THe nature of the Unforgivables

[Derek Hiemforth]

No: HPFGUIDX 87006

two4menone4you88 at aol.com wrote:
>I think what Bellatrix meant is that for each curse you have to really want 
>the thing it does.  for example for the AK curse you would have to really want 
>to kill someone.  In that case Sirius and Lupin could have killed Peter since 
>they really wanted to.

Derek:
At risk of repeating myself from an earlier post, I think it's more
than that.  I think you have to take actual pleasure in it, not just
have a genuine wish to see it happen.  I think that's why use of them
is "Unforgiveable."  It's not saying anything about the magic itself,
or even about the target of the magic.  It's saying something about
the *user* of the magic.  If you use AK to kill someone, no matter how
richly that someone may deserve it, you've revealed yourself as one
who can revel in some twisted joy at snuffing out another's life force.
*That's* what's Unforgiveable.  I suspect that if we learn more about
these curses and the punishments associated with them, we'll find that
it's not the *attempt* at casting them that lands one in Azkaban...
it's *successfully* casting one that does it.  Only if you can cast
one successfully have you revealed yourself as a twisted, evil person.

So I actually don't believe Sirius and Remus could have used AK on
Peter, no matter how angry they were with him, and no matter how just
that anger was.  I don't think either of them would actually find joy
in causing another's death.  They may want to see that death accomplished
in the interests of justice, but they're not the kind of people who get
glee from killing another.

Don't get me wrong; they *would* have killed him had Harry not intervened.
But I fully believe they would have had to do so by means other than AK.

- Derek