Bang! You're dead.

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 86510

Laura wrote:
This business of the Unforgivables intrigues me.  Why these three?
There are lots of ways to hurt people and kill them. <snip> 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. <snip> 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.

Liz responded: 
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!

<snip> 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. <snip>

Carol:
I've also been struggling with why the Avada Kedavra Curse is
unforgiveable. I think you've just added an important new element to
the debate: Not just because it kills, not just because it's
unblockable, but because using it to kill is so easy! Imagine an
argument where two powerful wizards who hate each other (Sirius and
Snape?) can just AK each other (or the one with the fastest reflexes
AKs the other) with nothing to deter them but the thought of a prison
sentence for unpremeditated murder and a chance of plea bargaining?
True, the curses require intense anger and a real desire to kill (I
have no doubt that Bellatrix knows what she's talking about), but some
very strong deterrent is still necessary to prevent their widespread
use in times when the temptation to kill is very strong, especially in
anarchic times when no one knows who's an enemy and who's not. I
imagine we're heading into exactly such times with VW2.

But aside from the practical necessity you mention, which is why AK is
illegal, I think there's a moral or ethical dimension as well, the
reason why it's unforgiveable. That brings us back to the question of
why the Avada Kedavra is more evil than any other killing spell. And
surely, snuffing another person out, "no muss, no fuss," because you
hate them enough to kill them, is evil? 

I think we have to put together all the components:

1) It kills, instantly and painlessly
2) There's no known countercurse or defense (unless you're Harry, LV,
or possibly Dumbledore)
3) It requires both power or skill and the desire "to really want to
cause pain, to enjoy it" (Bellatrix in OoP)
4) If you're a skilled wizard with the requisite anger or malice, it's
just to easy to use it to snuff out someone you hate

Maybe we could add that since it leaves no trace (no blood, no weapon,
no scream from the victim unless he or she anticipates it), it's also
too easy to get away with. Young Tom Riddle AKd his Muggle relatives
and went back to school unsuspected. He had already committed another
effortless murder using a basilisk, which undoubtedly hardened his
resolve to kill and taught him to realize that he enjoyed killing. But
AKing his father and grandparents went beyond that. It required the
use of his own powers, not a monster's glance, and it required real
hatred. And as you say, it was just too easy.

Getting away with it, on top of the moral corruption caused by the
murders themselves, made Tom Riddle unsalvageable. He had done the
unforgiveable; there was no deterrent to further evil because nothing
could be worse than what he had already done, and there could be no
redemption. Avada Kedavra had transformed a Slytherin schoolboy into
Lord Voldemort.

Carol