Death and Justice (Was: Re: Do people like SYCOPHANTS?)

[grey_wolf_c]

No: HPFGUIDX 36962

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" <trog at w...> wrote:
> Hrm. Well.
> 
> That's not totally without precident, after all. There's a long 
> Western tradition of the "honourable surrender" where the enemy you 
> have under your control is now under your protection - Geneva 
> Convention and all that.
> 
> But a convention is something that *both* sides have agreed to 
> honour, and that implies that both sides have honour to bring to the 
> table. In order to provide mercy, the recipient of the mercy must go 
> along with the deal.
> 
> Consider this: the direct result of Harry's choice to spare Wormtail 
> was the death of the Ripple house caretaker, Bertha Jorkins, Crouch 
> Sr, and Cedric Diggory - at least, so far. Is there any doubt that 
> there will be more deaths?


" 'He deserves death'.
'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some 
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too 
eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise
cannot see all ends.' "
-- J. R. R. Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings (LotR)

That, for those here that haven't read LotR, is an exchange between 
Gandalf and Frodo about the destiny of Smeagol/Gollum. The similarities 
and parallelisms between them and D'dore, Harry and Wormtail are 
inmediatly obvious (I hope) to anyone who's read both books, but it's 
not the point of this post. 

On-topic, I believe that quote is the greatest piece of thinking of 
LotR, and I've often used it as a base against death sentence. The fact 
is, you cannot base any argument about Wormtail's death on "If they had 
killed him, many other people wouldn't have died", since they couldn't 
have known (the plan was to imprison him, not let him go free). That 
sort of retropective logic is always very useful a posteriori, but 
musn't be used as justification ("If I had known..." is NEVER a good 
start for an explanation).


> But as sad as it is, there are people who are totally without the 
> slightest shred of honour. People who will take advantage of *any* 
> lapse in concentration, of *any* moment of weakness; people who will 
> seek to do you harm the instant they feel they can get away with it.
> 
> These people have relinquished any claim to humanity they might have 
> once had. They have desecended to the level of a dangererous animal - 
> like a scorpion.
> 
> When you have such a one on his back with a weapon trained on him, 
> that's not a person any more. That's a continued threat that will do 
> you danger unless you end it, right here and now.
> 
> Your only moral obligation is to do it clean, and not prolong the 
> suffering.


Even if the other person involved is a dangerous animal, that doesn't 
mean he deserved death as punishment. Death is too _ultimate_ for 
punishment. Let's follow your line of thought for a moment. Someone who 
"desecend[s] to the level of a dangererous animal" is to be killed 
quickly. Now, Lupin descended to the level of a dangerous animal once a 
month for most of his life, and we all agree know that it's lucky that 
no-one actually followed that moral code while he was little, or Harry 
wouldn't had have a chance against dementors, but this is a posteriori 
reasoning again. The difference, is that by deciding NOT to kill the 
dangerous lunatic werewolf, and giving him a chance, lifes were saved. 
Of course, it could've been otherwise, but they couldn't know, and took 
the risk of the most difficult path anyway (taking a human life is all 
too easy).


> Killing Wormtail in the shack would not have been murder. It would 
> have been self-defense and a healthy dose of justice.
> 
> DG


Killing Wormtail in the shack was NOT self-defence. Wormtail was no 
danger to anyone involved. There were four proficient wizards and four 
wands in that room, and only one very tired, sick and debilitated 
Wormtail who's only desire was to go on living. He was not a menace to 
anyone at that time. None of the people involved were in any danger of 
death or pain by cause of Wormtail, and killing him would have been 
murder, pure and simple. Even Sirius knows it ("I want to commit the 
crime I was convicted for") (liberal translation).

Now, for the tricly part. Would it have been justice? I don't see death 
as a form of justice, but as the end of life. Thus, once you're dead, 
you're dead and justice (and anything else) has no meaning to you. So, 
no, killing Wormtail wouldn't have been justice. Think about other 
examples: Would killing Snape, Karkarov, Lupin, Sirius et co., people 
who at one time or another been guilty of dangerous or malevolant acts, 
been "justice"? No, it would just be a fast and easy solution to a 
sticky problem. Justice is difficult to describe, but it's not just "an 
eye for an eye" (hope I don't offend jews out there; I'm not sure if 
you still follow that rule).

D'dore believes in giving people second chances, and so do I. Careful 
observation of the convicted for a few years, maybe, in a restricted 
environment were he can do no harm, and then, little by little, 
reinsert into society (if it's safe). If not, he must be kept under 
vigilance until he dies, but still allowed to live HIS life as far as 
he doesn't cause pain to others.

I live in a country ravaged by terrorism. Every month people are 
attacked or killed by bombs (hidden in cars, bicycles, post-sacks, 
letters, you name it). This state of affairs has been going on for 
almost a century, and in this time, terrorist have been caught and 
trialed. Most of them have gone to prison. None have been killed by 
their crimes and, even though I have seen those people killed, I do not 
desire their deaths: One side of killers is too much, lets not 
transform OUR side into terrorists as well.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf