Harry shouldn't spare V'mort

[Melody]

No: HPFGUIDX 46431

Rich said:
> > "All a case of stooping to the level of the killers... Would it be
> > right for us to torture and kill prisoners purely because that was
> > what the enemy did to us? I say no..."

Iris wrote:
> If you did torture the person who tortured you I would say that that
> was morally wrong.  **snip**  I can see the argument if he uses the
> AK spell, but maybe he'll use Gryffindor's sword.

Eric Oppen countered:
>Harry killing V'mort would be more along the lines of killing a mad
>dog than an actual murder. V'mort has demonstrated, again and again,
>that when given a choice to be or not be evil, that he will always
>choose evil.


Guys, while a debate on whether murder can be justified is rather
interesting, the question is whether the moralities in the books find
that kind of death acceptable.  I, for one, come from a state that
loves the death penalty.  It is a running joke here in America.  I
normally do not voice an opinion either way, and I really do not want
to jump on the morality horse because it is not as black and white as
it seems.  It is a lovely shade of grey.  :)

>From my perspective, there are pre-prescribed punishments to a crime.
 Certain crimes have certain punishments that are universally known in
the law books.  Now yes, the punishments can be seen as inhumane, but
for now, what is there is well known, and the criminals know the
punishments of their acts *before* they make their decisions.

This being said, I am *not* saying whether torture and death
punishments are inhumane or immoral.  I am saying that the punishment
is well known.  Like being sentenced to Azkaban for performing a
forbidden curse.  All know it.  All take note of it.

Now, the question posed is whether murder of a completely guilty
character (i.e. Voldemort) is acceptable to the point that the "good
guys" can sleep at night.

Well, I like Eric Oppen's point.  After all, Harry had no problem
killing the Basilisk in CoS.  Yes, yes, it is an animal, but in PoA
Hermione and Harry when two hours back just to save an animal really.
 The reason Harry had no problem killing the Basilisk is that it was
trying to kill him.  I know basic logic there.  When something attacks
you, you try to make it stop *whatever* the means.

Harry does this in the Mirror room as well.  He hands were blistering
Quirrell to get him away from hurting Harry.  Harry did not stop and
think, "Hey, that might hurt him.  He does not deserve to be in pain
just because he wants to kill me.  I should try and get help to take
him to prison.  That is more humane."  No, Harry just reacted and got
the man off him.

But what if, they do manage to capture Voldemort and have to decide
what to do with him.  From the books, what would the WW decide?  Well,
besides the fact it matter who is in charge then, what does the morals
of the story want them to do with Voldemort?  Maybe that is what y'all
are debating.

Hmmm, from the looks of it, it seems murder is acceptable when the
character is in the process of trying to murder you.  Yet, Harry
baulked when he had the chance to murder Sirius and Peter.  Even when
he could of murdered Voldemort in the graveyard.  Our little hero only
draws his sword when it is the *only* thing between him and death.

But back to Voldie the prisoner.  Given that the four that tortured
the Longbottoms got life in Azkaban, I am prone to believe the same
would be true for Voldemort.  All the death eaters, at least the ones
that got caught, are in Azkaban as well unless they put up a fight and
thus got "defensively" murdered.  Another case is good old Barty Jr.
Seems Fudge had no problem letting a Dementor kiss him.

::sigh::  Poor Barty.  I'll miss him.

Death *is* thought to be better than that kiss.  That fact seem to be
know in the WW.  So if they did *just* kill Voldemort, it is not as
bad as if they let the dementor suck out him soul...if in fact he has
one.

Wait, I'm sorry.  I'm wrong.  He has a soul; he just has no heart.

So I am one to go out on a limb and say that the WW would allow
Voldemort to be subject to the death penalty.  In a way it is more
humane than the possibilities.  It is a fast remedy to a *tremendous*
problem.  Kind of like the death penalty on Timothy McVain (hope I
spelled that right) here in the States with the Oklahoma City bombing.
 Even those against the death penalty still wanted his to receive the
shot.  He, in their eyes, deserved that punishment.


Oh and another thing (yes I know this is long, sorry)

Iris wrote:
>I'd like to take in saying that killing Voldemort and all the Death
>Eaters wouldn't kill their ideology.

Very true Iris.  The ideology seems to be what the whole book is
about.  Still, it is easier to remove the "bad blood" and fix the
problem than try to work to purify the blood.  I don't see a DEA
(Death Eaters Anonymous) club being formed to reform them.  After all,
Azkaban is not a reform program.  Hopefully by the end of book seven,
the WW will see they are wrong to hold such prejudices against
Muggles.  I would agree that an environment that feeds off such lies
is not a healthy one.  It may take years, like here in the South, but
it can happen.

But having said that, removing prejudices does not stop evil from
returning.  Killing Voldemort and scattering his supporters is what
has to be done not so evil will go away, but so everyone can live.
Evil can never be tucked away.  It is always present and always an
option.


Melody