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

[mochajava13]

No: HPFGUIDX 79357

I've got to join into the unforgiveable v. illegal debate here.  If 
Bellatrix is to be believed, one has to enjoy causing the results of 
whatever unforgivable one chooses to use.  Harry couldn't properly 
cast the cruciatus curse because he doesn't enjoy causing pain.  He 
wanted someone to feel the pain he was feeling, but he doesn't enjoy 
it.  (Side note: Harry said that he was going to kill Bellatrix.  He 
agreed when Bellatrix waid he was going to avenge Sirius.  So why 
not try Adava Kedavra instead of the cruciatus?  I think he didn't 
really want to kill her; he wanted her to feel what he was feeling.  
Hence he couldn't cast the cruciatus because he didn't enjoy doing 
it.)  

For the unforgivables, it's obvious that the person who cast it 
enjoyed doing it, or else the person couldn't have cast it.  One 
can't say it was merely self-defense, because one enjoyed doing it.  
And after OoP, we saw that there are other magical ways to kill 
someone and other magical ways to hurt someone.  (I'd bet there's a 
potion to control someone, also.)  If Hermione was struck with the 
full force of whatever curse hit her (the person couldn't say the 
full spell), she quite possible might have died.  Combined effect of 
four stunners sent McGonagall to St Mungo's.  (A side note: why the 
saint?  How was Mungo beatified?  Who made Mungo into a saint?  Does 
that mean that wizards in the UK are also Anglican?)  

I think the difference between the illegal and the unforgivable is 
that of intent.  For something illegal, the intent behind it is 
questionable.  (Like Mundungus' theiving: who knows why he does 
it?)  With the Unforgivables, the intent has to be behind it, or 
else the spell won't work.  The fact that Croch allowed aurors to 
use the Unforgivables to bring in death eaters disturbed me after 
Bellatrix's explanation of the curses.  
Sarah