited November 21, 2017 by Leyrann

[AndrolGenhald]

5 minutes ago, Darvys said:

in the present they are at leisure to ignore any nonsensical law governments can come up with.

Are you sure that's the case? I was thinking that if there were a law requiring lawkeepers to do something they would be bound to obey it. I think the only reason they could choose not to enforce a law is because there is no law requiring them to.

5 minutes ago, Darvys said:

this is why some of us assume he was so ruthless in his attempt to forestall this desolation

Didn't either Szeth or Nale flat out say this was the reason in the book?

 

@Leyrann I downvoted you because I think you're being more argumentative than he is at this point.

Edited November 21, 2017 by AndrolGenhald

[luminos]

Okay, part 3

-The Loopholes chapter was pretty satisfying, both as storytelling as well as showing what I think the correct behavior of Skybreakers should be.  Szeth did not find loopholes, he simply followed the rules, but that is so minor a quibble it can basically be ignored.  
-The thing that Skybreakers seems to actually care about is not law or justice, but power.  They serve whatever or whoever is powerful enough to force their own arbitrary desires on others.  Someone with a commitment to procedural justice would not serve power blindly, but sometimes defy it on the grounds that those holding positions of authority were in defiance of the law.  A Skybreaker is someone who should be concerned that the ultimate legal authority correctly interprets the law, not merely that they claim to do so.
-I don't think Sanderson has a genuine understanding of the position he is attempting to portray, as it does not match what I have encountered in myself or others who actually hold the beliefs that Nale advocates.  I applaud him for trying, and recognize that creative work involves trying to portray an incredible number of people who hold positions and ideals that you do not truly understand. 
-Szeth saying an oath to follow Dalinar is pretty much the most horrifying thing a person can do.  It is a complete betrayal of law and order, and a devotion only to people wielding powerful influence.  Szeth and the Skybreakers are not lawmen, they are toadies.

[Leyrann]

1 minute ago, AndrolGenhald said:

Are you sure that's the case? I was thinking that if there were a law requiring lawkeepers to do something they would be bound to obey it. I think the only reason they could choose not to enforce a law is because there is no law requiring them to.

Didn't either Szeth or Nale flat out say this was the reason in the book?

 

@Leyrann I downvoted you because I think you're being more argumentative than he is at this point.

I just pointed out he was straight up contradicting himself?

[luminos]

5 minutes ago, Leyrann said:

@luminos I assume that downvote was accidental?

I did not downvote you accidentally or otherwise.  I find these Karma systems to be toxic and repulsive.  I know you don't believe me, but I posted this topic solely to state an opinion, not to jockey for social status.  And I do feel bad that my post came off as being aggressive and aimed to you.  I do argue aggressively, but its meant as a rhetorical tool rather than something personal

Edited November 21, 2017 by luminos

[AndrolGenhald]

2 minutes ago, Leyrann said:

I just pointed out he was straight up contradicting himself?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that his comment was in regard to your argument and not to you personally, even if it was a little inflammatory. How about we just drop it so the thread doesn't get locked?

Edited November 21, 2017 by AndrolGenhald

[Leyrann]

Just now, AndrolGenhald said:

I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that his comment was in regard to your argument and not to you personally, even if it was a little inflammatory. How about we just drop it so the thread doesn't get locked?

If you say my argument is nonsensical, you say that I say nonsensical things, and therefore that I'm nonsensical. So yes, it was to me personally as well.

That's the thing. If someone makes an argument that argument is by definition part of that person. In fact, that is the very reason it is rude/inflammatory to say "That's nonsensical" instead of something like "I disagree because ..." or "... is evidence to the contrary".

And yes, I'll drop it now, just wanted to get that misconception about argument vs person out of the way.

[Darvys]

1 minute ago, AndrolGenhald said:

Are you sure that's the case? I was thinking that if there were a law requiring lawkeepers to do something they would be bound to obey it. I think the only reason they could choose not to enforce a law is because there is no law requiring them to.

Sure ? As much as i can be of something not spelled out in the book. Nale himself cherry picks the crimes he's going to see punished, he explaines this by his being a Skybreaker of the Fifth Ideal but that wouldn't preclude a compulsion to see laws enforced if such a compulsion existed.

 

9 minutes ago, AndrolGenhald said:

Didn't either Szeth or Nale flat out say this was the reason in the book?

I can't say, but that would explain why i have that impression wouldn't it.