Justice: A Lawyerly Response

[Kimberly]

No: HPFGUIDX 5983

Coming out of lurkdom momentarily to respond.

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Susan McGee" <Schlobin at a...> wrote:
 
> I would suggest that the Wizard AND Muggle world might have been 
> better off had Lupin and Black killed Peter Pettigrew. 


I have to disagree.  Didn't Dumbledore say that Harry did the right 
thing by not letting them kill Pettigrew, and that he might find that 
action on his part to help him out in the future?  From that comment 
I'd say that JK would disagree with you that the world would have
been 
better off.
In fact, I think any instances of vigilante attitudes in the books so 
far have been portrayed as foolish and unjust (treatment of Harry &
co 
and then Winky at Q Cup), deceptive (Pettigrew vs Sirius), or simply 
tragic mistakes (Fudge taking it upon himself to set the dementor on 
Barty Jr. [at least I hope that was a tragic mistake, and not 
intentional on the part of Fudge]).

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Susan McGee" <Schlobin at a...> wrote:
I think here 
> there might be a conflict between the pagan and christian world 
view.
> The christian world view says that vengeance is the lord's and 
> therefore Lupin and Black would be sinning by killing Peter. The 
> pagan world view suggests that a person is responsible for their 
> actions. Lupin and Black could have therefore made the decision to 
> kill Peter in the best interests of themselves, the Wizard world, 
>and as payback for Lily and James. Because they are both basically 
good 
> people, they probably would have suffered for their action
(remorse, 
> regret, but they would have paid that price in order to rid the 
world 
> of Peter. 


I'm confused about the conflict in these two views as you describe 
them.  I'm a Christian and I fully expect to be responsible for my 
actions.  Yes, vengeance is the Lord's.  This means that payback is a 
bigger B than any of us could manage to exact on our own, even if
it's 
not immediate.  The only difference I can see is that in Christianity 
there is the opportunity for redemption and change of heart, which
I'm 
guessing is what Dumbledore's referring to - Pettigrew has the 
opportunity now to change his behaviour and help Harry in response to 
his mercy.  Whether he takes it or not remains to be seen, but he 
certainly wouldn't get the chance if he were dead.  True, his
survival 
brought about some unpleasant side-effects such as the return of Mr 
Nasty, but Dumbledore seems to be saying Pettigrew could well be more 
useful alive even so.  That would indicate that even without 
questioning the morality of it, killing Pettigrew would have been 
unwise.


Just my take on things - not meant to be disrespectful
Returning to lurk-mode,
kimberly