[HPforGrownups] Sirius Black-What a Guy!

[Carol Bainbridge]

No: HPFGUIDX 44304


>Carol (me) writes:
> >   Depends on your idea of justice.  Some people would say that justice is
> >   getting what you deserve.  That does not necessarily mean that you go to
> >   court and get tried.

>Christy:
>Actually, as a soon to be law student, that last part is -exactly- how I
>define justice.  It is how I would hope the rest of society would define
>justice also.

That's actually confusing the concept of justice with the method for meting 
it out.  The concept of justice means equity or getting what is due. The 
courts were developed as a way to deliver that equity or doling out what 
was due.  So when I say that Sirius has a strong sense of justice, that's 
what I'm referring to.  I am not referring to his appreciation of the court 
system.  As other posters have pointed out, Black is not exactly in a 
position to feel kindly toward the WW justice *system*.

Christy:
>The only other type of justice that comes to mind is vigilante
>justice, which is exactly what Black is endorsing here.

Doesn't matter what kind it is.  It IS justice.  My original point was 
about the concept of justice.  The fact that Black might be endorsing 
vigilante justice wouldn't change the fact that it is equity he might be 
after.

Christy:
>I shudder to think
>what the world would be like if everyone took legal matters into their own
>hands.  There is a reason why we have a defined court system today.

That's right.  And I'm not disagreeing with that.  It is a *system* for 
meting out justice.  Again, Black has little reason to feel that the WW 
would provide the justice he might be looking for.

Christy:
>Simply
>because someone has been wronged does not give that person the right to take
>the matter into their own hands.  I am sorry, but if Black had killed Peter
>in that shack, he would have been no better than Peter, in my eyes.

I'm not disagreeing with this -- at least not the first part.  I never said 
that Black had a right to take matters into his own hands.  I simply said 
that Black was out for justice, not purely vengence.  However, had Black 
killed Peter in the Shrieking Shack, I still would have believed him to be 
a better person that Peter.  No way would I see a sniveling coward like 
Peter, who betrayed one of his best friends, in the same way I see 
Black.  I may have strongly disapproved of Sirius' behavior and felt him to 
be very wrong.  But no better than Peter?  No, I think a person's worth 
lies in more than a single act.

>Carol again:
> >   Maybe I'm forgetting something in the book, but I don't recall that
> >   clearing his name was Sirius' original goal.  II thought he was 
> basically
> >   out to get Pettigrew.

>Once again, me:
>On rereading the pertinent text, I do think that I was wrong about Sirius'
>original reasons for escaping.  Pg. 363 of PoA, Black says, "And the caption
>said the boy (Ron) would be going back to Hogwarts...to where Harry was...".
>This statement leads me to the conclusion that Black escaped not to seek
>revenge on Peter, but to make sure Harry was protected.

I stand corrected.  However, it doesn't change my original point, which was 
that Black's goal in escaping was not to clear his name.

Christy:
>It wasn't until
>afterward that he decided the best way to do this would be to kill Peter.
>To me, this still points as evidence of Black's passionate nature.  In my
>definition, having a passionate nature means one acts before one thinks the
>situation through in its entirety.

Well, there we are.  A disagreement on what a passionate nature means.  To 
me, a passionate nature simply means that one feels things intensely in 
greater depth that most other people don't feel them.  I don't think it 
indicates that one doesn't think before one acts.

Christy:
>Murder is very often a crime of passion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a legal issue?  Was it not intended 
as a kind of justification for certain kinds of criminal acts -- like 
walking in on your wife in bed with another man and then killing them both? 
That's the kind of acting without thinking.  I don't think that is a 
passionate *nature*.   The crime of passion implies an act of impulse based 
on intense feelings -- at the moment.

Christy:
>Had Black thought about this at anytime throughout that year, he would have
>realized that killing Peter was not the answer.

Okay, now this isn't making sense to me.  If murder is a crime of passion, 
it seems to me that it can be committed only on impulse (which I believe is 
the way US law sees it), then how can passion be the reason for Black's 
desire to kill Peter after a year of being out of prison? Would that not be 
premeditated murder?  If it's premeditated, how can it be a crime of passion?

Christy:
>By keeping him alive and
>bringing him to Dumbledore, Sirius is not only giving the Potters their
>justice, and protecting Harry,  but also restoring his reputation.  Now, I
>know most of you are thinking that how in the world would he have gotten
>Dumbledore to see his PoV.

We don't know what Sirius did during his year out of prison.  We don't know 
his mind or his thinking.  For all we know, he did think about it and still 
came to the conclusion that the best way to protect Harry and see justice 
served was to kill Peter.  Perhaps if Sirius could have reached Dumbledore 
alone, there might have been a chance to accomplish something.  However, 
there are a number of problems with this scenario.  First, Sirius would 
have to get to Dumbledore.  How is he going to do that undetected?  Even as 
a dog, he can't go roaming the halls of Hogwarts looking for Dumbledore.  I 
suppose he could have sent an owl to Dumbledore, but that would still be 
taking quite a risk.  He can't be *sure* that Dumbledore will keep his 
presence a secret.  Second, although Dumbledore is a fair-minded person, he 
is not all powerful.  Even at the end of PoA, he can't do much for 
Black.  He does help him to escape, but that's the most he can do.  Of 
course, if Peter had be available, then things might have been different, 
but Peter escaped.  Sirius didn't kill him; he got away, the very thing 
Sirius did not want to have happen.  Third, the crime Sirius was imprisoned 
for is far more serious than the reason Hagrid was expelled.  It is also 
more serious than letting a werewolf teach and a half-giant stay on at 
Hogwarts.  The crime also affects more than Hogwarts.  How much say does 
Dumbledore have in the entire WW?  No, I think Sirius under the 
circumstances did weigh his options -- as he saw them -- and came to the 
only conclusion he thought would possible.

