Rather than bring the assassin to Helaman, the servant fatally stabs him. Naturally, our sympathies are with Helaman’s servant, but what is the morality of this slaying? We do not know enough about Nephite law to provide a complete legal answer, but we can make some assumptions based on the few facts available.
After killing Kishkumen, the servant “ran” to Helaman, suggesting that he had no hesitation about reporting his actions. Nor does Helaman’s response indicate any reproof. The salient points, were we to make a legal defense of this assassination, 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 outcome other than his word and character, which Helaman obviously accepted.
• Kishkumen was a traitor and a would-be assassin. Moroni had the power to execute traitors (Alma 46:34–35), an authority that he apparently passed on to his successor, Moronihah, since Paanchi was executed for treason (Hel. 1:8). Thus, the penalty for a traitor was death. Helaman’s servant had the evidence of Kishkumen’s treason and killed him.
• The Nephite system did not require independent witnesses as our modern system does. The servant’s word constituted sufficient evidence.