Did Gollum deserve death?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

The only 'crime' we know for sure that he engaged in was to kill his brother for the Ring.

Hm, where is it stated that Deagol was his brother? He is only reffered to by Gandalf as his friend.

Originally Posted by Lal

The tales about his eating children are just that - tales!

I disagree

Originally Posted by The Shadow of the Past, FotR

The Wood-elves tracked him first, an easy task for them, for his trail was still fresh then. Through Mirkwood and back again it led them, though they never caught him. The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds. The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles.

This new terror appears just when Gollum escapes and wanders in Mirkwood. I see no reason to discard this as a mere tale, since it fits with his description of "persistent in wickedness" and "damnable".

Originally Posted by Lal

So rather than asking if Gollum ought to have been executed, maybe we ought to be asking if he was ultimately Middle-earth's ultimate martyr?

I strongly disagree. Gollum had little if any intention to sacrifice himself for the sake of others, not even to kill himself or destroy the ring in the very first place, quite the contrary. If anything would have been up to him, none of this would have happened.

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

[The Might]

I agree with Raynor here.
As Tolkien shows in Letter #144 (I think that's the one), Gollum would have indeed become a martyr had he repented before entering Shelon's Lair. Had this happened, he would have probably taken the Ring from Frodo and thrown himself in the lava, trying to keep Frodo safe, and ultimately saving Middle-earth.

[Folwren]

I agree with Raynor, and possibly somewhat with something that Lal said.

I didn't say Gollum deserved to die because I thought his treason deserved it. That was no where in my mind. I was thinking more of his murders and his over all corruption. He had to have been pretty corrupt to kill Deagol as soon as he saw the other Hobbit holding the ring in the first place.

I don't deny that Mercy is a wonderful thing and sometimes is better than Judgement, but you can't always put Mercy in as a substitution for Judgement. Not on earth (in this case, Middle-Earth). If you did, what would you be left with? (What's the world today left with?) Either a lot of murderers and criminals (and that doesn't belong in quotation marks, I'm talking real criminals) running around loose, or a lot of murderers and criminals locked up in prison for years upon years. Sometimes, capital punishment is appropriate punishment, and to have mercy in such cases would be jepordizing other people.

I guess in a case like this, one has to choose the lesser evil. That is, unless you believe the Bible, and then you won't have a problem with capital punishment, because that's God's law, when it comes to murderers and just a couple other crimes.

The real mercy comes after life.

But I didn't want to get into all that because it's not LotR or ME related.

I still think Gollum deserved to die, and I think Gandalf knew it.

I also think that Gandalf was supposed to make judgements. He did judge Saruman, to a certain extent.

But judgement and mercy are often mixed together when good people judge.
Aragorn, for instance, judged Beregond (spelling may be incorrect, and I haven't got a book with me), but he did so with mercy.

Won't go farther, I haven't the time.

-- Folwren

[The Might]

Is it me or has the the discussion already long left the original track?
Is this still a lore discussion based on the writings or only on personal emotions?
Because, after all, each person has his/her own opinion on capital punishment, which I respect, but I think that's a bit too off-topic.
As far as laws and capital punishment in ME I remember Boromir88 started an interesting thread on that topic, somewhere around here.
Of course, both Beregond, and Hama are good examples of people, who although broke the law, were only lightly punished by their superiors.
As for Gollum, he would deserve or not deserve death in ME depending on the laws of the areas he commited his crimes. If the Stoors had such a punishment for Hobbitcide (just made that word up), then I guess this was his fate.
If we are to consider this matter on a higher level, then probably Manwe as King of Arda, or Eru himself would be the ones with right to decide on such matters. Anyway, Eru's decision seemed pretty clear judging by his action in the Sammath Naur.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by The Might

Is it me or has the the discussion already long left the original track?

No it's not just you. I'm afraid this will becaome the next bloody (not used a s a swear word here, though that might be almost appropriate ) moral debate thread in the books...

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by The Might

Is it me or has the the discussion already long left the original track?
Is this still a lore discussion based on the writings or only on personal emotions?
Because, after all, each person has his/her own opinion on capital punishment, which I respect, but I think that's a bit too off-topic.

I think the problem is that, in order to decide whether a particular person does deserve death or not, we would first need to agree on what it takes for somebody to deserve death in general, which leads us almost necessarily into a debate about the good and bad of capital punishment. I doubt such a discussion, though it would surely be interesting (esp. with Middle-earth as background), will ever come to a final result here. It's not off-topic, but pointless.


