Unforgivables (was: Re: WW Ethics...)

[persephone_kore]

No: HPFGUIDX 58680

 Andrea wrote:
> Actually, no. In other words, it is illegal to kill someone with
> Avada > Kedavra. There are still plenty of other ways someone could 
> be killed; it's only that one spell that is outlawed. And 
> incidentally, during the 1st Voldie War and its aftermath, Aurors 
> *were* authorized to use the Unforgivables. So just like in the 
> Muggle world, the WW considers it illegal to kill...except in 
> certain circumstances and with certain spells.


Joe wrote
Okay, I realize that there is nothing in canon whatsoever to
back me up here, but...I'm going to push ahead and insist (forgive
me, I'm stubborn) that it is illegal to kill someone *with magic* in
the WW (except under rare circumstances...Crouch had basically
imposed martial law on the WW).

I (PK) reply:

I believe Andrea's point was that, indeed, you /can't/ say, based on
canon, that the wizarding world somehow has a higher moral ground
because they outlaw one spell whose sole purpose is to kill,
especially when A. there are other ways to kill and B. that spell has
previously been legally authorized and is not as "Unforgivable" as it
sounds. You might make the argument on other grounds, but the
illegality of the Killing Curse Avada Kedavra is insufficient.

You can insist all you want, but... well, not to be rude, but "illegal
to kill someone *with magic*... except under rare circumstances" is
actually even /less/ restrictive than its being, in general, illegal
to kill people. 

I would personally say, and I'd ground this on the overall parallels
between magic and Muggle society, that in order to function
efficiently if for no other reason the Wizarding World outlaws killing
people with magic OR nonmagical means, with a confirmed exception for
line-of-duty and (I believe) a probable one for self defence. I'd also
say that the three Unforgivables are classed that way and given
exceptionally harsh penalties because they aren't considered to have
any other purpose than the violation of another person in an extreme
way -- but whatever curse Sirius was believed to have used and
Pettigrew actually did use on a street full of Muggles, it definitely
killed people, was believed to have killed a wizard, and apparently
carried a heavy (life?) sentence without any sign of having been Avada
Kedavra. 

> Crouch-As-Moody mentioned illegal curses, the three worst of which 
> were the Unforgiveables. The results of the Unforgiveables, as you 
> know, are control, torture, and murder. This implies that there are 
> a fair amount of outlawed curses, but only the three that produce 
> those results are labeled Unforgiveable. If there were other spells 
> that accomplished these same things, would they not be in the same 
> place as the others?

Not necessarily, if they're milder, or the same result is not
inevitable, or they have been found to be more commonly expedient.
This is not, of course, to say that they aren't illegal when they do
produce the same result -- I would, as I said, imagine that under most
circumstances if you manage to kill someone without using AK, you're
still in trouble!

Examples:
Death:
The disarming spell, Expelliarmus, can if applied strongly enough
fling someone back against a wall hard enough to knock them out and
cause a nosebleed. (Cf. Snape, in the Shrieking Shack. I'm sure
there's an argument that he faked unconsciousness, but he was also
apparently thrown back with enough force to make it plausible.) Could
it crack someone's skull? Could it fling a disarmed wizard back onto a
sharp object? Over a cliff? 

If so, would it be /inevitable/ that their innate magic would kick in
and save them? Neville bounced when he was dropped out the window, but
he did get hurt when he fell off his broomstick. It may be difficult
to kill a wizard through impact or stabbing, but I'm inclined to think
it's possible. 

Pettigrew's spell -- did not actually kill a wizard, but obviously
people (however hysterical) who were familiar with magic thought it
possible that one could both blow up the street and kill a wizard.

Both of these would be examples of spells which are not illegal in
general but are capable of having the result of death. Presumably
killing someone with them is still illegal, but they could produce the
result of Avada Kedavra without being, generally speaking,
Unforgivable. (Possibly, however, the difference is that it's
possible/easier to block these? Worse to kill someone if they don't
have even a theoretical chance to defend themselves?)

Torture:
I would be surprised if there's another spell that causes quite the
same intense anguish as Cruciatus, but... oh, let's see. What might be
the effects of prolonged Rictusempra? I'm fairly certain tickling has
been used as torture, though I can't remember my source. This is, I
confess, a weaker example. 

Control:
Veritaserum is strictly regulated, but it is not fully illegal and it
/does/ exert control, albeit a very specific type of control, over the
individual to whom it's administered. Not the same result as Imperius,
but a partial one, and it's legal (under appropriate circumstances)
because it is useful.

Of course, it's always possible that I'm trying to apply logic where
it doesn't belong. ;)

PK