[HPforGrownups] Re: Bang! You're dead.

[liz]

No: HPFGUIDX 86479

Laura, emerging from the avalanche of leftovers and holiday visitors, said:
> 
> This business of the Unforgivables intrigues me.  Why these three?
> There are lots of ways to hurt people and kill them.  You don't even
> have to make it look like an accident the way one recent post
> suggested (i.e., Accio'ing something sharp into the victim's back-
> nice one!).  And when you think about it, AK is inconsistent with
> the other 2 Unforgivables in that it's quick, painless and dignified
> (as it were).  The person is alive one moment and dead the next-no
> muss, no fuss.  But Imperio and Crucio are ways to inflict real,
> lasting damage, with effects that can be both mental and physical.
> I can see why those would be beyond the pale, but I don't know why
> AK is worse than any other form of intentional killing.  Sure,
> there's no known defense, but the theoretical availability of a
> defense against other forms of lethal attack doesn't mean the victim
> can use it at the necessary moment.  Dead is dead, after all.

now Liz:

I think that your quote 'The person is alive one moment and dead the next-no
muss, no fuss' shows exactly why the AK is so awful and therefore classified
as Unforgivable. Classifying it as an Unforgivable is an effective method of
regulation, rather than only judgement. It's so EASY to just snuff someone
out with it, one flick of the wrist and the person is gone forever. Even a
society as morally dubious as the WW recognises the necessity of creating a
huge taboo around such an easy method of killing. People get angry enough to
kill all the time, some of them do it, but I'm sure many don't because it's
just not that easy. Imagine if no one had to run for a knife or a gun, there
was no blood, no choking, no mark on the body. All you had to do was raise
your wand and say a few words. I'm sure the highways of the world would be
littered with dead bodies!

Another reason is because it serves no purpose other than to cause death,
which makes the spell in and of itself quite evil. AK is a weapon, and I
think the gun analogy is the best one to relate it to the RW. Although I
know some people like guns and think they're fun for sports, basically the
only purpose of a gun is to maim and kill, whether it be a person or a duck.
An axe will kill you just as well, but it's a quite a bit less efficient,
and an axe has purposes other than causing death. That's why some people
think it's wise to limit the availability of guns, as opposed to axes. I
don't think anyone would argue that a murder is more heinous when committed
with a gun/AK, but it is a lot easier. You can't stop a wizard with a wand
using AK the way you can (try to) stop people having possession of guns, so
calling the use of it 'Unforgivable' is a pretty strong psychological
deterrent. Of course it wouldn't make a difference to someone who was ESE
anyway, but hopefully it would to the rest of us.

As for it not being as bad as the other two, I'd rather be imperioed or
crucioed (but not into insanity) and live to tell the tale any day!

Liz