unforgiveable charms?

[KathyK]

No: HPFGUIDX 79920

Laura, hoping not to set off another land mind, said:

>>>We know that there are Unforgiveable curses.  But I've been 
wondering, what with the strong feelings about Harry looking into 
Snape's pensieve thoughts, if there should be Unforgiveable charms 
as well.  For instance, shouldn't it be highly improper (if not 
worth a life term in Azkaban) to use Legilimency on someone without 
their permission?  Or to access their private thoughts in any other 
manner?<<<

Wyld said of Legilimency (post 79857):

<snip parents using it on children>
>>That would seem to me to be a perfectly legit use of 
such a talent. Ditto to using it to discover exactly who committed 
this crime or that crime, though that is even more of a grey area as 
how is anyone supposed to know that the person performing 
Legilimency actually saw what they said they saw! Regardless, I 
would also look on that as being an acceptable use of said talent.

If we're talking about simply invading one's mind for the sole 
purpose of doing harm, committing a crime, or so on, then that would 
be Unforgivable in my view. It's still such a grey area, though. 
How is anyone supposed to believe what one person *says* they saw in 
another person's mind, unless there is some sort of joint 
Legilimency that we have yet to see. It's all quite confusing.<<

 
Sue B said in post 79871:

>But you can do that with veritaserum and this seems to be legal, 
though maybe it shouldn't be. Snape has it in his supply cabinet and 
even threatens to use it on Harry at one point. If it was illegal, 
he 
wouldn't admit to having it, would he? :-)<

KathyK:

There are many gray areas when it comes to spells and potions in the 
WW.  My personal favorite has always been memory charms.  In my 
opinion, there are few thing worse than having the power to steal 
someone's memory.  Yet the Ministry has Obliviators ready to come 
and wipe a muggle's memory should one witness or learn of magic.  
This type of use is clearly necessary to the WW as they don't wish 
their hidden world exposed to the muggle world.  

But there are instances in the books of memory charms being used by 
non ministry officials and there is not any indication this is 
regulated or considered illegal.  First we have Gilderoy Lockhart 
memory-charming the pants off of everyone he steals glory from.  Is 
it not also true that he must have placed memory charms on any 
witnesses to the great feats for which he takes credit?  

Granted, once the people are unable to remember they did any of the 
things in Lockhart's books, they'd have no reason to report it to 
the MoM if it was considered a crime.  

Another example is Crouch Sr. erasing Bertha Jorkins memory of 
learning that his son was alive and not in Azkaban where he should 
have been.  In that instance, a memory charm was not only used, but 
caused damage to the victim's mind.  Bertha Jorkins became very 
forgetful after Crouch put the charm on her.  Now, Crouch was dead 
by the time anyone discovered the memory charm he'd used, but there 
was no indication at all by anyone that what Crouch did was illegal.

And finally we have Dumbledore thanking Kingsley Shacklebolt for 
modifying Marietta Edgecombe's memory in order to save the students 
in the DA from punishment by the ministry.  Once again, this act is 
necessary to protect Harry and the other students, but no regret or 
doubt about what has been done is expressed.  

So memory charming, IMO, is a huge gray area when it comes to 
morality.  But there is no evidence that there's any problem with 
it, legally speaking.  Along the lines of what Wyld says of the 
difficulties in monitoring Legilimency, determining whether the use 
of a memory charm was correct is very difficult.  Unless there was a 
strict law that *only* Ministry officials could use them, there is 
no way to determine if a memory charm is "unforgiveable" enough to 
throw someone in Azkaban for.  

As far as Veritaserum is concerned, according to Snape in GoF, the 
Ministry has very strict guidelines regarding its use (US paperback, 
517, ch 27).  Snape is the only one we see in possession of the 
stuff and he's the potions master at a school.  Because of his 
position perhaps it's permissible for him to have it.  I mean, 
someone has to make the stuff, right?  And he could teach his upper 
level students how to make it.  Plus, he doesn't say it's illegal to 
have it, just that it's use is restricted.  

Potions seem to me much easier to control than spells because 
potions need ingredients and a place to be stored.  It's easier to 
regulate ingredients or inspect someone's potions store than to make 
sure people aren't going around reading other people's minds and 
erasing their memories.

And actually, going back to memory charms for a moment, should 
someone be accused of using one on someone else if they are indeed 
illegal, someone investigating could use *prior incantato* to 
discover the last spell the accused did.  (Can that spell be used to 
look at previous spells?  I know that Harry's wand made Voldemort's 
do that, but it was a special case.)  So it could be easier to 
determine if someone's used a memory charm illegally than to 
determine if someone has used Legilimency illegally.  Then again, I 
recall Snape using his wand for Legilimency during Harry's lessons, 
so who knows?

KathyK (going on for too long)