A minor point: Gandalf says: "I daresay he does.", not "I say he does." This sounds to me like, although it is Gandalf's opinion that Gollum deserves death, he is aware that his opinion alone doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by The Might

Anyway, Eru's decision seemed pretty clear judging by his action in the Sammath Naur.

Exactly, and I would say that Eru alone can really make such a judgement. What is not clear, however, is Eru's motive, as Gollum's death doesn't necessarily strike me as a punishment.

[Folwren]

Cross posted with Mac, therefore, I'm double posting...

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Exactly, and I would say that Eru alone can really make such a judgement. What is not clear, however, is Eru's motive, as Gollum's death doesn't necessarily strike me as a punishment.

If we all agree that Eru had everything under his control (which I believe), then I think, deserving or not, Gollum was spared death by anyone's hand only so that he could go and die while destructing the ring. No, it wasn't punishment, but it was justice. (Heh...whatever that means...)

Gandalf, I think, thought Gollum deserved death, but the fact that he hadn't gotten what he deserved yet made Gandalf think that Eru had something else planned for him. Isn't that what I said at the beginning?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I think the problem is that, in order to decide whether a particular person does deserve death or not, we would first need to agree on what it takes for somebody to deserve death in general, which leads us almost necessarily into a debate about the good and bad of capital punishment. I doubt such a discussion, though it would surely be interesting (esp. with Middle-earth as background), will ever come to a final result here. It's not off-topic, but pointless.


A minor point: Gandalf says: "I daresay he does.", not "I say he does." This sounds to me like, although it is Gandalf's opinion that Gollum deserves death, he is aware that his opinion alone doesn't make it so.

Exactly, and I would say that Eru alone can really make such a judgement. What is not clear, however, is Eru's motive, as Gollum's death doesn't necessarily strike me as a punishment.

I agree. Such a discussion is ultimately pointless as nobody will agree!

Anyway...there's a very good point about what words Gandalf uses. "I daresay..." is incredibly different to "I say...". Remembering that Tolkien was English, it's important to consider how English people use the language, and "I daresay..." is very often used when someone really means "I think you're talking out of your backside, actually". As in when you get into a taxi and the driver lets fly with a stream of racist comments - "I think they should all be sent home, the scrounging foreigners, blah blah blah" may be met by a reply from you along the lines of "I daresay they should, but have you ever thought what it's like for them at home? Could you send them back to being tortured?" "I daresay..." is an opening statement used when we wish to appease the ranter, and is usually followed by an opposing statement of common sense - as is Gandalf's own "I daresay..." Miss out on that subtlety at your peril.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Again, there is not enough evidence that he committed much more crime than to kill Deagol.

You also are not taking into consideration that he hunted and ate orcs

Originally Posted by Riddles in the dark, The Hobbit

He liked meat too. Goblin he thought good, when he could get it; but he took care they never found him out. He just throttled them from behind, if they ever came down alone anywhere near the edge of the water, while he was prowling about. They very seldom did, for they had a feeling that something unpleasant was lurking down there, down at the very roots of the mountain.

Frankly, I fail to see what you don't like about the account of the woodmen concerning his deeds. It all falls into the same pattern.

Originally Posted by Lal

And we simply cannot say that because he killed Deagol he was already corrupt.

He was already evil at the time he took the ring

Originally Posted by Letter #181

The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sm eagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean son of thief before it crossed his path.

Originally Posted by Folwren

Gollum was an intelligent creature, cunning and evil.

I agree; unlike (most) Middle Earth animals, Gollum has the option to choose between right and wrong. Cunning and versatile as he is, he would have had no problem surviving on anything else than this.

[Boromir88]

There is no doubt that as Raynor has shown, Gollum wasn't a 'good little hobbit' and he did have this 'evil' side to him even before coming across the Ring. But let's not forget the power and the influence of the Ring in this situation. Yes, Gollum is described as 'damnable' and a 'mean son of a thief' before coming into contact with the Ring, but the Ring is also an integral part of the whole situation and let's not forget that.

Gollum went into what some might say a 'fit of rage.' And when emotions are high and you get into these fits of rage, you can not control what you are doing. You could say you black out and have no control over your actions. Boromir gets into one of these fits of rage:

'Miserable trickster!' he shouted. 'Let me get my hands on you! Now I see your mind. You will take the Ring to Sauron and sell us all. You have only waited your chance to leave us in the lurch. Curse you and all halflings to death and darkness!' Then, catching his foot on a stone, he fell sprawling and lay upon his face. For a while he was as still as if his own curse had struck him down; then suddenly he wept.

