[HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione/Snape (OoP and a bit from PS/SS) also broom-bucking

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 70085

On 14 Jul 2003 at 1:59, Sydney wrote:

> I guess if Shaun and I were on the same jury, we'd be hung forever...
> bailiff!  More doughnuts!

Doughnuts definitely increase the possibility.
 
> I'm still not quite understanding this "Snape failed to get medical
> care" angle.  He looks at Goyle.  Says, "hospital wing".  Off Goyle
> scampers.  Looks at Hermionie.  Says, "I see no difference". 
> Instantaneously, Hermionie runs crying off to the hospital wing, and
> Harry and Ron start screaming at him.  Any way you slice it, the cheap
> shot cost, what, three seconds?  Perhaps you are suggesting that the
> next thing Snape would have done, was not say, "well, off you go to
> the hospital wing", but rather, kept her through class or stood in the
> hallway for an hour making fun of her. I don't think he would have,
> but we're not trying the man on possibilities here.

Personally I think there's every chance he would have sent her to the 
hospital wing if she'd remained there. But in the event, he didn't. His 
first response should have been to help her - not to score points off 
her.

> So, what I'm saying is, that Snape had about five seconds during which
> he was actually reacting to that particular situation (from the point
> of seeing that Herminie had been hit, I mean).  There simply wasn't
> time to see what he would have done next, and I'm not ready to pay
> damages or whatever we're doing here, based on what remains:  one
> snarky comment.

One cruel comment with no educative merit whatsoever, aimed at a student 
in distress, with a right to expect him to do the right thing 
immediately and without delay.

He abrogated his responsibility. Nothing changes that - not even the 
possibility he may have resumed it later.
 
> Oh, there's no question at all that Snape is simply terrible with
> children.  It's arguable that he's a good teacher, in the sense of
> getting his students throught their NEWTS, but I think you and I are
> in harmonious accord over his suitability, or lack thereof, regarding
> everything else the word "teacher" comprehends.  I think hiring him
> can be added to the suddenly expanding list of 'Dumbledore's
> Mistakes';  not only to spare the kids the hassle, but because it so
> bad for Snape.  To be doing something he's lousy at, in the scene of
> his previous humiliations, isn't exactly a situation for him to
> flourish.  I can only assume that D-dore was REALLY hard pressed for a
> Head of Slytherin he could trust.  I think what we do disagree on, is
> whether lacking those skills makes one an evil person.

No, because I don't think Snape's evil. I think he comes close to it at 
times, but unless JKR has deceived us to his fundamental activities, I 
wouldn't classify him as evil.

> >I want to say that for the most 
> > part, I'm greatly enjoying this discussion, including the amount of 
> > people who disagree with me. I like being told I'm wrong, especially by 
> > people who seem to have put a reasonable level of thought into their 
> > responses (-8.
> 
> I hope I'm in the 'most part' category... :)

Definitely.
 
> I have to plead ignorance of child psychology here, and will have to
> take your word I suppose that those five seconds really could severely
> damage a 13-year-old.  It goes against my instincts, but no one ever
> said I have particularily good instincts about kids.

I should clarify - it's unlikely (though not impossible) that this 
incident alone would cause harm. However it is perfectly possible that 
it could harm a student who appears normal and non-neurotic in every 
way, and even if tested by a psychologist would not appear to have 
problems at all. It's a 'straw that broke the camel's back' situation. 
Cases exist - and are fairly common - where a person seems entirely 
normal, indeed even more healthy than normal, up until one particular 
incident. And teachers do need to be aware of that.
 
> But if this is the case, why is ANYONE allowed around such delicate
> creatures, never mind teachers?  Sure, teachers are around them a lot,
> but a situation like that could arise anywhere, after all.  If you
> need special technicians to handle these volatile materials, they need
> round-the-clock surveillance.  Why are they allowed into Hogsmead if
> at any second someone could be harsh with them and explode them like
> balloons?  Mind you, as I tend to hold a baby as though it were a
> ticking bomb, I already do regard kids with a high level of
> trepidation!  A level which is bound to increase exponentially after
> this discussion... to be on the safe side, probably I shouldn't be
> allowed around kids either.  No one should, without an advanced
> degree, it seems.

It's a balancing act. The reason people need to be allowed to be around 
kids is because there are *massive* potential benefits as well as 
potential for damage, to letting kids interact with other people. It 
might be possible to shield kids from certain types of psychological 
trauma by wrapping them in cotton wool, but that would just create a 
different set of problems. The solution is not to wrap kids in cotton 
wool and shield them from everyone - but when specific problems can be 
identified and ways of dealing with them can be found, it would be 
pretty ridiculous not to address those problems. Snape is a specific 
problem (-8.

Most kids (not all) gain more benefit from schooling than they suffer 
harm. That's the reason for sending them to school. But if you can get 
the benefits, while reducing the harm, that's worthwhile.
 
> <snip re:  is this the equivalent of assult?> 
> > Actually, courts of law would agree with me. And have. Generally not in 
> > criminal cases, but in civil cases, it's becoming accepted more and
> more 
> > that teachers do have a specific and particular duty of care in such 
> > cases, and Snape could be well and truly screwed if he came up in
> such a 
> > case over this incident. Most cases, by the way, don't reach court -
> but 
> > a few have in Australia, Canada, the US, and the UK.
> 
> Just to be clear, would a court consider this the equivalent of
> assault, or of dereliction of care?  Just checking.

Possibly both - the duty of care issue is likely to be the primary 
concern, but if verbal abuse occurred as part of that, it would very 
likely be considered of relevance.
 
> I do not consider something having been the basis of successful
> lawsuits, to be remotely an attractive argument for its justice.  If
> Snape really would have been screwed over this incident, he would have
> been just that:  screwed.  And I would read about it in the paper and
> shout:  "For the love of god, can we not do something about the
> whittling away of liberty, and infantilization of the public, fostered
> by these frivolous lawsuits?"

Yes, if the lawsuit is frivolous. And often times it would be. But not 
always. If the child was killed as a result of the experience 
(hypothetical - say, Hermione had tripped over her teeth and broken her 
neck), the duty of care issue would become very important.

Part of the reason, so few cases reach court is because most of the time 
the issues involved aren't serious enough to warrant the attention of 
the courts. But occasionally a minor case is heard

In Snape's case, as we see it, I would agree that if it did get to court 
and he suffered because of it, that would be friviolous. But not always.

> > Moody's actions, OTOH, do verge on being a criminal assault. That's 
> > borderline under British Muggle law of the period though (where a 
> > teacher in a private school could make ready use of the reasonable 
> > chastisement defence)
> 
> Reasonable chastisement?  Weasel physiology being what it is, I
> suppose internal injuries may have not been critical, but I don't
> think assult gets much clearer than repeatedly flinging a tiny person
> against a stone wall.  But I don't think we disagree about Moody, so
> it's not so much fun to talk about...

'Reasonable chastisement' has been successfully used in Britain as a 
defence by teachers even in cases where quite severe injuries have 
occurred. From memory, a teacher could legally use the reasonable 
chastisement defence against a charge of assault occasioning actual 
bodily harm (or ABH), but cannot use such a defence against a charge of 
assault occasioning grievous bodily harm (or GBH). This was the legal 
situation for private school in Britain up until September 1999, from 
memory, and so would apply (inasmuch as Muggle Law could apply) to 
Hogwarts at the time of the ferret bouncing.

So basically in law, it could be acknowledged as an assault - but it 
would still be legal provided it didn't reach the standard of GBH (which 
is pretty high).

I'm not sure if bouncing Draco would meet it or not - I suspect not, but 
I'm not a lawyer.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia