Rather than bring Kishkumen into the judgment-seat, the servant slays Kishkumen. Instead of Kishkumen killing someone, we have Helaman’s servant killing someone. We have more sympathies with Helaman’s servant, but was he right? We do not know enough about the Nephite laws to entirely judge the servant, but we can make some assumptions based on the few facts that we have available.
After the killing of Kishkumen the servant runs to Helaman. This suggests that he had no qualms about telling Helaman what had happened. Indeed, there is not indication that there was any problem with the servant’s action. The salient points, were we to make a legal defense of the servant to his killing of Kishkumen are:
- The servant is a trusted and officially sanctioned spy. He must be trusted to maintain absolute loyalty while engaging with those who are disloyal. Nothing assures this other than his word and character, and those were accepted by Helaman (by implication).
- The disguise of the servant made him recognizeable to the band of Kishkumen before whom he had appeared in that disguise. However, it would make him unrecognizeable in the context of Helaman’s court, which was the identity being hidden. Thus Helaman’s servant could not have escorted Kishkumen to Helaman without revealing himself, and risking the flight and escape of Kishkumen.
- Kishkumen was a traitor, and embarked on a murderous treachery. We know that Moroni held the power to execute traitors (Alma 46:34-35). This is apparently a law that remained with the Nephites, for Paanchi is put to death, and the reason would have been treason (Helaman 1:8). Thus the penalty for a traitor was death, and Helaman’s servant has the evidence of Kishkumen’s treason, and executes him.
- The Nephite system did not require the independent witnesses that our modern system might. The word of the servant was sufficient proof of the treason and reason for the execution.