He rose and passed his hands over his eyes, dashing away the tears. 'What have I said?' he cried. 'What have I done? Frodo, Frodo!' he called. 'Come back! A madness took me, but it has passed. Come back!'~The Breaking of the Fellowship

Yes, Boromir had this idea of using the Ring as a weapon and win him his own glory, but let's not forget the Ring caused Boromir to act in a way we know Boromir never would act. Boromir desired the Ring, and he struggles with this, but when the Ring gets control...it certainly causes Boromir to act in a way he never would. And try to do something he never would. In this moment of Boromir trying to take the Ring, it always seemed like one of those fits of rage/blackout situations; Boromir lost control over himself and the Ring filled him with a maddening rage.

Now what's this have to do with Gollum? Yes, Smeagol wasn't all that good before coming across the Ring, but would it be fair to say that the Ring caused Smeagol to be filled with the same madness as Boromir? The Ring twists, warps, and manipulates people into doing things they never would, and definitely changes them. As Gandalf says to Denethor about Boromir 'He would have kept it for his own, and when he returned you would not have known your son.' (The Siege of Gondor).

Before coming across the Ring could you imagine Smeagol getting into a fit of rage and killing his friend? Before coming across the Ring could you imagine Boromir going in a fit of rage trying to kill Frodo for the Ring? No. Both had their weaknesses, but both were manipulated and controlled by the Ring; and the Ring caused both to do things they never would have done. So before one so easily condemns Smeagol as a murderous, down-right evil, spiteful, deserving of death wretch...let's not forget the part the Ring played in turning Smeagol into a murderous, down-right evil, spiteful deserving of death wretch. I don't think the Ring should be cast so easily out of the equation (and I don't see why it has barely been mentioned in the effect it had in changing Smeagol into a miserable murderer).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Folwren

I agree with Raynor, and possibly somewhat with something that Lal said.

I didn't say Gollum deserved to die because I thought his treason deserved it. That was no where in my mind. I was thinking more of his murders and his over all corruption. He had to have been pretty corrupt to kill Deagol as soon as he saw the other Hobbit holding the ring in the first place.

I don't deny that Mercy is a wonderful thing and sometimes is better than Judgement, but you can't always put Mercy in as a substitution for Judgement. Not on earth (in this case, Middle-Earth). If you did, what would you be left with? (What's the world today left with?) Either a lot of murderers and criminals (and that doesn't belong in quotation marks, I'm talking real criminals) running around loose, or a lot of murderers and criminals locked up in prison for years upon years. Sometimes, capital punishment is appropriate punishment, and to have mercy in such cases would be jepordizing other people.

I guess in a case like this, one has to choose the lesser evil. That is, unless you believe the Bible, and then you won't have a problem with capital punishment, because that's God's law, when it comes to murderers and just a couple other crimes.

The real mercy comes after life.

But I didn't want to get into all that because it's not LotR or ME related.

I still think Gollum deserved to die, and I think Gandalf knew it.

I also think that Gandalf was supposed to make judgements. He did judge Saruman, to a certain extent.

But judgement and mercy are often mixed together when good people judge.
Aragorn, for instance, judged Beregond (spelling may be incorrect, and I haven't got a book with me), but he did so with mercy.

Won't go farther, I haven't the time.

-- Folwren

Firstly I must correct something. The Bible does not say that capital punishment is acceptable. One of the fundamental things I was taught being brought up, at Sunday School and in church was that Mercy comes above all and that to resort to capital punishment was wrong; reacting with violence is allowing oneself to sink to the level of the criminal; that only God was able to make such judgements. Only certain interpretations of scripture says capital punishment is OK and we must also remember that many of the 'laws' contained therein are not God's laws but reflections of the culture of an ancient middle eastern society - e.g. not eating shellfish, stoning adulterers etc. And as for those who are against the cruel treatment of criminals, many of the prime movers in the movement against Capital Punishment were/are committed Christians. Today we have the Quakers solely to thank that prisoners are not beaten and left to rot in foul dungeons.

Now on the matter of Gollum's crimes. Again, there is not enough evidence that he committed much more crime than to kill Deagol. Anything else he 'did' is simply hearsay, as we as Readers are not there when events rumoured to be Gollum's work take place and there is no reliable evidence. Had he been a Real Life criminal the case would be laughed out of court as it's only circumstantial evidence at best - and that's a push of credibility!

And we simply cannot say that because he killed Deagol he was already corrupt. If we do so we are omitting to consider that most powerful of all the dangers in Middle Earth. What's that? The Ring of course. What about the powerful draw that the Ring has on him? If it was so unimportant then we might as well dismiss the whole story of LotR, as it was quite pointless trying to get this risky object out of anyone's hands forever, and we might as well dismiss Frodo's struggles, and decide Boromir really was a nasty pigheaded bully and not just troubled by thoughts of the Ring and what it might do.

