An alternative write in has been presented that sends him to basically perform the duties of a Steward of the Night's Watch but still have his family with him, I think it's the best of both worlds
The Heir of the Dragon: A Rhaenyra Targaryen Quest
- Location
- Israel
Okay, after so long of trying to read all arguments for and against so and so votes... I have no freaking idea what I want to do. But in order not to waste everyone's time, I'll do it anyways.
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
[X][Second] Write-In: Execute him. Also decree that the first claim on the traitor merchant's estate will go to pay customary damages for wrongful death to the survivors of each of the three dead men. If there is anything left for the merchant's heirs to inherit after the wrongful death damages have been paid, then they can have it.
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
[X][Second] Write-In: Execute him. Also decree that the first claim on the traitor merchant's estate will go to pay customary damages for wrongful death to the survivors of each of the three dead men. If there is anything left for the merchant's heirs to inherit after the wrongful death damages have been paid, then they can have it.
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
- Location
- Earth
I think it also sets a fascinating precedent. And you know what maybe the North will hate it short term but I think long term its for the good of The Watch. Establishing a "lesser punishment" of full life service as a farmer in a shit hole with a raider problem rather than the "traditional" full life service as a something in a martial colony (where you might end up a farmer anyway) is almost certainly good for the long term health of the watch
I can only imagine the write in suggesting we give Lord Stark the stag we single-handedly hunted and carried (from his own woods) as payment for case 3
- Location
- United States
Actually, what's the timeline on #1, since I'm having trouble seeing one where the Forrester story checks out.
Like, let's say the Forresters extract the confession, and then stop paying tolls. But surely the confession on its own is enough to bring a case of their own against the Whitehills? So why did they stop paying tolls, instead of just bring that case and waiting for adjudication?
On the other hand, let's say they stop paying tolls and then extract the confession. Well then they stopped paying tolls without having the confession as justification, and it's terribly convenient that the confession they got was against the people they had already stopped paying. What would they have done if he wasn't a Whitehill armsman?
The most Forrester-sympathetic version would be that prior to getting the confession they were sure the guy was a Whitehill armsman, stopped paying tolls, and then got the confession. But that's the version where they could have preserved the witness for someone else's better torturers.
Like, let's say the Forresters extract the confession, and then stop paying tolls. But surely the confession on its own is enough to bring a case of their own against the Whitehills? So why did they stop paying tolls, instead of just bring that case and waiting for adjudication?
On the other hand, let's say they stop paying tolls and then extract the confession. Well then they stopped paying tolls without having the confession as justification, and it's terribly convenient that the confession they got was against the people they had already stopped paying. What would they have done if he wasn't a Whitehill armsman?
The most Forrester-sympathetic version would be that prior to getting the confession they were sure the guy was a Whitehill armsman, stopped paying tolls, and then got the confession. But that's the version where they could have preserved the witness for someone else's better torturers.
- Location
- Who knows?
STOP TRYING TO FIX KILLING MY DEER BY KILLING MORE DEER.
Also I would like to ask people who want some version that pushes "witnesses should be left alive," versus giving the Forresters full recompense based on a guy they tortured to death to consolidate on either the base "rule in favor of Whitehills" or the compromise that only partially compensates the Forresters.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
They didn't stop paying tolls, they're demanding a stop to tolls
Cometfall
King of the Kuiper Belt
- Location
- Kuiper Belt
[x] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him.
[X] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
There is no evidence the Whitehill did anything besides a confession from someone who was tortured. I don't see why we have to give the Foresters anything.
[X] [Second] Execute Him.
[X] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
There is no evidence the Whitehill did anything besides a confession from someone who was tortured. I don't see why we have to give the Foresters anything.
- Location
- Earth
A deer for a deer and the whole world is without venison.
Approval voting is allowed so I might go edit / change my current slate based on current votes. I'd prefer the long complex write in but not a fan of what's currently winning
- Location
- Who knows?
"No evidence" is the sticking point here. Westerosi society considers torture to be a valid means of info gathering (sadly this is a brainworm that has survived even to the modern day see Jack Bauer in 24) and considers a noble's sworn word to be evergreen. The write-ins are meant to provide reasoning that doesn't make it look like we're outright saying one noble house are honorless currs who's words are inherently untrustworthy but also try to specifically establish a "you really ought to keep witnesses alive" precedent. Since going full "torture is worthless" would only unite everyone in looking at us like we grew a second head.
Imperious
Without the sun of my life
Maybe we would have gotten a confession from him that he also committed the sabotage on Whitehill's order. Once he's dead, that's over in terms of the information you can get from him, which is why the forresters deserve a dope slap for killing him.
Last edited:
- Location
- Earth
Also I know that we can't change society overnight and I know that we are not yet good enough at this sort of thing to do it, but maybe one day when we're Queen we could start using our power as The Crown to say that for matters brought before the Crown torturing a witness to death invalidates anything they say and is inadmissible. Maybe if we're feeling really spicy its anything from torture!
We can't change everything overnight but Westeros as a unified kingdom is young and there is room to make sweeping foundational changes to the unified kingdom if not all the sub laws and carve outs.
