Slavery in Star Wars

[FaxModem1]

Obviously, the Jedi as discussed in the OT and associated then-canon are not the Jedi we see in the PT and the show. So something happened. I'm giving the creators of both the benefit of the doubt and ascribing non-stupid story justifications to their works. I may be wrong. I like my version of the universe. You are welcome to your own. I'm not trying to tell you this is the end-all, be-all, just that this makes some sense.

Point being, eliminating slavers from the galaxy is hardly a sign of moral decrepitude, regardless of any moral compromises the Jedi are having to make due to the war effort.

[KraytKing]

No. But it was easier than the somewhat better alternative. It was a compromise, when the better deal was attainable. That is the difference between a Jedi and a cop.

[NecronLord]

Obviously, the Jedi as discussed in the OT and associated then-canon are not the Jedi we see in the PT and the show. So something happened.

Except long before the PT was developed, we had a concept that in the Old Republic, the Jedi were judges.

The Radian drew himself up to his full height which still left him a good half meter shorter than his opponent-and spat something in a language Luke didn't understand. "You lie," the Barabel spat back. "You cheat. I know."

The Radian said something else. "You no like?" the Barabel countered, his voice haughty. "You do anyway. I call on Jedi for judgment."

Every eye in the tapcafe had been riveted to the confrontation.

Now, in almost perfect unison, the gazes turned to Luke. "What?" he asked cautiously.

"He wants you to settle the dispute," the bartender said, relief evident in his voice.

A relief that Luke himself was far from feeling. "Me?"

The bartender gave him a strange look. "You're the Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker, aren't you?" he asked, gesturing at the lightsaber in Luke's hand.

"Yes," Luke admitted.

"Well, then," the bartender concluded, waving a hand toward the disputants.

Except that, Jedi or no Jedi, Luke didn't have a drop of legal authority here. He opened his mouth to tell the bartender that-

And then took another look into the other's eyes.

Slowly, he turned back around, the excuses sticking unsaid in his throat. It wasn't just the bartender, he saw. Everyone in the tapcafe, it seemed, was looking at him with pretty much the same expression. An expression of expectation and trust.

Trust in the judgment of a Jedi.

Passing instant judgement on slavers is well within what we might reasonably expect Old Republic jedi to do.

[Crazedwraith]

That doesn't look like a formal legal power. More that Jedi are respected as wise and just. Able to set disputes but like only if the disputants agree to it, like I don't know small claims court or Judge Judy or something.

There was a similar sticking in of the short story anthologies, where a con woman poses as a Jedi and does similar tasks in a community (and eventually teams up with a disguise repentant Kyp Durron. )

--

Again I don't feel the depicted scene is that dark or showing exercise of power beyond what I would expect a military to. Whether you think that's good for the jedi is debatable. But they're not exactly summarily executing pirates, pleading for mercy or trying to surrender. It seems a standard rescue mission to me.

[Elheru Aran]

That doesn't look like a formal legal power. More that Jedi are respected as wise and just.

I concur. The Jedi are fairly careful throughout the whole of Star Wars to more or less hold the Republic at arms' length. They will lead its military and take its children to fill their ranks, but they won't be officially part of its government and leadership. A powerful voice that is listened to when it speaks, yes-- but not officially.

The scene in question reads to me like referring to a trusted village elder more than anything-- it's obviously not expected to hold legal authority, and Jedi are objects of myth by the post-ROTJ generation. The very text suggests that the witnesses to the incident are expecting nigh-divine judgement from Luke; if he was simply a Republic officer, it would be another matter.

[Batman]

Though it should be noted the 'not a drop of legal authority' is as far as Luke knows. Given his training was rather spotty and mostly concentrated on the 'Powers' aspects of being a Jedi, it's entirely possible in the Old Republic a Jedi ruling like he eventually did would have been legally binding, though I generally agree it comes across as mostly a respect thing.

[KraytKing]

Bombing that facility is not justice. As I said, some of those slavers may have been present under extenuating circumstances. Even if the penalty for slaving is death, which I find unlikely, some of those may have been judged accessory to slaving and given reduced sentences. Or perhaps some were misled by their elders into a bad profession, and are deserving of, say, twenty years imprisonment.

Hell, earlier in that episode, we see the slaver boss taunt Kenobi, saying "A Jedi wouldn't kill a defenseless man." Kenobi does not kill him: he is about to show mercy when Rex, a soldier, kills the Zygerrian in cold blood, in order to avoid having to care for a prisoner. Because it is expedient, in other words. One could argue that destroying a defenseless station that may yet have surrendered is a similar circumstance.

[FaxModem1]

Bombing that facility is not justice. As I said, some of those slavers may have been present under extenuating circumstances. Even if the penalty for slaving is death, which I find unlikely, some of those may have been judged accessory to slaving and given reduced sentences. Or perhaps some were misled by their elders into a bad profession, and are deserving of, say, twenty years imprisonment.

Hell, earlier in that episode, we see the slaver boss taunt Kenobi, saying "A Jedi wouldn't kill a defenseless man." Kenobi does not kill him: he is about to show mercy when Rex, a soldier, kills the Zygerrian in cold blood, in order to avoid having to care for a prisoner. Because it is expedient, in other words. One could argue that destroying a defenseless station that may yet have surrendered is a similar circumstance.

Maybe. Maybe not. It's just as expedient to deal with slavers the same way you'd deal with pirates, in that if they are actively trying to harm you or others, their lives are less important than those you are trying to save. Considering this is the Jedi trying to save what is supposed to be hundreds of slaves, taking out a few slavers seems morally justified. Especially since the Slavers are striking back with lethal force.

Slavers aren't like Imperial foot soldiers, in which they think they're committing some sort of act of patriotism by guarding some base somewhere. They are actively torturing and killing people for non-compliance in being slaves. They are doing this for their own profit. That's an active decision to harm others for your own self interest. Reforming the slavers is going to be a low priority, especially if you have slaver bosses acting in bad faith about whether or not they're surrendering and just waiting for an opportunity to kill you.

Think of it like this. the Jedi and the clone soldiers are rescuing slaves from an enemy fortress(non-Separatist, but enemy nonetheless), who less than a day ago was actively trying to enslave people from your own religious order by torturing innocent civilians to ensure compliance. Rescuing the slaves seems to be the biggest priority, then saving those who are on your side, such as fellow Jedi. The slavers are enemy combatants until they prove not to be, and have to be treated as such unless they willingly surrender, and not do so as to trick you into a vulnerable position.

Taking them out prevents future civilians from being tortured, enslaved, and killed by these people. It's morally and tactically expedient.