The Unforgivables - a different slant

[Ali]

No: HPFGUIDX 45286


Whilst I understand the argument favoured by Grey Wolf and Melody 
amongst others that the curses are unforgivable because they are 
unblockable, I personally feel that the difference between being able 
to resist a curse – i.e. mentally resist it, as opposed to physically 
block it, is perhaps a technicality. The end result is the same, the 
effects of the curse can be avoided. For me, it is the combination of 
intent and act that make the curses unforgivable.

IMO, the Unforgivables all deprive the victim of their right of self-
determination; AK in the most obvious and final way.

In English Law a crime consists of 2 components:
The crime itself (actus reus)
The intent (Mens Rea)

Whilst muggles and one supposes wizards can be killed in many 
different ways, what stands out with AK is that these alternate ways 
can do things other than kill. AK does one thing and one thing only 
and that is take life. For instance, a gun will kill if it contains a 
bullet and if it is pointed at a nearby head and achieves its target. 
However, a gun is also used to fire a noise into the air to start a 
race. Hands might be used to wring a neck, thus taking life, but they 
could also be used to wring out wet clothes. 

IMO AK is unforgivable as it will always combine both the physical 
act with the intention. Once the curse is correctly cast, it can not 
be blocked. The object of the curse will die (unless they are Harry 
of course).

The fact that AK is the only unforgivable "killing curse", does not 
make other killing methods more justifiable or less  "bad"– they 
could presumably result in a life sentence to Azkaban.

I am unsure how a "failed" curse would be perceived by the WW. For 
instance, Moody tells Harry's class that there must be considerable 
force behind an AK spell. If a child or weak wizard tries and fails, 
they must surely be guilty of attempted AK. Their punishment would 
then perhaps depend on how successful they thought that they would 
be. For instance, if the Neville we know was to try to attempt AK, 
nobody would expect him to be successful. His failure would have been 
easy to predict, and would lessen the status of the "crime"- in my 
eyes at least.

BTW. Whilst I understand the concept of AK taking a wizard's powers 
and storing them in the wand, I personally don't believe that 
argument, at this point in time I haven't seen evidence that shows 
power being transferred from victim to wand – although I accept it's 
a perfectly valid interpretation.

Right of Self Determination:

IMO both the Cruciatus curse and the Imperius curse are Unforgivable 
as they take away their victim's right of self-determination, and 
place them at the mercy of another. The Imperius curse can be 
blocked, so whilst this ability is unusual, it is possible. IIRC, we 
are not told whether the Cruciatus curse can be blocked, although we 
are certainly given no clue that this is possible. Once again, the 
only purpose of these curses is to place you under somebody else's 
power. The castor could be using the curses for kicks, to achieve an 
action or gain information, but they are forcing the victim to act 
against their will. There is no other possible outcome, there is no 
other possible intention.

Ali