When Szeth meets Zahel

[Fifth of Daybreak]

 

Stealing from the dead was strictly prohibtited, but Kaladin figured that if Amaram wanted the spoils, he could storming well kill the enemy himself. Kaladin respected Amaram more than most-well, more than any-lighteyes. But bribes weren't cheap. 

WoK Chapter 47 Stormblessings

 

At the very least, there's some compounding of justifying the illegal stealing from the dead to make illegal bribes. He doesn't seem like a saint to me, especially from his perspective. 

 

Kaladin breached his duty to act by not reporting Moash, and then meeting with the men who Moash introduced him to. Then he gave the go ahead to Moash for his approval, on the same day that he gave him his shards. That looks pretty incriminating to me.

[Moogle]

At the very least, there's some compounding of justifying the illegal stealing from the dead to make illegal bribes. He doesn't seem like a saint to me, especially from his perspective. 

 

Kaladin breached his duty to act by not reporting Moash, and then meeting with the men who Moash introduced him to. Then he gave the go ahead to Moash for his approval, on the same day that he gave him his shards. That looks pretty incriminating to me.

 

It's 'prohibited' which is not the same as illegal. And any prohibitions placed on you when you're unlawfully made a slave would fail to have much legal standing, or so I imagine.

 

As to the Moash thing, that does seem pretty incriminating. I'll concede that point. I feel like Kaladin didn't intend for Moash to use it with the assassination, though, and Kaladin's defense of Elhokar should make up for it entirely though and that Kaladin could argue the "undercover agent" angle. And Kaladin lost Syl around that time, so it would explain why Nalan didn't bother. (Of course, I suspect Nalan was busy following Szeth 24/7 at the time and so wouldn't have had time anyways in that narrow timeframe.)

[Fifth of Daybreak]

It's 'prohibited' which is not the same as illegal. And any prohibitions placed on you when you're unlawfully made a slave would fail to have much legal standing, or so I imagine.

 

As to the Moash thing, that does seem pretty incriminating. I'll concede that point. I feel like Kaladin didn't intend for Moash to use it with the assassination, though, and Kaladin's defense of Elhokar should make up for it entirely though and that Kaladin could argue the "undercover agent" angle. And Kaladin lost Syl around that time, so it would explain why Nalan didn't bother. (Of course, I suspect Nalan was busy following Szeth 24/7 at the time and so wouldn't have had time anyways in that narrow timeframe.)

 

I definitely agree that Kaladin redeemed himself, and the story arch was satisfying in terms of restoring my faith in him, but I'm merely arguing the point that he's a saint Nalan couldn't find a way to prosecute. He's got a longer rap sheet than Shallan does! Shallan's murder of her father could definitely be linked to self defense with her stepmother dead and her brother maimed at his hand, and when you think about the soulcaster heist, she was actually trading an object of greater value for one of lesser value, since her soulcaster could be repaired, and Jasnah's could never work on its own. 

[Moogle]

but I'm merely arguing the point that he's a saint Nalan couldn't find a way to prosecute. He's got a longer rap sheet than Shallan does!

 

I'm arguing the opposite. I don't think Kaladin has really broken the law in a way that could lead to him being prosecuted and murdered via Nalan. Nalan seems to be limited by the fact that he has to legally execute someone. He only was able to kill Lift because he had an execution warrant (granted because she was interrupting a holy enclave), and I'd bet quite a lot that he had one for Ym (since Ym would have been up on murder). I don't think the things you listed are enough to get Kaladin executed, and Elhokar pardoned Kaladin anyways (which may or may not erase all of his previous crimes).

 

The only thing I think the possibility exists for is Kaladin's part in the conspiracy to murder Elhokar, and I think because of how he saved Elhokar in the end that it probably wouldn't be possible to get an execution on him because of it. I mean, Kaladin never took any part in planning, and the only thing he did that could be considered a part of the assassination (which is very incriminating I grant) is giving Moash a set of Shards.

 

This is all null and void if Nalan is friends with a judge somewhere who rubber stamps his requests for execution, of course. I wonder if Nalan would be willing to go that far as to intimidate judges into giving him those sorts of warrants?

