Bang! You're dead.

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 86434

Kathryn:
Cruciatus I can understand being illegal, regardless of
> > circumstances. It is there only to cause pain and while one could
use it to
> > distract/disable an opponent there are other equally effective spells.
> > However Imperius and AK have their uses. 
> 
> Kneasy:
> Makes you wonder why they're described and circumscribed in the way
> they  are. Back to the old argument that a gun is not evil of
itself, only
> the way that it is used. 


Carol:
That's the crucial question for me also, the one I've been trying to
answer here. Why are they unforgiveable, and, if so, unjustified under
any circumstances if we're going to maintain the distinction between
Good and Evil that JKR so often mentions in her interviews.

The Cruciatus curse, we all seem to agree, is evil in itself. Torture
is never justified, especially torture so excruciating that it can
lead to insanity if prolonged. If the Cruciatus curse requires intense
hatred and a sadistic pleasure in inflicting pain in order to be
effective, then it can never be used by the Good side. Either it
wouldn't work or they would be corrupted by it and cease to be good.

I suggest that the Imperius curse, regardless of circumstances that
would seem to justify its use, is also inherently evil in JKR's view
because it puts one person's will in the control of another. It
doesn't matter whether the intention of the person casting the spell
is good; it's still benevolent dictatorship along the lines of Plato's
Republic. If Kneasy will forgive a comparison to LOTR, it's like
Gandalf accepting the One Ring. He would start out with the best of
intentions but would inevitably be corrupted. To return to JKR, we
know that she emphasizes choice. Choice is only possible if the will
is free. Even Death Eaters must be given the choice of submitting of
their own free will or fighting. If they must be subdued, there are
other ways (stunning, Expelliarmus, a net like the one Snape drops on
Lupin in PoA). Controlling their bodies is one thing; controlling
their minds is another. And the potential for abuse is also too great
for the Curse to be allowed, especially given the inability of so many
wizards to resist it (Krum Crucioing Cedric, whom he likes despite
their rivalry, because of Crouch's Imperius curse). I'm convinced, or
almost convinced, that the Imperius Curse is also unforgiveable under
JKR's criteria for Good and Evil, which do not allow practical
"necessity" to justify what is in other circumstances wrong.

Avada Kedavra, I think, is unforgiveable not because it kills but
because there's no *known* defense against it (setting aside Harry,
Voldemort, and possibly Dumbledore). I think we've established that
there are other ways to kill in war and self-defense that would
eliminate the necessity for using this particular spell. I think it,
like Crucio, requires real hatred and a desire to destroy the person
it's used against to succeed. I'm not sure that Lupin alone could have
killed Peter using an AK. Sirius probably could have--a rash,
desperate man motivated by revenge and capable of violent anger as
shown by his slashing of the Fat Lady's portrait. How much worse might
he have become if the spell had succeeded and he had escaped? If he
did not become evil, he would certainly have gone insane.

That particular example, I realize, is complicated by the question of
motive, which was undeniably murder. What I need and don't have is an
example of Avada Kedavra used as self-defense. Did James try to use it
and fail because he didn't feel sufficient hatred? Did Mad Eye Moody
use it on Rosier? I know that alternative means of killing have been
discussed so it's possible, even probable, that he didn't use it.

I'm left with a) murder is Evil regardless of the spell used and b)
Avada Kedavra is Evil regardless of "necessity" because there are
other, "forgiveable" and legal, spells available that serve the same
purpose without depriving the person they're used on (Harry and LV
excepted) of any form of defense.

Let's say, then, that, Harry faces Lucius Malfoy in battle in Book 7.
Lucius is a Death Eater known to have used unforgiveable curses
himself. Is Harry justified, according to the criteria that JKR has
established, in using any of these curses on him and descending to his
level? The answer is no. No matter what Lucius attempts to do to him,
Harry can't retaliate in kind. He can't torture him, deprive him of
his will, or kill him in a way that leaves him with no defense. He can
defend himself against the Imperius curse and maybe, by Book 7,
against the Cruciatus curse as well. He can disarm Malfoy and send him
to St. Mungo's with one arm shorter than the other and his feet turned
backwards. If worse comes to worst, he can kill him in self-defense
with some other spell.

Carol, who is trying to find a satisfactory explanation for why the
curses are unforgiveable and thinks she is almost but not quite there