Wizarding World law/ Fourth Man

[edblanning]

No: HPFGUIDX 38323

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> 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.

Eloise:
Oops! How embarassing! Do you realise you've just put in some canon, 
there Cindy? ;-)
Yeah. That bit's really confusing isn't it? I think she meant to 
write 'pass sentence' instead of 'pronounce judgment'. Crouch *does* 
say that Bagman's been caught passing information, which seems to 
indicate his guilt's not in doubt, but seems to be unsure as to 
whether to apply a prison sentence. It's a very odd state of affairs. 
> 
> > The same also perhaps applies to the four accused in the 
Longbottom 
> affair. 
<snip>

Cindy: 
> 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.

Eloise:

The whole scene's FLINT-y , if you ask me. JKR obviously didn't grow 
up watching episodes of 'Crown Court' like I did!

Cindy:
> 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:
Won't make much difference,will it? ;-)

Cindy:
> 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:

<snip roll-call>

> 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:
<innocently>
Framed? who ever suggested anyone had been framed? ;-)
> 
> ............................................
>  
> 
> 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. 

Cindy: 
> 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.

Eloise:
Well perhaps that Mrs Lestrange *is* noble and self-sacrificing. 
However, I'm not sure that she was doing it for the sake of the other 
three. If she sacrificing herself, I feel it's as a martyr, rather 
than as anything else. I think she's a fanatic, plain and simple, 
with a belief that either her Master will return and rescue her or 
else that she will die loyal to him (hey, with all this talk a while 
back of DEs possibly sharing, or believing they're sharing in some 
kind of eternal life with Voldemort, perhaps she actually believes 
that she'll be rewarded in some kind of Voldemort heaven). 
Unfortunately we have plenty of real life parallels for a fanatical 
Mrs Lestrange.

And I bet those Dementors are terrified of her! If Sirius can keep 
his sanity through belief in his own innocence, her fanatacism ought 
to keep her going.I don't envisage her emerging from Azkaban a shadow 
of her former self.
 
> 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.)

Eloise:
I'm not very good on sycophants. I majored in hedgehogs (and am going 
no further ;-).
Crouch Jr is another fanatic. Probably with a *massive* crush on Mrs 
Lestrange. That's why he hates the DEs who haven't gone to Azkaban so 
much.

Cindy:
 
> But I digress.  So what is the yard-stick by which success as a DE 
is 
> measured?  Voldemort seems to think it is loyalty. 

Eloise:
My point entirely

Cindy:
 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). 

Eloise:
I don't know.....It was their disloyalty he lectured them about.I 
wonder if it was actually the weakness that Avery displayed that 
earned him the Cruciatus. You know, the way a dog (or a child, for 
that matter, says she, with feeling) senses weakness and can't help 
attacking. Lucius sort of stands up to Voldemort. He's respectful, 
but he doesn't grovel. I don't think DEs are supposed to grovel. It's 
undignified and I think Voldemort's reaction was to that. Wormtail 
just sort of asks for it, really, doesn't he? Just by his presence? 
The implication is that Crabbe and Goyle are incompetent, but I have 
the impression Voldemort's a bit resigned to that!

Cindy:
> 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: 
That was pretty pathetic, wasn't it? But to be fair to the DEs, I 
think Harry was having some help from the shades, wasn't he?

<on Avery again>
> >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.

Cindy: 
> 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?

Eloise:
But it's not actually a life-debt. I see what you're saying, but 
since when did DEs play fair? Are you suggesting that they have their 
own code of chivalry, that we've not seen yet. I suppose they could, 
but it seems a bit, well... noble...and I have a problem with noble 
DEs. Well, I might not have, now I come to think about it, if I ever 
came across one. There's something quite attractive about noble 
villains, isn't there? What's that you say? Avery? Nah...nothing 
doing there. (Hey..anyone ever see that series years back with the 
young Anthony Valentine as a really gorgeous Nazi officer?  Sorry, I 
digress.)

Eloise: 
>  > 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?

Cindy:  
> 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.

Eloise:
Well, it was all my own idea, actually <sniff> 
I guess what I mean is, that if you are Tough and committed and 
believe in your cause, you stand up for it, don't you? Not that I 
would go to Azkaban, if I could possibly help it. I am fully aware 
that I am *not* martyr material. 
It's perfectly true that they are no good wasting away in prison, but 
they haven't done their cause any good having got off, either, have 
they? Which just goes to show that they're not committed to Voldemort 
anyway.
 
Cindy: 
> 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:
Exactly. Now, if *she'd* got off on Imperius, you can bet your bottom 
dollar Voldemort would have been back years ago!

Cindy:
> 
> 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!

Eloise:
Sorry, Cindy. Over The Top Fourth Man is merely a typing error!
But , you know...well he *could* be a bit of a drama queen, couldn't 
he, all that grovelling and stuff. Perhaps we could lend him a 
featherboa, dress him up a bit, find him a role in panto.......

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

Eloise:
Masochistic Fourth Man? (Or have we had him before? I can't remember 
all the variations.)I think you've provided canon for that. ;-)

Eloise
(who did that Enneagram thing for fun the other day and coming out as 
a Type 1, is seriously beginning to wonder whether that's a healthy 
type 1, or not.)