Edited May 8, 2014 by Moogle

[Fifth of Daybreak]

I'm arguing the opposite. I don't think Kaladin has really broken the law in a way that could lead to him being prosecuted and murdered via Nalan. Nalan seems to be limited by the fact that he has to legally execute someone. He only was able to kill Lift because he had an execution warrant (granted because she was interrupting a holy enclave), and I'd bet quite a lot that he had one for Ym (since Ym would have been up on murder). I don't think the things you listed are enough to get Kaladin executed, and Elhokar pardoned Kaladin anyways (which may or may not erase all of his previous crimes).

 

The only thing I think the possibility exists for is Kaladin's part in the conspiracy to murder Elhokar, and I think because of how he saved Elhokar in the end that it probably wouldn't be possible to get an execution on him because of it. I mean, Kaladin never took any part in planning, and the only thing he did that could be considered a part of the assassination (which is very incriminating I grant) is giving Moash a set of Shards.

 

This is all null and void if Nalan is friends with a judge somewhere who rubber stamps his requests for execution, of course. I wonder if Nalan would be willing to go that far as to intimidate judges into giving him those sorts of warrants?

 

I can see where you're coming from on that, but at the same time, Elhokar wanted to execute Kaladin for just accusing Amaram. I don't see it as too much of a stretch for his other crimes to be punishable by death. But I think we've debated ourselves into a corner, and face an agree to disagree moment.

 

I guess that would depend on what the laws are regarding judges and prosecution. I think if it meant even coming close to breaking a law, Nalan wouldn't do it, but if it's on the side of bending the law, he wouldn't be above it. 

[Aether]

This is all null and void if Nalan is friends with a judge somewhere who rubber stamps his requests for execution, of course. I wonder if Nalan would be willing to go that far as to intimidate judges into giving him those sorts of warrants?

He would if there is some sort of legal way to do it, I think. What he is concerned with (as the Lift Interlude shows) is the letter of the Law, and he does not seem to care at all about its spirit, or the spirit of justice, mercy, etc.. He goes through great lengths to persecute Surgebinders, but always within the boundaries of the Law.

 

EDIT: Ninja'd (somewhat).

Edited May 8, 2014 by Aether

[Moogle]

I can see where you're coming from on that, but at the same time, Elhokar wanted to execute Kaladin for just accusing Amaram. I don't see it as too much of a stretch for his other crimes to be punishable by death. But I think we've debated ourselves into a corner, and face an agree to disagree moment.

 

I don't think we disagree too much here, but I agree that there's not a whole lot else we can discuss on the matter without knowing more about the Alethi legal system.

 

I think Elhokar threatening execution for Kaladin is probably not because it's the norm (though it may be), but because he's the king and can do whatever he wants.

 

He would if there is some sort of legal way to do it, I think. What he is concerned with (as the Lift Interlude shows) is the letter of the Law, and he does not seem to care at all about its spirit, or the spirit of justice, mercy, etc.

 

I'm not convinced Nalan is concerned merely with the letter of the law (though it's more likely than not). We haven't really seen him go against the spirit of the law at all yet. He hasn't really bent the law or really violated the spirit while following the letter. Our sample size is awfully small, though. I'd like more information on how Nalan operates.

 

I'm reasonably confident that Rosharans (since they're in a medieval setting) are not terribly opposed to the execution of people who work for organized crime and deliver poison to people. Ym's execution probably followed the spirit of the law, as did Lift's (since she did interrupt a holy enclave, help other thieves steal enough from the government to become rich, and that sort of thing).

 

We'll see how things go with Nalan. I think he's an interesting character. Elhokar invited him to Gavilar's feast, didn't he? I wonder if Elhokar has been acting as a rubber stamp for Nalan's execution requests, since he can do that as king...

Edited May 8, 2014 by Moogle

[Aether]

I'm reasonably confident that Rosharans (since they're in a medieval setting) are not terribly opposed to the execution of people who work for organized crime and deliver poison to people. Ym's execution probably followed the spirit of the law, as did Lift's (since she did interrupt a holy enclave, help other thieves steal enough from the government to become rich, and that sort of thing).

