Unforgiveable v. Illegal (Was: Re: Umbridge (WAS: Umbridge's Rape)

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 78305

jsmgleaner wrote:

> By the way, that makes me think: why "unfrorgivable"?  Have people
> on this list parsed that word choice already?  I mean, as opposed 
> to "illegal," although I know that Fake!Moody uses that term in the 
> GoF chapter as well.

Hi, jsmgleaner.

I have no idea whether this has been discussed recently or not either. I've been *totally* out of the loop, and I just got back, and really, you're all just lucky that I didn't ask about those thestrals. (Or maybe *I'm* just lucky that I didn't ask about those thestrals!) 

But for what it's worth, my understanding of the "Unforgivable" designation derives from these two passages, both from the "Unforgivable Curses" chapter of GoF.

Crouch!Moody opens his lecture on the UCs with this:

--------------------------------------------------------

"So. . . do any of you know which curses are most heavily
punished by wizarding law?"

--------------------------------------------------------

And concludes his demonstration of said curses with this:

---------------------------------------------------------

"Now...those three curses -- Avada Kedavra, Imperius, 
and Cruciatus -- are known as the Unforgivable Curses. The 
use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough 
to earn a life sentence in Azkaban."

----------------------------------------------------------

The phrasing of those two passages led me to assume that the UCs are classified as "Unforgivable," as opposed to merely "illegal," because no mitigating circumstance would be considered sufficient either to excuse ("forgive") their use or to justify softening the legal 
penalty. 

In other words, you can't AK someone and then plead self-defense in order to get a reduced sentence or to avoid going to prison. You would still be sent to Azkaban for life, no matter *why* you used the UC. Murder itself is illegal but potentially "forgivable" for reasons of self-defense, accident, lack of malicious intent, or what 
have you. But the use of the UCs carries with it automatic and unavoidable (and very strict) penalty.

Of course, the fact that Crouch!Moody cheerfully Imperios his students in DADA class, presumably with the full sanction of Dumbledore, does rather imply that the WW's cultural attitudes towards the UCs have changed a bit. 

I imagine that Crouch Sr's sanction of the use of the UCs on suspects by Aurors likely had much to do with this shift in cultural attitude. In Umbridge, I think we're being shown an example of where such erosion of cultural taboo eventually leads. 

'Ware the slippery slope! ;-)


KathyK wrote:

> To me, they're called unforgiveable because they're 
> three curses that give an individual much too much 
> power over other people.  

Absolutely.

I think that they were, at one time, deemed "Unforgivable" because:

(a) they have no other use but to strip an individual of
    his power of self-determination and volition (which 
    given the series' thematic emphasis on *choice* is 
    a particularly dire assault within the meta-textual 
    construct of the world) [for a great post on this 
    topic, check out Ali's message #45286 from last 
    October];

and

(b) if we are to believe dear Bellatrix, then in order 
    to use them effectively, the intent must be there, 
    and the intent must be pure.  This makes the 
    ramifications of their use rather more serious than 
    other methods of achieving even the same dire effects
    would be;

and possibly also

(c) dark magic may well have a corrosive power over those 
    who use it even above and beyond the normal levels of 
    moral degradation that accompany the commission of 
    evil acts. 


Elkins (who has also only read OoP once, and the last 
        gazillion HPfGU messages not at all, and who 
        therefore apologizes if she's just posted 
        something totally redundant)