We can't change everything overnight but Westeros as a unified kingdom is young and there is room to make sweeping foundational changes to the unified kingdom if not all the sub laws and carve outs.
- Location
- United States
Unless they're deliberately trying to cover something, they didn't intend to kill him. Unfortunately, torture sometimes kills people you don't want it to.
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
So what? The Forresters aren't on trial for murder, they're plaintiffs in a civil case trying to present evidence to meet their burden of proof. The decision whether to hear or exclude evidence is procedural, not substantive, even if the determination of the case ultimately turns on questions of procedure. What matters is not with what intent the evidence was spoiled, only that it was spoiled.
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
This isn't a general rule, it just happens to be true in this particular case because the Boltons and the Glovers both vouched for their respective vassals. One could imagine a case where an overlord does not do that (whether because they earnestly believe their vassal is dissembling or because they want to rid themselves of a troublesome vassal), but I imagine this would be rather rare and it certainly is not the case here.
Imperious
Without the sun of my life
For all we know they are trying to cover something. After all the maester wouldn't be lying if he said that the armsman admitted to working for the Whitehills, if what the Armsman actually confessed was that he was working for the Whitehills, but that he absolutely did not sabotage the dam on their orders, but was rather acting on his own initiative. Such is one of the issues of killing witnesses before they can appear on trial.
As is I don't really want to get into the granularities of the different ways in which one can perform acts of torture, but there are definitely methods of torture that can be inflicted on someone without killing them. If one of the effects of our ruling is that lords hold back a bit on some of the more vicious methods of torture so as to not risk killing their captives outright before they get to say their piece in front of the court then that hardly strikes me as a bad thing.
Wolfman217
Oh No! Oh No! Oh No!
- Location
- England
[X][First] Compromise: There is no evidence for Forresters' claim that the road should be toll-free. As the Boltons are currently maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. So far as this court is concerned, the tolls stand as they are now, not to be altered until the dam is completed. However, the saboteur confessed to being a Whitehill armsman before dying. As the Whitehills apparently have no evidence that the saboteur was not one of their armsmen, they must be held at least partly liable for the sabotage. The court holds that the Whitehills must pay half the costs of the dam reconstruction. The court admonishes the Forresters for having tortured the key witness to death, thus weakening the evidence of their own claims. Hypothetically, if the saboteur was here to testify today, then the Forresters might have been awarded higher damages.
Westorosi society has no problem with torture and sees confessions from it as valid and that their word is enough. However we can push a little here and basically try and set the precedent that "hey, evidence from torture is fine, but at least leave them alive so we can actually get that from their mouth".
Unless the guy was a absolute Diehard Whitehill supporter, they wouldn't have had to torture him that much to get "I sabotaged the dam" out of him.
[X][Second] Execute him. Also decree that the first claim on the traitor merchant's estate will go to pay customary damages for wrongful death to the survivors of each of the three dead men. If there is anything left for the merchant's heirs to inherit after the wrongful death damages have been paid, then they can have it.
Seems pretty straight forward, and it's silly to spend political weight/goodwill/capital to change the normal thing here. We have to balance catering to what Westosi expects and what we actually want to do. Those only so much she can change before Rhae gets pushback and it's frankly stupid to spend that here.
People expect an execution or the Wall, and if the intention is to make Rhae a Warrior then she needs to get used to killing. A little stress now for less stress in actual battle/war/unrest etc seems wise.
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
It might be looked at askance but it would be a good precedence to set that a lesser alternative to being sent to the Wall is to be a serf farmer to the Wall.
i.e they farm for the Watch and can never leave or stop doing that and they don't grow food to sell, but literally just for the Watch - and are punished the same as a Watch deserter if they leave.
Basically swear to support the Watch, not be a soldier in it.
Basically we can only change so much without being ridiculed and getting pushback, and setting "at least leave the guy alive so we can here the confession first hand" and "the Watch needs food, maybe it would be a good idea to have a farmer do that rather try and force him to be a guard/soldier" precedence seems a right balance.
Westorosi society has no problem with torture and sees confessions from it as valid and that their word is enough. However we can push a little here and basically try and set the precedent that "hey, evidence from torture is fine, but at least leave them alive so we can actually get that from their mouth".
Unless the guy was a absolute Diehard Whitehill supporter, they wouldn't have had to torture him that much to get "I sabotaged the dam" out of him.
[X][Second] Execute him. Also decree that the first claim on the traitor merchant's estate will go to pay customary damages for wrongful death to the survivors of each of the three dead men. If there is anything left for the merchant's heirs to inherit after the wrongful death damages have been paid, then they can have it.
Seems pretty straight forward, and it's silly to spend political weight/goodwill/capital to change the normal thing here. We have to balance catering to what Westosi expects and what we actually want to do. Those only so much she can change before Rhae gets pushback and it's frankly stupid to spend that here.
People expect an execution or the Wall, and if the intention is to make Rhae a Warrior then she needs to get used to killing. A little stress now for less stress in actual battle/war/unrest etc seems wise.
