Harry shouldn't spare V'mort

[Ali]

No: HPFGUIDX 46440

  
Melody wrote:- 
> 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. 
 
> 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.
>
big snip

> 
> > 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.

I say:-

Killing somebody in self defence is not murder. It's justifiable 
homicide. There is no punishment for it, the perpetuator of the act 
is guilty of no crime. If the question is kill or be killed, and 
Harry killed, then Harry would be innocent. That is a very different 
scenario to having an unarmed and defenceless Sirius at his feet. 
Killing here, would have been murder - in England we have no degrees 
of murder, just murder.
> 

Melody;-

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

Melody again:-

> 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.
> 

I think that you've high lighted both why the Death Penalty remains 
such a debated issue in the world today, and why it's appropriate to 
discuss it in the realms of Harry Potter. JKR's background with 
Amnesty International and her using the odious Vernon Dursley to 
spout pro-hanging diatribes leave us knowing exactly where she 
stands. Yet the issue of the Kiss confuses me. For the souless state 
to be worth than death, it almost presupposes that there is a next 
great adventure for all to go to. And yet, would that be available to 
those responsible for appalling crimes? A souless state being worse 
than death, meaning that there is not a "hell" (in the Christian 
sense here). 

On a slightly different note, I would argue with the idea that Fudge 
*ordered* Crouch junior to be Kissed. As I understood it, he wasn't 
sufficiently in control of the dementor to stop it kissing - and 
didn't really care either. But, if you subscribe to the Fudge-is-evil 
camp, then I can understand why you would think the kiss was ordered.

I am sure that as we find out more about death and the afterlife in 
the Potterverse that I might understand better the full implications 
of the Kiss. 

I don't think that I'm ready to agree with you that the WW would 
agree to use the Death Penalty against Voldemort. That implies that 
they have that penalty on their statute book. If they did, why wasn't 
it used on Sirius? I do agree that the WW justice system remains 
cloaked in ambiguity but I see no evidence about the death penalty - 
yet* 

The question about what to do with the likes of Voldemort in the 
absence of the Death Penalty remains a moot issue in countries without
the death penalty. If judicial murder is wrong, isn't it always wrong 
regardless of the crime perpetuated? I should say at this point that 
I do not agree with the D.P., and yet, would a living Voldemort pose 
too strong a threat to society. Their best outcome would be for him 
to lose all his powers or die fighting.


* Funnily enough I see this being more of an issue in relation to 
Harry. One of the many theories that churns through my brain has 
Fudge in a quasi Pontius Pilate position, ready to hand Harry over to 
the mob's desires. It is quite easy to speculate that the adulation 
Harry has received about being the "Boy Who Lived" could quickly turn 
to hatred and fear. Fudge certainly seems weak enough to hand Harry 
over to a kangaroo court, if it would safeguard his position in 
society. 


Ali