Death and Justice

[lucky_kari]

No: HPFGUIDX 36998

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" <trog at w...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > The Ring is the ultimate corruptor. It turns even the heroically 
> > virtuous to evil in the end. In that sense, you are right. If one 
> > continues with the Ring, one is not responsible for what happens.
> 
> But note that the Ring is an outside influence, active in its own
> right. It has its own sort of intelligence and agenda _besides_ the
> corruptive nature of the power it offers.

And Voldemort doesn't?

> I strongly disagree. The possibility that Wormtail was about to 
wreak
> further havoc was what motivated Sirius to escape from Azkaban, and
> Lupin's understanding of what happened on that fateful night 
convinces
> him, too, that Wormtail is too dangerous to live. They have him NOW,
> and they intend to deal with him. They intend to ensure that he will
> cause no further harm. 

That's not how Lupin and Black see the situation. They do not see 
Pettigrew as a threat. And he shouldn't have been, if they were just a 
wee bit more careful. 

> > O.K. Let's put it this way. Tomorrow morning you wake up and you 
see
> > a wanted murderer with a gun and some dynamite on your back lawn. 
> > Given that he's a very dangerous person, would you be justified in 
> > shooting and killing him with your hunting rifle? Sure. I don't 
> > think anyone would disagree, though it might be considered more 
> > prudent to run out the front door and let someone else deal with 
it.
> 
> If I recognise him, and I see he is carrying weapons that exert 
deadly
> force, then it is my RESPONSIBILITY to take him out before he can do
> whatever it is he's planning on. If I fail to act, he may kill 
someone
> before "someone else" can come deal with him.

Sorry, by "someone else" I meant the police coming down the street 
after him. :-) No, I agree. 

> > However, consider that you look out your backwindow and see the 
> > wanted murderer lying unconscious on the lawn in a pool of blood, 
> > unarmed. Would you be justified in shooting and killing him with 
> > your hunting rifle? 
> 
> That really depends on the situation. Who is he? What has he done?
> What was the nature of his crimes? What's the context?

Why would that matter? I don't see how his deserving death factors 
into your own behaviour. 
 
> The stakes are not as high in your example. He is less likely to be
> able to escape, and less likely to be able to do harm if he does, 
for
> most reasonable instances of human beings.
> 
> But let's tweak the example a little bit. At the risk of invoking
> Godwin's law, let's pretend that 1) I'm French 2) my yard is in 
France
> 3) It's 1941 and 4) that's Adolf Hitler lying unarmed in my 
backyard. 
> 
> Changes things, doesn't it?

2) makes this a faulty parallel to the Shrieking Shack situation. As 
has been pointed out many times before, there was no reasonable 
expectation on anyone's behalf that Pettigrew would be able to escape. 
Lupin and Black never consider it, nor does anyone else. Whereas in 
France, one would be certain that sans shooting, Hitler would be gone 
quickly.

However, it being Adolf Hitler... does that change anything? No. When 
I was typing up my original example, I wrote "Osama Bin Laden" instead 
of "murderer." Then, I decided that I would be a little sensitive and 
settle for an unknown murderer. 

Eileen, who notices that her arguments tend to have a sort of 
bleeding-heart conservative tinge to them, and marvels at the 
combination