While I can agree in the case of Lift, but Ym's crime was 40 years in the past (or something around that). He has since then (and from the context, it seems he quit his ties immediately after having done the deed) become not only an upstanding member of his community, but a generous and kind old man. Depending on the area and society in question, the Legal apparatus can be primarily retributional, but it is also preventive (id est removing threats from society) and reformative (id est letting people make up for their sins so that they can rejoin society as productive citizens).

 

By the time of his execution, Ym was no threat, he had become a valuable and dependable member of his society, and you could even argue that he had paid for his sins by being torn up by guilt for the last 40-ish years. Executing him for something that was done several decades ago - and for something where his responsibility for the deed was already dubious - goes quite spectacularly against the spirit of the Justice, if not the Spirit of the Law as well.

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 387973120 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 418138416 bytes) in Unknown on line 0

[Moogle]

By the time of his execution, Ym was no threat, he had become a valuable and dependable member of his society, and you could even argue that he had paid for his sins by being torn up by guilt for the last 40-ish years.

 

The legal system does not permit "they feel really bad" as a typical punishment in any country that I know of. Ym was never punished, and it's very difficult to get that retribution part of the law in there when he wasn't. As Roshar is more of a medieval society, I suspect the focus is on retribution in most justice systems on Roshar. By avoiding punishment and not turning himself in, Ym is ignoring the dictates of "justice".

 

That said, I do agree with you that there was no point in killing Ym. As a general rule, I see no need to bother with the whole jail thing for people like Ym who would never willingly harm someone. The law, however, disagrees, and it would be extremely unfair to just let Ym off the hook while punishing someone else for the same crime. Justice typically carries notions of fairness with it, and Ym getting off scot-free is rather unfair to the people who do get caught. I find it rather unjust that Ym was never punished for working with organized crime and getting someone killed, but then, I don't care much either way for what is just.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Moogle

[Stormcrown]

There is one thing that I'm sure was covered here about Nale. Syl stated several times, or at least has inferred the information that anyone with an honorblade is not bound by a spren. To this end, Heralds can use their powers no matter what their end goals are.

 

So if Nale is using honorblades to recruit people, he and his "soldiers" (Szeth) are not bound by any rules whatsoever. Perhaps the Skybreakers have morals, and Nale is simply using their name to reach his goal. The ends justify the means.

 

Even Szeth, who we are believing will be a Skybreaker, is given Nightblood, who we don't entirely understand. Is Nightblood a highspren? If not, then Szeth was given another unique blade that gave him powers.

 

Anyone clarify this for me?

Edited May 9, 2014 by Stormcrown

[Moogle]

Even Szeth, who we are believing will be a Skybreaker, is given Nightblood, who we don't entirely understand. Is Nightblood a highspren? If not, then Szeth was given another unique blade that gave him powers.

 

Szeth might be a member of Nalan's Skybreakers, but he most certainly hasn't attracted a highspren yet, so he's not a Surgebinder. I expect that to change in Book 3, though.

 

Nightblood is a different, special sword. It's not a spren at all. I'd recommending reading the book Warbreaker for more on that. It will still likely grant Szeth the ability to take in Stormlight, though, and perhaps a few other fun powers.

[Fifth of Daybreak]

 

There is one thing that I'm sure was covered here about Nale. Syl stated several times, or at least has inferred the information that anyone with an honorblade is not bound by a spren. To this end, Heralds can use their powers no matter what their end goals are.

 

So if Nale is using honorblades to recruit people, he and his "soldiers" (Szeth) are not bound by any rules whatsoever. Perhaps the Skybreakers have morals, and Nale is simply using their name to reach his goal. The ends justify the means.

 

Even Szeth, who we are believing will be a Skybreaker, is given Nightblood, who we don't entirely understand. Is Nightblood a highspren? If not, then Szeth was given another unique blade that gave him powers.

 

Anyone clarify this for me?

