Wizarding World law/ Fourth Man

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 38296

Eloise wrote:

> Bagman has also already apparently been found guilty and has 
returned for 
> sentencing.

Oh my.  I think Bagman *wasn't* convicted at all.  Crouch Sr. says 
that "We have heard the evidence against you, and are about to reach 
our verdict.  Do you have anything to add to your testimony before we 
pronounce judgment?"

So even though I am thoroughly, 100% convinced that Bagman Is Ever So 
Evil and is a Total Secret DE through and through, he did manage not 
to be convicted, I think.

> The same also perhaps applies to the four accused in the Longbottom 
affair. 
> JKR uses rather confusing language. Crouch says that they are 
*accused* 
> rather than *found guilty* of the crimes, but then clearly goes on 
to 
> sentence. I suppose that possibly they were not tried, as happened 
in Sirius' 
> case, but I have always supposed, on the basis of the Bagman scene, 
that the 
> evidence had already been heard.

Yes, I think JKR is being way imprecise here.  It drives me to 
distraction every time I read it.  I mean, he keeps saying the four 
people "stand accused", and then he asks the jury to raise their 
hands and pass judgment.  Only one potential sentence is offered up: 
a life sentence in Azkaban.  There's no examination of whether one 
defendant is more culpable than the others.  I have never been able 
to make sense of that scene.  I actually find it rather FLINT-y.

Maybe the delay in the release in OoP is being used to get these 
legal details correct this time around?  :-)  Nah, probably not.  
There probably won't be any legal proceedings in OoP.  Wizards will 
just blast each other on sight.
 
Eloise:

> The WW seems to have a rather medieval way of going on about 
things. I 
> wouldn't on that basis expect lawyers (at least, not defence 
lawyers) in our 
> modern sense, but I would expect that the accused might have some 
kind of 
> supporter, a 'prisoner's friend' sort of thing. 

Well, despite making me gnash my teeth now and then, I guess we could 
evaluate the extent to which the WW gets it right when it comes to 
imposing sentence.  Let's see how the wizards are doing with sending 
the guilty to jail and acquitting the innocent:

Sirius -- Wrong.  Sent an innocent man to jail for life.  The 
authorities are still pursuing him, believing him guilty.

Pettigrew -- Wrong.  Skipped off and evaded capture, although he had 
to part with a few body parts, which isn't so bad when you consider 
the alternative.  

Avery -- Wrong.  Got off on Imperius.

Malfoy -- Wrong.  Got off on Imperius.

Dolohov, Rosier, Wilkes -- Right.  Captured or killed, undoubtedly 
guilty.

Mulciber, Travers -- Right.  captured, undoubtedly guilty.  

Rookwood -- Right.  probably captured, undoubtedly guilty.

Snape -- Got off by betraying his old gang of Slytherins.

Karkaroff -- Right.  Convicted, but cut a deal.

Bagman -- Got off, although I personally think he was Way Guilty.

So maybe wizarding justice is correct about half the time?  Not too 
impressive, I guess, although wizards do seem to have found a way not 
to convict the innocent, unless the innocent have been properly 
framed.  ;-)

............................................
 
Eloise:

> I take it the word banging doesn't have the same connotations in 
the US as it 
> does here? Or are you referring to what Sirius and Arabella have 
been up to? 
> ;-)

I beg your pardon?  I'm sorry.  I'm not following you there.  ;-)

Eloise (about Tough Guy Avery):
 
> But is he really being Tough, Tough in a DE sense? Sure, we can 
make him out 
> to be noble and self-sacrificing in the graveyard. But *are* Tough 
DEs noble 
> and self-sacrificing? I tend to think not. The most noble and 
> self-sacrificing thing we've seen a DE do so far is Wormtail 
cutting off his 
> hand and not everyone thinks even *that's* Tough. 

Well, we don't have a lot to go on here.  But we have some small, 
puny canons, so I say we make the most out of them, shall we?