Christy:
>has some news on the whole secret keeper business.  If Black had given any
>sign of good will, I think Dumbledore would have been open minded enough to
>listen.

We can *think* something might be true, but when our life is as stake as is 
the life of our godchild, whom we felt we have already failed once, is that 
enough?  I don't know that it would be for me.  Maybe Black also thought 
this was possible.  But again, maybe there was a reasonable doubt in his 
mind.  As I said before, we aren't privy to his thought processes, so we 
don't know.

Christy on the slashing of the painting:
>The
>slashing scene simply kills two birds with one stone.  It was meant to make
>us think Sirius was deranged, but it still does show Sirius doesn't think
>before acting.

I still disagree.  We don't know what Sirius was thinking.  He may have 
hated having to slash the picture but forced himself to do it in order to 
get to Scabbers.  We just don't know since we weren't with Sirius when it 
happened.  We are assuming that it was done on impulse.  Or did I forget 
something else in the book?  (a real possibility since it's been a while 
since I last read PoA).

Christy:
>Based on my aforementioned position, Harry was the main reason for Black
>wanting to get to Pettigrew, so he obviously cares for Harry.  He wants to
>take baby Harry from Hagrid, so it is clear that he takes his responsibility
>of being godfather seriously. By killing Peter he is throwing this chance
>right out the window.

Depends on which chance we're talking about.  If we aren't talking about 
the chance to protect Harry and get justice for him and his parents, then 
no, I don't think he would have been throwing that chance out the window at 
all.  I do agree that he takes his responsibility as godfather seriously 
(it's one of the reasons I like him so much).  He certainly could choose to 
let Pettigrew go and take Harry home to have a happy home life, but then 
there would have been that part of him that wanted to keep Harry safe and 
make sure Pettigrew got what he deserved.  I see Sirius as being in a very 
difficult position and having to make some very difficult decisions -- even 
if it looks like he is acting purely on impulse and out of emotions.

Christy:
>I don't think for a minute that after killing Peter he
>would have gotten up and walked out without looking back. He would have
>wanted to stay in contact with Harry.  Allowing Peter to live would have
>given him the chance he wanted 12 years ago.

I agree.  On the other hand, he would not be happy if Peter got away with 
his crime.  There was absolutely no guarantee that Peter would be caught 
and found guilty.  As it was, Peter did in fact escape.  Even if he hadn't, 
what guarantee was there that he would be found guilty?  Why should Sirius, 
wrongly thrown into prison, feel Pettigrew would get what he deserved?

Christie:
>Actually, Sirius wasn't talked into letting Peter live.  Black, decided that
>Harry was the one who deserved to make the ultimate decision.  It was Harry
>who decided Peter would live.

Yes, but before that, Lupin convinced Black to wait until Harry learned the 
truth: "And Harry -- you owe Harry the truth, Sirius!"  Then Black says, 
"All right, then...tell them whatever you like.  But make it quick, 
Remus.  I want to commit the murder I was imprisoned for...."  Later, Lupin 
and Black are poised to kill Peter, but Harry jumps in front of Peter to 
protect him.  He says he doesn't want them to kill him.  It is at this 
point that Black says it's Harry's decision to make.  Harry convinced both 
Black and Lupin to keep Peter alive.

Christie:
>Black just respected this decision, I think he
>personally still wanted to kill Peter.  He still threatens to kill Peter if
>he transforms.  But that is all beside the point, Black shouldn't have even
>been in the position of needing to be "talked down".  It is obvious that the
>benefits of keeping Peter alive outweigh those of killing him.

This is where we disagree.  I don't see that Black has reason to believe 
justice will be served.  Look at Snape.  He was perfectly willing to let 
the dementors come in a suck out Black's soul without a word of 
explanation.  It seems to me that Snape is the only one in this scene who 
is acting irrationally and without thinking.  He is acting out of pure 
hatred for Sirius and for Lupin as well.  Snape would not be a good witness 
and neither would Lupin, as we learn that no one trusts a werewolf.  It 
would be Pettigrew's word against Black's.  We also know the dementors 
aren't so easily controlled, as they nearly administered the kiss of death 
to Harry, as innocent a person as there could be. Also, the fact that Black 
*could* be convinced to let Peter live tells me that he is not acting out 
of pure emotion alone.  No one could talk Snape into listening.

>And finally, Carol:
> >   He'd be a rather flat character if he were perfect!
>Me:
>Too true!  I also think this is a way for JKR to allow the readers to
>identify with her characters.  We all have a little bit of Sirius in us! :)

I'd like to think I had some Sirius in me.  He is both fun-loving and 
serious, intense, passionate, and very loyal.  (I'd hate to think I have a 
drop of Snape in me though.)


Carol Bainbridge
(kaityf at jorsm.com)

http://www.lcag.org