Death and Justice

[talondg]

No: HPFGUIDX 36978

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" <trog at w...> wrote:

> > 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. 

> " '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,

Ah, but there are a couple of very important differences too.

Smeagol/Gollum is not intrinsicly evil, in that he does not _choose_
to be evil for evil's sake. He has been corrupted by a magical device
whose purpose is to corrupt for its own ends.

In Harry-Potterspeak, he is under the influence of a particularly
subtle and insidious Imperious Curse, and even then, when faced with
Frodo's kindness he manages to resist it, for a while at least. He's
not really himself when the Ring is doing its thing.

> 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.

Well, do not forget that Smeagol/Gollum is a literary construct who
has a place to play in the moving-forward of the plot of the book.
When Gandalf speaks, he speaks not with the voice of a wise man with
insight into the moral function of the universe, but rather, with the
voice of the authour who knows that Gollum has a further role in the
plot.

Do not forget that Gollum tried to murder Frodo and Sam (by proxy, but
it was entirely premeditated) and if it were the "real world", there
would have been an excellent chance that he would have succeeded. And
with the Ring in Mordor, I do not think Gollum would have been able to
resist having the Ring stripped from him, and restored to Sauron, with
the subsequent destruction and enslavement of Middle-Earth.

Compare to Wormtail, who is as active an evil-doer as any in fiction.
He's just as bad as Voldy - and perhaps even worse.

Consider this: we know that the secret-keeper spell is particulaly
powerful. We are told that, even if you know where the charges of a
secret-keeper are hidden, you cannot see them or influence them unless
the spell is compromised.

So if Sirius *had* been the secret-keeper, and Wormtail had known
where the Potters were being hidden, the information about their
whereabouts is useless. He can scamper off to Voldy and rat out the
Potters to his heart's content, and nothing can ever become of it.

(Although, I cannot help but wonder what happens if the secret-keeper
DIES - does the spell fail then? Maybe he would have brought Voldy to
Sirius)

So for Voldy to be able to find and kill the Potters, that means that
Wormtail-as-secret-keeper must do more than tell Voldy where they are
- he must participate in bringing down the spell.

He would have known this up front. He would have had an opportunity to
refuse to become the secret-keeper, and thus spare his friends.
Instead, he took on the responsibility with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that he
was going to betray them all to Voldy.

We are also told that Voldy intends to kill Harry and his father.
Lilly Potter is not on the target list - why? It's not like Voldy has
any problem killing off innocents. 

I cannot help but think that she was promised to Wormtail, as
reward....

> 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). 

They DID know. They had steeled themselves to the task at hand (taking
any life, even one as deserving of death as Wormtail, is never a
casual decision) and were about to do the deed when Harry stepped in.

And even then, they did so only with the knowledge that there were
Dementors near at hand into whose custody Wormtail would be released
immediately, and EVEN THEN he was warned that he would be immediately
killed if he tried to escape.

Sirius and Lupin are treating him as if he were the most dangerous
creature in the universe, and are entirely correct to do so. Past
behaviour is on their side.

Harry's big mistake is to equate the putting-down of Wormtail with
"murder".

> 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.

Death isn't punishment. Death is the removal of a danger that cannot
be removed any other way. Can you rehabilitate a scorpion?

> 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, 

[...] 

> The difference, is that by deciding NOT to kill the dangerous 
> lunatic werewolf, and giving him a chance, lifes were saved. 

The major difference here is that Lupin does not choose to be a
werewolf, and, properly potioned, is not out of control when in
werewolf state. But _even then_ having him around is still a very real
risk.

Consider the Prank. What if Snape had not been prevented from going
into the Shack?

So Snape suddenly finds himself mano-a-lupus with a murderous,
out-of-control werewolf, in serious mortal danger. Ahh, but young
Master Snape has been trained by his Lucius-like father in certain of
the Dark Arts, and he manages to squeeze off a quick AK before he can
be mauled and consumed.

Justifiable? Damn straight. Regrettable? Just as much.

Snape isn't the only one in Harry's father's lifedebt.

> D'dore believes in giving people second chances, and so do I.

Dumbledore seems to have excellent judgement in who he gives second
chances. He seems to be able to recognise injustice (Hagrid) and
potential for redemption (Snape)

But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that his habit of giving second
chances is extended to _everybody_, but rather, I suspect it is only
given to people who deserve it. I don't believe for a second that
Dumbledore would have pardoned Wormtail.

> 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.

I'm running on too long here, so I cannot really give this the
attention I feel it deserves.

I spent 10 years under arms. The controlled application of violence
was my profession, and something I studied very intently.

There exist people who cannot be rehabilitated. There exist situations
where you cannot take the time to try and heal the underlying
problems. The exists situtations where you must *act*, and act
quickly, in order to defend yourself and/or your society.

It is never something done lightly or casually, and it is never done
without the greatest regret, but sometimes, it MUST be done. Doing it
is often harder than not.

Which country are you in?

DG