Perrin's Trial

[jsbrads]

Look, you probably can't walk up to Galad and convince him that all Whitecloaks are rabid dogs that need to be put down.

But with Morgase he could without any equivocation of circumstances, just said "I was in the wilderness and I saw whitecloaks, I tried to hide and they pursued me until they found me (illegal behavior on their part in Andor) and they raised their lances and commanded me (an Andoran citizen) to exit at lance point. I killed them in self defense. They would have taken me without cause believing that I am DF, their command was behavior preliminary to arrest, their arrest would result in only one outcome that they would assume I am a DF. That conclusion on their part would result in my torture and eventual death, so I was responding to an imminent threat on my life.

[MasterAblar]

Unfortunately Perrin attacked them first. Even if their behavior was hostile, they hadn't attacked him yet.

 

As to the second part you can't use the excuse of "they very probably would have unlawfully killed me so I unlawfully killed them first."

Edited June 16, 2011 by Master Ablar

[AvroChris]

Unfortunately Perrin attacked them first. Even if their behavior was hostile, they hadn't attacked him yet.

 

As to the second part you can't use the excuse of "they very probably would have unlawfully killed me so I unlawfully killed them first."

 

This. Also, you would be right to be wary of a big man with a battleaxe hiding in the shadows. "I'm a main character in a novel, trust me!" is not a very reasonable defense (even if it is often effective).

[Smittyphi]

Hopper attacked first and Whitecloaks don't recognize wolves as sentient beings. Revenge for killing a wolf does not carry any weight on those not able to communicate with them.

[USURP888]

Much as I hated the whitecloaks, Perrin is indeed guilty of murder.

 

If my neighbor kills my pet dog, I doubt any court would look kindly if I killed my neighbor in turn and say my dog is my bestfriend ( which is true he is ).

[brolie]

Unfortunately, the only thing that bothers me about the whole trial and all that is that the whitecloaks have killed so many innocent people because they thought they were DF. Killed based on an assumption, which is what Perrin did too kinda. He assumed the WC were going to hurt him since they already hurt wolves. But yeah, that's reaching in court.

[Mats Spare Hat]

I'm thinking it was more manslaughter rather than murder, what do you all think?

 

...Not that there's any difference in what the assumed punishment may have been for either, in the case of Perrin v. Whitecloaks

[sandoz12]

I think it was definitely murder. But it was murder 'in the heat of the moment' rather than a cold, pre-meditated murder. In New Zealand we don't have degrees of murder but if the murder was committed in this manner this is seen as a mitigating circumstance and usually reduces the sentence.

 

He could also have argued that he genuinely felt his life was in danger in which case he could claim self-defence. But I don't think this is really a valid argument as had he dropped his axe and raised his hands they weren't going to kill him.

[David Selig]

How about those Whitecloacks Perrin killed when he freed Gaul? I am wondering how Galad would've taken it if they knew about that. That's more of a self-defence case, since Perrin was attacked first, but he was also caught freeing a prisoner and armed.

[sandoz12]

How about those Whitecloacks Perrin killed when he freed Gaul? I am wondering how Galad would've taken it if they knew about that. That's more of a self-defence case, since Perrin was attacked first, but he was also caught freeing a prisoner and armed.

Yeah I think that one would definitely have qualified for self-defence. However, he would be guilty of freeing a prisoner. And if it was a war situation (which this wasn't) then freeing a prisoner can be seen as treason.

[Jon Paul]

However, he would be guilty of freeing a prisoner. And if it was a war situation (which this wasn't) then freeing a prisoner can be seen as treason.

 

He was not however in Andoran not Whitecloack land. And besides that neither of Andorans or Whitecloacks captured Gaul in the first place, that honour belongs to a pumped up Hunter who attacked an innocent man and captured him for no reason.

[sandoz12]

However, he would be guilty of freeing a prisoner. And if it was a war situation (which this wasn't) then freeing a prisoner can be seen as treason.

 

He was not however in Andoran not Whitecloack land. And besides that neither of Andorans or Whitecloacks captured Gaul in the first place, that honour belongs to a pumped up Hunter who attacked an innocent man and captured him for no reason.

