Did Gollum deserve death?

[HerenIstarion]

My apologies for [probably] repeating what may have been said above and [probably] taking the debate back to a point it already got past, also putting forward an excuse of being on the run (as is my usual state of affairs of late ) let me address the initial post and forward the following brief statement:

Death is not punishment

Or, at least, whilst being partially a 'punishment' from certain point of view, it is at the same time a way of release. It was not 'designed' to be percieved solely as punishment and the fact it is nevertheless perceived so is one of the many consequences of Melkor's meddling with the World's affairs

I'm almost sure that were it not Frodo Gandalf discussed the matter with back than in Bag End but one of the Wise the question of 'death as punishment' would not have been raised at all

[davem]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

My apologies for [probably] repeating what may have been said above and [probably] taking the debate back to a point it already got past, also putting forward an excuse of being on the run (as is my usual state of affairs of late ) let me address the initial post and forward the following brief statement:

Death is not punishmentl

Good point. It does seem that throughout the thread we have been treating the question as 'Does Gollum deserve to be executed?' Death is not really the issue, as it is efectively inevitable for any (or most) mortals. The question turned into 'Would it be right to put Gollum to death?' And then the arguments ensued about Gollum's psychological/spiritual state & whether he could, or should, rightfully & justly be judged, found guilty, & put to death.

Then it became a matter of whether Tolkien's opinions on the subject of his characters should be binding on a reader who interpreted the characters differently from the author.

Its got a long way off topic & its probably a good thing you've popped up now....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Death is not punishment

Or, at least, whilst being partially a 'punishment' from certain point of view, it is at the same time a way of release. It was not 'designed' to be percieved solely as punishment and the fact it is nevertheless perceived so is one of the many consequences of Melkor's meddling with the World's affairs

Nice point! So from the point of view of 'morals' in Middle-earth (and the simple nature of people), execution is actually the wrong way to go, as Death is a gift, not a punishment. That makes me wonder if the point originally put by Mithalwen, that Gandalf perhaps means Gollum deserves death as a release from suffering, is the one we've missed all along!

Course, Death being perceived as a 'punishment' being as a result of Melkor's actions, has parallels in the real world, as one of the arguments put across by Quakers and other religious people against capital punishment is that it is only carrying out "an eye for an eye" and has no benefit beyond satisfying our own revenge/anger, and that only God can decide on such things.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by TM

Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?

Hmm, I tried to explain that in the other post. I'll try to make myself clearer:

Well, let's assume Gollum would have been punished and he would have been locked up for a longer period of time. - This is what I had in mind, Raynor gave a good point that I was thinking a tad too narrowly. - Would he have understood why he was punished? In parts, yes, as we have good evidence that he had a bad conscience because of Déagol. But what about, for example, his eating of orcs? I don't think he saw that as evil. Which brings me to Squatter's point:

Originally Posted by Squatter

Therefore, in order to be rehabilitated and healed, Gollum must be fully and knowingly culpable in all his actions. His madness: what I suppose would popularly be called 'multiple personality disorder' results from his attempts to externalise his own guilt, and to deny his actions.

I disagree, a little. I would regard a gradual process of becoming aware of his full guilt already as a part of the healing - a necessary first step, not a premise.

Anyway, would punishment bring Gollum any closer to repentance? I strongly doubt that, given how he reacted to his imprisonments in Mirkwood or Henneth Annûn (though Lal makes a good point that he never was in custody for a longer time). He would rather regard his punishers as wicked than himself.

So the effect of just punishment would, in the end, only be to satisfy our sense of justice, which is little. It would not have changed Gollum. It's difficult to say whether a combination of punishment and healing, like in an asylum, would have had a effect, but I have a feeling he wouldn't have accepted healing from his punishers.

If we look at Frodo, he didn't punish Gollum, though he could have. In fact, it's his not punishing him, and his being nice to Gollum and caring for him instead, which led to his near-repentance later, which could have been a first step to healing.

[HerenIstarion]

So the effect of just punishment would, in the end, only be to satisfy our sense of justice, which is little. It's difficult to say whether a combination of punishment and healing, like in an asylum, would have had a effect, but I have a feeling he wouldn't have accepted healing from his punishers

Tread gently, for you are treading dangerous soil here. It seems/feels to me that Gandalf's words as quoted in the opening post contain layers of thought, not just what can be read at first glance. "Can you give what is deserved" indicates also (it seems to me) imperfection of the giver of the deserved/undeserved.

(Cf John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her)

For healing as I read it out in your post may be easily substituted with changing and that in turn with moulding of a person, and whose mould is good enough for the task?

As for Frodo, his very being in the same boat must have played the part. If there was no Gollum to look at and antagonize and sympathize with at the same time, [I feel] like Frodo would have fallen sooner.

(It's a frenzy of quick typing out of whatever is being born in on me, I hope you follow)

[Bêthberry]

No time now for a full elaboration of my current thoughts about this thread, but yesterday's and today's posts have really made me see that this argument (and it is an argument, gentlemen and ladies, not a discussion and, honestly, sometimes I am very sure that people post not to advance the discussion but because they like the sound of their posts) is very much like a rehash of the sides on the old Canonicity thread.

We've got people who are quoting Letters and other sources from Tolkien and saying herein lies the letter of the law and we've got people who are saying any personal interpretation is just fine and dandy thank you very much. (Okay, I'm being hyperbolic here for clarity of effect.) And it's very much a reductio ab absurdum in many ways. I bet Fordim is laughing in his boots.

Thank you so much, HI, for restating my point that death is not punishment. Very nice also to point out that not only is Gollem's participation crucial to the climax at Mount Doom but also, all along the dreadful way for Frodo's own spiritual journey.

Anyhow, I'm late, can't finish.

Gandalf put the fear of fire onto Gollum whilst in Mirkwood in order to get information out of him about the Ring. Doesn't this count as torture, but in a lighter sense? It may translate to Gollum as a death threat. Do you think Gandalf would have harmed Gollum further if he refused to speak up, e.g. by not giving him any food or drink until he would confess all?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf put the fear of fire onto Gollum whilst in Mirkwood in order to get information out of him about the Ring. Doesn't this count as torture, but in a lighter sense? It may translate to Gollum as a death threat. Do you think Gandalf would have harmed Gollum further if he refused to speak up, e.g. by not giving him any food or drink until he would confess all?

Hardly. This does not go with his character. If he couldn't get the information, he would leave him alone. Every time he "threats" someone, if it is not a servant of the Enemy, he acts more like a parent scolding his children for breaking the neighbour's window. "STOP PLAYING WITH ME, SMÉAGOL! I KNOW YOUR GRANDMA DIDN'T GAVE YOU THIS RING, SO TELL ME WHERE DID YOU GET IT!!!"