A few nitpicks, first off, we are assuming that Nalan has his honorblade back, because Brandon let it slip that one Herald went back for the blade, but we don't know entirely for sure that it was Nalan, Also the Skybreakers are bound by the same rules as everyone else. In the Lift interlude, Nalan enforces the laws within the Skybreakers when he dealt with the minion that slit Gawx's throat. 

 

Szeth might be a member of Nalan's Skybreakers, but he most certainly hasn't attracted a highspren yet, so he's not a Surgebinder. I expect that to change in Book 3, though.

 

Nightblood is a different, special sword. It's not a spren at all. I'd recommending reading the book Warbreaker for more on that. It will still likely grant Szeth the ability to take in Stormlight, though, and perhaps a few other fun powers.

 

I think the term fun, might only apply to the person who isn't on the receiving end of said powers. 
 

[Aether]

I find it rather unjust that Ym was never punished for working with organized crime and getting someone killed

Oh, I agree. It was unjust that Ym got away from the consequences of his actions, but at the same time, it would be unjust to punish a 40-ish year older Ym for the crimes in his (far) past. 

[Pathfinder]

He ripped up Tvlakv's map. He blackmailed the apothecary. He steals from the dead. He bribed the runners to pick up his soldiers. Actually he has quite a few counts of bribery. Oh yeah, and he conspired to murder the king. I'm going to have to go with: 

Destruction of property doesn't count if you voluntarily give someone your property in good faith. By law a reasonable individual would not provide their property to someone they knew to be dangerous. Thereby the destruction of the map is on Tvlakv, not Kaladin. Tvlakv would have to sue for compensation for destroyed property. This came up in a case when an employee driving the employers car on the job, ran a red light, the employer was held liable. Admittedly this is applying the US legal system, but just giving examples as to why this perhaps was not pursued.

 

The apothecary was illegally over charging the lighteyes. Kaladin as a slave does not have a professional duty such as a doctor, officer of the law, or lawyer to act on any occurrence (someone hurt in the case of a doctor, illegal activity in the case of an officer or lawyer). Yes Kal has medical knowledge, but he never became "certified" at the place his father wanted to send him. So keeping his mouth shut isn't in and of itself illegal.

 

Finally he is a slave, he is ordered by the lighteyes to loot the dead. It is legal for slaves to be owned. Since slaves are property, the penalty for looting the dead would be leveled towards the lighteyes that own them.

 

The conspired to murder the king I will have to re read but I think you have me there in that case.

 

Although I preface all I said with the fact that I am applying the US's legal system to Alethi law, and these are my personal understandings/interpretations of such legal practices applied to these instances. So I am definitely NOT saying this is a definitive ruling on each case. 

Edited May 9, 2014 by P4thf1nd3r

[Fifth of Daybreak]

Unless there are extravagant economic restrictions regarding price setting in Alethkar, what they were doing was legal. Kal was threatening to inform the army that they could just have slaves harvest sap and cut out the apothecary middleman, which could have devastating effects on the economy in regards to apothecaries on the shattered plains. Compared to what pharmaceutical companies gouge the prices to nowadays, it really isn't that bad. The dude was just trying to low ball Kaladin.

Stealing from the dead is in reference to his time in Amaram's army.

[Pathfinder]

I will need to check the quote but I recently read the scene, and I am pretty sure Kal realized what the apothecary was doing was illegal by price fixing. ALL the apothecaries came together and decided the price. In US law at least, that IS illegal (though as with all legal systems, there are flaws and ways around it)

[Moogle]

Oh, I agree. It was unjust that Ym got away from the consequences of his actions, but at the same time, it would be unjust to punish a 40-ish year older Ym for the crimes in his (far) past. 

 

Would it, though? Again, while I am opposed to having Ym punished at all for the crime, does it really make sense to let crimes be ignored just because the person in question evaded the law long enough? I'm not very certain on this point.

[Pathfinder]

Would it, though? Again, while I am opposed to having Ym punished at all for the crime, does it really make sense to let crimes be ignored just because the person in question evaded the law long enough? I'm not very certain on this point.