Very true. Whose land was he in though (my memory fails me)? Because that land may have the law that the local mayor/lord has the power to imprison people in which case Perrin was still committing a crime (a perfectly valid crime imo - many great deeds have been technically crimes.

[Erunion]

I was under the impression that he was in Ghaeldean (sp?). The current reigning monarch of that nation has sworn fealty to Perrin, so charges would not likely be pressed.

[Mats Spare Hat]

In the States I would call Perrin v. Whitecloaks, in EoTW, as being voluntary manslaughter for sure.

 

...Dunno how I feel about Perrin v. More Whitecloaks, with Gaul. Guess it'll be something random to think about since I'm in a re-read eh?

[Stitch]

In both cases, the deaths themselves would likely be manslaughter

 

However in the second case it is more troublesome... in the second land was the hunter acting illegally? The majority of aeil are soldiers that belong to at least two armies (sept (through it clan) and society), so technically the freed aiel was an invader, even if the government had yet to recognise the invasion and declare a state of war; in such a case local lords and almost always empowered to protect the realm from invading forces, even if not in a state of war.

 

As to whether or not the hunter was given such powers is doubtful, so while the crown might pardon the hunter and even reward him for service, until that time he was not acting as an agent of the crown, so while the initial capture was likely unlawful (as was the death of the other aeil) that act would not be punished in most circumstances (though depending on political pressure, that might not be the case). The whitecloaks themselves can be seen to be a case in point of this in the first (and possibly second) case.

 

However, when the prisoner was turned over to the locals and imprisoned within the cage, his state of detention was enacted by agents of the crown (the mayor or whatnot would have permission to detain criminals, including members of an invading army); so freeing the prisoner is indeed a crime - regardless of whether or not the hunter was later found to have committed a crime (it is only in western society (and only sometimes then *cough*gitmo*cough*) where we consider polite technicalities of whether or not the wrongful arrest constitutes wrongful detention or whether wrongful detention itself acts as a mitigating factor against acts to free the detainee).

 

In the case where the hunter is found to have been acting in accordance with the wishes of the crown (likely), AND that the detention by the locals was found to be valid (very likely) AND that the present whitecloaks (even if that presence was illegal) were also found to have been acting in accordance with the wishes of the crown (less likely) then the killing of the whitecloaks would be tantamount to killing those acting as agents of the crown - thus murder as well as a crime against the state (not sure which one).

Edited June 17, 2011 by Stitch

[sandoz12]

In both cases, the deaths themselves would likely be manslaughter

 

I disagree regarding the first. Though of course it all depends on which country's legal system you wish to use. As I understand it in my own country you a murder cannot be downgraded to manslaughter through self-defence. Either you are guilty of murder or not-guilty due to the fact that you were defending yourself or family from a real and present danger. In the first case I don't think Perrin could plead self-defence as eve after he killed a Whitecloak they still didn't kill him. The threat he was under would be a mitigating factor in the sentence of the murder not enough to downgrade the charge itself.

 

However, he could have an interesting angle to play in the self-defence. He could argue that Hopper was family to him in which case his actions were in self-defence. Still I don't think many legal systems would accept that a wolf will qualify for self defence. Because even though people consider their dogs and cats etc to be part of their family, killing someone who killed your cat/dog would not be sanctioned under self-defence law.

[Stitch]

I wasnt basing my opinion on the idea of 'downgrading' a charge (this is a process that I abhor as I believe it can either omit circumstances or else lead to inordinate mitigation... I feel that it is a flawed system...), but yes, it highly depends on the system of laws in place... I would however point out that at the time of the trial Morgase had no authority to judge the pair and claiming jurisdiction of Andoran law is in fact illegal (excepting the fact that both agreed to it while outside of Andor).

 

While the whole aspect of killing the wolf might seem important to an individual, to society it is of negligble importance (though potentially a crime of itself) in 'mitigation' of the crime Perrin committed. No instead, determining a charge should occur after taking into account the circumstances in which the death took place, two youths in the wilderness attempting to hide from a group of men with a very shady reputation for killing people, the group of men find the youths and one attacks after a violent animal that they are fond of is killed.