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
It might be looked at askance but it would be a good precedence to set that a lesser alternative to being sent to the Wall is to be a serf farmer to the Wall.
i.e they farm for the Watch and can never leave or stop doing that and they don't grow food to sell, but literally just for the Watch - and are punished the same as a Watch deserter if they leave.
Basically swear to support the Watch, not be a soldier in it.
Basically we can only change so much without being ridiculed and getting pushback, and setting "at least leave the guy alive so we can here the confession first hand" and "the Watch needs food, maybe it would be a good idea to have a farmer do that rather try and force him to be a guard/soldier" precedence seems a right balance.
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
If we are prepared to hear evidence of the confession and to hold the Whitehills vicariously liable for their man's actions simply because he was their man, then the Forresters should just win. Tailoring damages is not the appropriate means to deal with issues of liability or evidentiary sufficiency.
Adjusting the Forresters' damages downward would be appropriate if we could determine that they were to some extent at fault for the dam collapse, so they'd have to bear some of the cost, but there is no evidence of that whatsoever.
GildedSergeant
Tarnished Gold and Rattling Bones
- Location
- Over There
- Pronouns
- They/Them
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
[X] [First] Side with neither, Reduce the Tolls by half
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [First] Side with neither, Reduce the Tolls by half
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
No it isn't. The burden is on the government to prove all the elements of the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt—but no more than that. The burden is not on the government to disprove every conceivable affirmative defense. At common law, if a defendant raises an affirmative defense–basically, one that goes beyond "the government can't prove at least one of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt"—the burden of proving the elements of the affirmative defense beyond a preponderance of the evidence falls on the defendant. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to murder because it doesn't dispute the elements of the crime; it goes to whether the defendant had a momentary license to use lethal force.
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
Source? And I'll try to find one for what I thought was true as well of course.
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Sure. Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 235 (1987) ("As we noted in Patterson, the common-law rule was that affirmative defenses, including self-defense, were matters for the defendant to prove. 'This was the rule when the Fifth Amendment was adopted, and it was the American rule when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.' 432 U.S., at 402.").
Most common law jurisdictions, including most American states, and Britain, have lately changed that rule by statute, to require only that the defendant produce some evidence that self-defense was warranted, and that after that the burden shifts to the government to disprove the license beyond a reasonable doubt. See Martin, at 235–36 ("Indeed, well into this century, a number of States followed the common-law rule and required a defendant to shoulder the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense. We are aware that all but two of the States, Ohio and South Carolina, have abandoned the common-law rule and require the prosecution to prove the absence of self-defense when it is properly raised by the defendant.") (citation omitted). That's likely where you got your impression. But that's a modern innovation.
I'll cop to getting the level of burden at common law wrong. The defendant's burden was to prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. I've edited my post to reflect the correct standard.
Last edited:
Imperious
Without the sun of my life
While I genuinely appreciate your informative and well thought out explanations, we should keep in mind that from a watsonian perspective cases like Martin v. Ohio do not even carry the weight of comparative law. As heir to the throne of the currently still fairly young Targaryen dynasty the only person whose verdicts should give us pause in our judgements is probably Jahaerys, his rule at this point in time making up close to half of the timeframe of Targaryen rule over Westeros and one of the achievements he is famous for producing the first unified legal systems for the Seven Kingdoms as a whole. Otherwise though Rhaenyra is basically in the position to make up precedent almost as we go, to the point I imagine the supreme courts of most common law states would look green with envy at her. As is our focus should probably be to produce the precedent that leads to the best society wide incentives that we think these cases can produce rather than looking back to existing precedent, which is why I'm strongly in agreement with you about the need to come down hard on the Foresters to establish early in our rule that killing witnesses before they can testify before the court is a no no. This would hopefully help encourage lords not to torture to death witnesses before the court can question them not just in trials that come before us, but also those who come before other judges, for fear they might rule the same.
Essentially our job at this point is to make precedent more than to follow it.
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
Yeah what I'd found is this.
Who Bears the Burden of Proof in Self-Defense Cases?
Self-defense is an affirmative defense, so the defendant has the burden of producing evidence: He must put on some evidence from which a jury can find
reason.com
So my understanding right now from both of these is this somewhat varies by state - as you say, it's an affirmative defense, so it does have to be raised, the state doesn't have to prove it if the defendant doesn't even claim it (which wasn't my intention to suggest, but I might have been unclear).
In all but Ohio and SC, the defendant just has to produce some evidence that it was self defense - I'm not sure if just testifying that it was self defense counts as some evidence, but it seems like it would? Once that's done, then the state does need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.
In specifically Ohio and SC though, the defendant needs to go further and prove by preponderance of evidence (so, half and a feather) that it was self defense. My current takeaway is that I was right except in Ohio and SC, but I would be wrong in those states. Does that match your takeaway?
As it pertains to this case, at least if his own testimony is evidence, then the question would be if all the witnesses against him is beyond a reasonable doubt in 48 states. In Ohio and SC though he'd definitely fail to meet preponderance of evidence.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
We are not in ohio