There are multiple examples of cases being pursued LONG after they occurred and it being legal. Rape and molestation cases being the prime examples. The only hitch would be if the statute of limitations ran out.

[Stormcrown]

 

 

A few nitpicks, first off, we are assuming that Nalan has his honorblade back, because Brandon let it slip that one Herald went back for the blade, but we don't know entirely for sure that it was Nalan, Also the Skybreakers are bound by the same rules as everyone else. In the Lift interlude, Nalan enforces the laws within the Skybreakers when he dealt with the minion that slit Gawx's throat. 

 

 

I think the term fun, might only apply to the person who isn't on the receiving end of said powers. 

 

 

He is enforcing them, but he's using them as a tool to complete his own objectives.

 

I suppose we are at a loss because we are not told to what laws the Skybreakers obey. Set by Honor?

[Aether]

Would it, though? Again, while I am opposed to having Ym punished at all for the crime, does it really make sense to let crimes be ignored just because the person in question evaded the law long enough? I'm not very certain on this point.

Modern nations usually have a maximum limit on how far back you can be punished. This does depend on the crime in question, as per P4thf1nd3r's post. Rape, molestation and Human Rights issues can usually be pursued pretty far back in time, but even murder charges usually have an expiration date.

[Moogle]

Modern nations usually have a maximum limit on how far back you can be punished. This does depend on the crime in question, as per P4thf1nd3r's post. Rape, molestation and Human Rights issues can usually be pursued pretty far back in time, but even murder charges usually have an expiration date.

 

I'm not questioning whether or not such laws exist, I'm questioning whether it makes sense for them to exist at all. Why should the law ignore you just because you evaded it long enough?

[Pathfinder]

Well Moogle I do agree with you, but I believe from the legal standpoint, the point of the statute of limitations is two fold. First so the court isn't flooded with seemingly pointless cases (for instance if the crime is so old, any evidence is practically obsolete or lost), or second a form of easement in a way. That the person bringing the case forward can be called into question. How reliable is the claim if it has been left alone for so long? Why is the person coming forward NOW and not then? What changed? Why is it still pertinent? Again I agree with you Moogle, just doing my best to recall the reasons for the statute of limitations in the US (I keep saying US, because I don't want to fall into the age old ego of assuming everyone is from the same country as I am)

 

edit: It is for those issues unfortunately that make a lot of rape and molestation cases so hard to prosecute. 

Edited May 9, 2014 by P4thf1nd3r

[Moogle]

Well Moogle I do agree with you, but I believe from the legal standpoint, the point of the statute of limitations is two fold. First so the court isn't flooded with seemingly pointless cases (for instance if the crime is so old, any evidence is practically obsolete or lost), or second a form of easement in a way. That the person bringing the case forward can be called into question. How reliable is the claim if it has been left alone for so long? Why is the person coming forward NOW and not then? What changed? Why is it still pertinent? Again I agree with you Moogle, just doing my best to recall the reasons for the statute of limitations in the US (I keep saying US, because I don't want to fall into the age old ego of assuming everyone is from the same country as I am)

 

Those reasons don't seem to apply to Ym at all, though. Nalan obviously was able to find the correct evidence and come to the right conclusion about what Ym did.

 

I'd also argue that you don't need the statute at all if those are the reasons. You could just ignore cases that have no evidence and where the people do not have reliable claims while prosecuting cases where the evidence is there.

[Pathfinder]

Sorry, to clarify, I was not saying it applied to Ym. I thought your question is why that would be possible AT ALL. That why in ANY case would the amount of years from the perpetration of the crime matter, so I was explaining the statute of limitations to answer that query.

 

But the problem with that is how do you measure that? Because you can be damnation sure a lawyer will argue that. How much evidence if not enough evidence case by case? How can you judge a reliable claim case by case? It wastes court time and money deliberating on it. If there is a time limit, then the case can be dismissed out of hand. Is this a good thing? I don't think it is, but that is what the law says. 

Edited May 9, 2014 by P4thf1nd3r

[Fifth of Daybreak]

Coincidentally:

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-served-prison-term-thankful-home-article-1.1781131