 

The level of duress should be taken into consideration prior to determining the charge as otherwise it can predispose the sentence toward either end of the spectrum (either setting in mind that the charge given should be upheld or else giving undue weight to subsequent mitigating factors). Grief over the death of a well liked animal - one belonging to a species well known as being wild and dangerous, who was acting violently towards the whitecloaks; combined with the trepidation of confronting whitecloaks (with their poor reputation) at night in the wilderness and possibly his sense of duty to protect his female companion... offset that with the fact that Perrin attacked first, and that even after Perrin killed the whitecloaks their companions did not kill him in self defence or revenge...

 

Manslaughter seems reasonable approximation of the level of charge (noting that they might not even HAVE a manslaughter charge in their legal system) brought against Perrin IMO (though I would not have left it to Galad as the whitecloak commander to determine the sentence for that crime, as it seems to discount many of the circumstances in which the deaths took place). I would probably have had Perrin imprisoned, possibly killed - but certainly not just given him to the whitecloaks (who are well known for their torturers, even if Galad didn't have them on side at the time, it shows that the whitecloaks as an institution are not above such things, which given the circumstances of the deaths - potential torture seems uncalled for).

Edited June 17, 2011 by Stitch

[Mats Spare Hat]

In both cases, the deaths themselves would likely be manslaughter

 

I disagree regarding the first. Though of course it all depends on which country's legal system you wish to use. As I understand it in my own country you a murder cannot be downgraded to manslaughter through self-defence. Either you are guilty of murder or not-guilty due to the fact that you were defending yourself or family from a real and present danger. In the first case I don't think Perrin could plead self-defence as eve after he killed a Whitecloak they still didn't kill him. The threat he was under would be a mitigating factor in the sentence of the murder not enough to downgrade the charge itself.

 

However, he could have an interesting angle to play in the self-defence. He could argue that Hopper was family to him in which case his actions were in self-defence. Still I don't think many legal systems would accept that a wolf will qualify for self defence. Because even though people consider their dogs and cats etc to be part of their family, killing someone who killed your cat/dog would not be sanctioned under self-defence law.

 

 

Yeah I actually wouldn't have gone with a self-defense angle at all.

 

More so it's the provocation via Hopper's death that sells it as manslaughter, in the States, for me. You could probably work in a diminished capacity angle for an altered mental state, as Perrin did apparently go fairly bonkers, and could be said to have been out of his mind, when he axed the two dudes in white.

 

When Hopper was killed, it provoked Perrin, who went coo-coo, killing the victims while in that altered mental state. Intent is definitely there though, thus the lean towards voluntary, rather than involuntary manslaughter. Perrin was provoked, intended to do harm, and was looney toons at the time the act of killing occurred.

 

Like you said though it has a whole lot to do with what legal system you're under.

[sandoz12]

In both cases, the deaths themselves would likely be manslaughter

 

I disagree regarding the first. Though of course it all depends on which country's legal system you wish to use. As I understand it in my own country you a murder cannot be downgraded to manslaughter through self-defence. Either you are guilty of murder or not-guilty due to the fact that you were defending yourself or family from a real and present danger. In the first case I don't think Perrin could plead self-defence as eve after he killed a Whitecloak they still didn't kill him. The threat he was under would be a mitigating factor in the sentence of the murder not enough to downgrade the charge itself.

 

However, he could have an interesting angle to play in the self-defence. He could argue that Hopper was family to him in which case his actions were in self-defence. Still I don't think many legal systems would accept that a wolf will qualify for self defence. Because even though people consider their dogs and cats etc to be part of their family, killing someone who killed your cat/dog would not be sanctioned under self-defence law.

 

 

Yeah I actually wouldn't have gone with a self-defense angle at all.

 

More so it's the provocation via Hopper's death that sells it as manslaughter, in the States, for me. You could probably work in a diminished capacity angle for an altered mental state, as Perrin did apparently go fairly bonkers, and could be said to have been out of his mind, when he axed the two dudes in white.

