unforgiveable charms?

[jwcpgh]

No: HPFGUIDX 79973


 "jwcpgh" <jwcpgh at y...> wrote:
> >I've been wondering...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?
> > 
> > Laura, 
> 
> bboy_mn:
> 

> 
> Let's remember that there is a big difference between that which is
> legally/socially/morally unforgivable and that which is 
AN 'Unforgivable'.
> 
> unforgivable = done something wrong
> 
> Unforgivable (with a capital "U")= done something unforgivably 
wrong.
> 
> So you really think that a death sentence or life in prison is the
> appropriate sentence for Harry looking at Snape's thoughts in the
> Pensieve or someone using Legilimency? Seems a bit harsh to me.
> 
> Certainly these are a violation of some measure of right and wrong,
> but do you really see them as capital crimes of the highest order;
> capital crime demanding the most extreme sentence the law will 
allow? 
> 
> Let's look at what Legilimency really is in a practical sense. As 
far
> as I can see, it is hardly more than a highly accurate form of
> intuition. Voldemort or Dumbledore have a strong ituitive sense of
> when someone is lying based on subtle interpretations of their
> thoughts, emotions, and demeanor. 
> 
> Snape said it himself, that Legilimency is not 'mind reading' as the
> mind is not something which can be read; and we can certainly
> reasonably conclude that it is not 'thought stealing' as it does not
> deprive the owner of his thoughts. It does invade the privacy of the
> owner of those thoughts, but it doesn't actually steal any thoughts
> from him.
> 
> To the person who responded with a comment that Veritaserum was 
legal,
> that is a slight misstatement. The use of Veritaserum is 
(supposedly)
> strictly controlled by the Minstry of Magic; strictly control, in 
all
> likelihood, for both legal and human rights reasons. We see (or the
> story implies) that it is not routinely used in for prisoner
> interogations; just as truth serum is not routinely used for muggle
> police interogations.

Laura:

Of course, you're right-I was being a bit hyperbolic.  No one should 
be sent to Azkaban for life for invasions of privacy.  (Although  the 
Attorney General of the United States is geetting close...no, I won't 
go there). What I was trying to get at, though, was that there don't 
seem to be clear guidlines in the WW about what magic is socially 
unacceptable (as opposed to Unforgiveable).  Maybe it's because these 
situations don't come up very often-not many people own a pensieve or 
are able to use Legilimency or have access to veritaserum.  But, for 
instance, the post about the violation caused by the wide use of 
memory charms makes a valid point-taking away someone's memories is a 
pretty drastic thing to do.  And I think Legilimency is  more than 
intuition-that doesn't require magic to learn.  It's an invasion by 
one person into another person's private space.  

To me, and maybe this is just a personal thing, poking into someone's 
mind, however you do it, is a whole different issue than making 
tentacles grow on them or turning their legs to jelly or even hanging 
them upside down in midair.  But I don't get the sense that children 
in the WW are taught at an early age that "we don't do anything that 
involves another person's brain without their permission."  
(Refinements, such as Ministry use of veritaserum would, of course, 
be left to explain at a later age.)  And even if those spells or 
potions have legitimate uses, where are the legal safeguards?  
Shouldn't you have to have something like a search warrant before you 
use veritaserum on someone?  Shouldn't there be witnesses, a court 
reporter, the suspect's lawyer, present?  And how can you rely on the 
report of a legilimens?  It's just that person's report, after all.

Just wondering.