Wormtail has, on two occasions, taken one for the team.  But I'm not 
sure those occasions count.  The first (cutting off his finger) was 
pure self-preservation.  The second (cutting off his hand) was done 
out of duress, I suppose.

Now Mrs. Lestrange, maybe she is noble and self-sacrificing.  Maybe 
the whole idea was for her to stand up in the Pensieve scene and take 
a bullet for the other three DEs.  She was trying to save poor young 
Crouch, who was going to pieces there.  And perhaps (if you believe 
Avery is Fourth Man) it worked in the end, because it may have 
allowed Avery to point the finger at Mrs. Lestrange so that the 
Number Two DE, who is by definition more important than the other 
DEs, was able to walk free.

BTW, did we ever agree that Crouch Jr. is a SYCOPHANT?  I can't 
remember, although he sure sounds like one.  I mean, does being a 
SYCOPHANT preclude a character from being Tough or competent?  I kind 
of get that feeling (because our chief SYCOPHANTS are often portrayed 
as weak and ineffectual.)

But I digress.  So what is the yard-stick by which success as a DE is 
measured?  Voldemort seems to think it is loyalty.  But I'm not 
sure.  To the extent Voldemort has gotten hacked off at his DEs, it 
is incompetence that sets him off, maybe even more than simple lack 
of loyalty.  After all, all of the DEs in the graveyard were disloyal 
and left Voldemort to drift along as a vapor for 13 years or so.  
Didn't bother them one bit.  But Voldemort doesn't torture them, one 
by one.  No, he tortures Avery (as head DE?).  The other torture of a 
DE we see is Wormtail, who is tortured for incompetence (letting 
Crouch Sr. escape).  

Voldemort should focus more on the incompetence angle, if you ask 
me.  The threat of a few Cruciatus curses might go a long way toward 
sharpening the aim of the DEs when they are trying to gun down a 
fleeing, injured boy.

Eloise (about Wormtail severing his hand):

>(For the record, I have to 
> agree with the person who said that they couldn't do it if their 
>life 
> depended on it.) 

Well, it freaks me out to push back my cuticles, so I feel safe 
predicting I'd have trouble hacking off limbs.  But that's just me.

>If he's all that cunning, isn't he going to let someone else 
> get the rap? Are his fellow DEs really going to respect him as No 1 
>Henchman 
> because he allows Voldemort to punish him? The reverse, I'd have 
thought.

Ah, but there is that Life Debt thing.  Avery saved the DEs a dance 
with the Cruciatus Curse.  Maybe he figures they owe him now?

 > Surely the point about being a DE is that you're loyal to 
Voldemort, beyond 
> anything or anyone else. If he's Strong and Tough and Committed, 
(as I 
> unfortunately snipped), why doesn't he endure Azkaban, like the 
Lestranges, 
> or having got himself out by a cowardly cry of Imperius, why hasn't 
*he* done 
> something about trying to rescue Voldemort?
 
Now, where did this idea come from that invoking the Imperius Curse 
as a sham defense is cowardly?  If you are already Evil To The Core, 
why would you draw a line in the sand and say, "Oh, I'll torture 
muggles and kill people for sport, but *no way* will I *ever* claim 
Imperius.  That's just *wrong*."  I figure these wily DEs will say 
and do anything to stay out of Azkaban, because they are no good to 
anyone wasting away in prison.  

Except Mrs. Lestrange.  She didn't get the memo about claiming 
Imperius and slipping off the hook.  That Mrs. Lestrange is a real 
wildcat.

Eloise:

> Nah. In Over His Head Fourth Man works much better for me. In Over 
the Top 
> Fourth Man might just be Noble and Self Sacrificing; he's reading 
the wrong 
> script. He has a certain amount of pathos as well, which I quite 
like.

Oooh, are you proposing a new Fourth Man variant -- "Over The Top 
Fourth Man?"  Is he especially melodramatic, a bit of a Drama Queen 
or something?  Do tell, Eloise!

Cindy (trembling all over at the idea that there might be yet another 
Fourth Man variant)