 

When Hopper was killed, it provoked Perrin, who went coo-coo, killing the victims while in that altered mental state. Intent is definitely there though, thus the lean towards voluntary, rather than involuntary manslaughter. Perrin was provoked, intended to do harm, and was looney toons at the time the act of killing occurred.

 

Like you said though it has a whole lot to do with what legal system you're under.

It's actually quite interesting because here in New Zealand the law has just been changed so that provocation can no longer be used to turn a murder charge into a manslaughter one (ie. someone gets charged with murder but the jury finds them guilty of manslaughter due to provocation), now provocation is seen only as a mitigating factor in sentencing. So even if the provocation is extreme you will still be found guilty of murder just the provocation will mitigate the sentence. But compared to the US, NZ law works a lot more on that basis eg. we have no degrees of murder just a list of mitigating factors affecting sentencing. Manslaughter exists but generally for cases where the killing was unintentional (eg. unfenced pool, dangerous/drunk driving causing death, punch to head causing fatal blood clot etc) or where the person was unaware of what they were doing (ie. through insanity).

[Stitch]

It might be unintentional provocation (more likely the whitecloaks would think they were actually doing Perrin and Egwene a favour by killing a dangerous animal), so under US law, it is quite likely that the whitecloak's killing of hopper would not constitute 'wrongful conduct' (in that their killing of a wolf would not be construed by a REASONABLE person to be 'wrongful', also, that same reasonable person standard would not usually mitigate the killing of a human due to the killing of an animal) and thus not lead to a manslaughter charge at all.

 

In terms of US Laws - Therefore instead of provocation, more reasonable grounds for defence include: Abuse (shaky as it would require arguing that the whitecloaks' prior history of abuse constitutes grounds for anyone to kill them), Automatism/Irresistible impulse/Biological/Diminished responsibility (a little more likely, that Perrin was acting under impulses that he could not control his behaviour as a result), Necessity/Competing harms/Justifiable homicide (more likely still - that killing the whitecloaks was neccessary to avoid harm - though this is undermined somewhat by the fact that neither was killed by the whitecloaks), Legal Duty/Resisting unlawful arrest (which would have been great.... had he even known he was an Andoran - that Perrin's actions were in fact in support of the crown of Andor, whom the whitecloaks were trespassing upon).

 

However, the Imperfect self-defense ("whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming, as a partial affirmative defense, the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack" Wiki article of same name) is the most likely grounds however.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Stitch

[Zentari]

I like how people here apply the laws of our society to one where the freaking inquisition is free to operate as it pleases.REALLY like it.

 

PS: This post MAY contain some trace amounts of sarcasm.

[Stitch]

Lol, well I was using US laws since they were brought up (Im not from the US) as a reference point... however we cannot really argue the specific Andoran legalities of the judgement since we dont know the laws... we ARE told however that the 'inquisition' (whitecloaks) are not completely free to go about their business and we can make certain extrapolations with a reasonable degree of confidence (but even those are not necessarily true... its like any other prediction thread.... making assumptions based on limited evidence)

[Zentari]

Lol, well I was using US laws since they were brought up (Im not from the US) as a reference point... however we cannot really argue the specific Andoran legalities of the judgement since we dont know the laws... we ARE told however that the 'inquisition' (whitecloaks) are not completely free to go about their business and we can make certain extrapolations with a reasonable degree of confidence (but even those are not necessarily true... its like any other prediction thread.... making assumptions based on limited evidence)

Like for example giving people their rudimentary 'trials' before hanging them based on information that they have extracted (or forced) with torture ? I know what you are getting at , that the local government tries to contain them as much as it can but you have to admit,everybody knows they are up to no good.

 

So I find it KINDA funny that the law is being thrown around as a basis for Perrin's so called murder.These people make it sound as if they wanted to give him cookies and talk about the weather :p.

[Stitch]

Lol, true but the 'forms' are all important... the substance.... well not so much ^o^

[UncleButcher1980]

They killed Hooper. Bastards deserved it.