I'm afraid that this is one of those examples whereby seeking to impose simplistic Real World moral mores onto Tolkien's complex creation just results in stripping away all the subtlety.

As indeed Gandalf said "can you really judge?" No, none of us can.

[Folwren]

I strongly disagree with you on the Bible subject, but I won't get into it here. The Might's right, and I don't want to lead this anymore off track in such a blatant matter.

Gollum, though...

No good person in the books ever killed someone who already had the ring of power. No one ever looked at it and said, "Wow, I really like that Ring, let's kill him for it." The only person who almost did was Boromir, and that was after a long time of struggling with it, and that was also with the knowledge of what it was. Smeagol killed Deagol because Deagol had a pretty gold ring, not because Deagol held a powerful weapon that could defeat Sauron. (Tell me if I'm wrong about there not being anyone else but Boromir, it's really bad practice of me to be in an argument now...I haven't read the books in nearly two years.)

Okay, so if you wish to disregard his cradle stealing, then consider the fact that when he met Bilbo, his soul intention of the riddle game was so that in the end, he could throttle him and eat him. You don't think that's good evidence? And during the riddle game, Gollum is getting hungrier and hungrier and all the while of the riddles, wishes only to kill poor Bilbo. When Bilbo gives him an unanswerable question (unfair, yes, I'm aware of that), Gollum admits defeat, but plans to go, get his precious, and return and kill Bilbo in secret. You don't call that murderous?

As indeed Gandalf said "can you really judge?" No, none of us can.

Ha. I almost said something much like that in my last post, but I didn't.

There's also another meaning to deserves... I just realized that. We've all been thinking of 'deserve' in this thread as a bad thing. But there are times when deserve is meant as a good thing. "He deserves a metal, therefore he shall have one." Did Gollum deserve the right to die?

I'd say he deserved it in both senses - both for justice and for relief.

[Thinlómien]

Foley, a few points.

First, Sméagol didn't attack or kill Déagol because he had some random pretty gold ring. He attcaked because he was overtaken by the lust and the lure of the ring. He maybe had some natural inclination to greed since he acted this quickly, but I daresay he didn't do this because he was a bad/evil person. Greed was his weak point and it proved fatal here. (Also, one must consider that it is possible that the Ring put more "luring power" to Sméagol than to Boromir, but I'm not sure why would it so so or can it control itself that much..)

Second, I wouldn't call his actions towards Bilbo murderous. He was hungry. He didn't want to kill Bilbo because he (Gollum) is an evil person, but because he was hungry. A lion doesn't kill an antilope because it's evil. It kills to satisfy its hunger. (And I'd rather not start arguing is it a worse crime to eat people than to eat animals, it's a horrible debate...)

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Foley, a few points.

First, Sméagol didn't attack or kill Déagol because he had some random pretty gold ring. He attcaked because he was overtaken by the lust and the lure of the ring. He maybe had some natural inclination to greed since he acted this quickly, but I daresay he didn't do this because he was a bad/evil person. Greed was his weak point and it proved fatal here. (Also, one must consider that it is possible that the Ring put more "luring power" to Sméagol than to Boromir, but I'm not sure why would it so so or can it control itself that much..)

Bilbo didn't even attack Frodo (much less kill him) when he knew that Frodo had the Ring in Rivendel. And Bilbo had already born the Ring. Don't you suppose the lure was strong on him, too?

And I dearly wish I had the books here with me today...fact is...the library is open now, I'll see if I can hop over there and look some stuff up.

Second, I wouldn't call his actions towards Bilbo murderous. He was hungry. He didn't want to kill Bilbo because he (Gollum) is an evil person, but because he was hungry. A lion doesn't kill an antilope because it's evil. It kills to satisfy its hunger. (And I'd rather not start arguing is it a worse crime to eat people than to eat animals, it's a horrible debate...)

Gollum was not a lion or a wild animal. He wasn't even an orc, and yet an orc would be considered disgusting if it ate another orc or a person (they did, though, didn't they?). Gollum was an intelligent creature, cunning and evil.

And a lion, if it came to a village of people and started slaughtering the inhabitents, whether or not the lion deserved to be hungry and deserved to eat, the people would kill it.

AND Gollum WASN'T hungry at the beginning of the riddle game, but he STILL said, "If I win, I get to eat you."

Pointless? My dear chaps, any discussion on these books are pointless in the long run. "All is vanity and grasping for the wind."

-- Folwren