The Unforgivables Curses

[Ali]

No: HPFGUIDX 94983

Carol wrote:

>>> I agree with Geoff about the intent to cause harm, though not
 necessarily about lasting harm. Harry, for example, has survived the
 terrible pain of several Crucios. It was only the extended,
 unremitting use of them that drove the Longbottoms insane. And the
 Imperius Curse placed on Krum lasted just long enough for him to
 Crucio Cedric (Crouch!Moody's evil will was operating through him),
 but when he was released from the spell, he ran away in guilt and
 confusion. >>>

Ali:

For some strange reason, I love this subject, and have a tendency to 
reproduce a post I first wrote about 18 months ago. I agree very 
much with the rationale of Geoff:


 IMO, the Unforgivables all deprive the victim of their right of 
self-determination; AK in the most obvious and final way.

In English Law a crime consists of 2 components:
The crime itself (actus reus)
The intent (Mens Rea)

Whilst muggles and one supposes wizards can be killed in many 
different ways, what stands out with AK is that these alternate ways 
can do things other than kill. AK does one thing and one thing only 
and that is take life. For instance, a gun will kill if it contains 
a bullet and if it is pointed at a nearby head and achieves its 
target. However, a gun is also used to fire a noise into the air to 
start a race. Hands might be used to wring a neck, thus taking life, 
but they could also be used to wring out wet clothes. 

IMO AK is unforgivable as it will always combine both the physical 
act with the intention. Once the curse is correctly cast, it can not 
be blocked. The object of the curse will die (unless they are Harry 
of course).

The fact that AK is the only unforgivable "killing curse", does not 
make other killing methods more justifiable or less  "bad"– they 
could presumably result in a life sentence to Azkaban.

I am unsure how a "failed" curse would be perceived by the WW. For 
instance, Moody tells Harry's class that there must be considerable 
force behind an AK spell. If a child tries and fails, they must 
surely be guilty of attempted AK. Their punishment would then 
perhaps depend on how successful they thought that they would be. 
For instance, if the Neville we know up to GoF was to try to attempt 
AK, nobody would expect him to be successful. His failure would have 
been easy to predict, and would lessen the status of the "crime"- in 
my eyes at least.

Right of Self Determination:

IMO both the Cruciatus curse and the Imperius curse are Unforgivable 
as they take away their victim's right of self-determination, and 
place them at the mercy of another. The Imperius curse can be 
blocked, so whilst this ability is unusual, it is possible. IIRC, we 
are not told whether the Cruciatus curse can be blocked, although we 
are certainly given no clue that this is possible. Once again, the 
only purpose of these curses is to place you under somebody else's 
power. The castor could be using the curses for kicks, to achieve an 
action or gain information, but they are forcing the victim to act 
against their will. There is no other possible outcome, there is no 
other possible intention.

 Carol again:

>>> True, the uses to which Crouch!Moody put it in GoF appear 
harmless enough (making Neville do acrobatics, etc.), but C!M was 
nevertheless imposing his will on the students in violation of their 
own self-determination. Moreover, C!M was able to perform the spell
 because he had trained his will to the domination of others (to 
borrow a Gandalfism). So none of these spells, IMO, can be performed 
without evil intent.<<<

Ali:

I agree that C!Moody was imposing his will on his students, but, and 
it's a very big but, they were willing participants. He gives 
Hermione the choice not to take part in the lesson. The students are 
voluntarily giving up their rights of self-determination. To me, 
this means that whilst C!M is showing them how the Imperius Curse 
works, he is not actually commiting an offence. Except that is, if 
you argue that the students were under age and therefore not legally 
capable of making that judgement. Hmmn, I think there is wriggle 
room there anyway.

I take the point that there *are* other curses which take away the 
right of self determination, in one sense, every curse that makes 
the victim do something against their will, fulfills that 
definition. But, we could summise that those curses have a natural 
lifespan after which they stop, whereas the Unforgiveable Curses 
have to be lifted.

The Unforgiveable Curses remain different because of their capacity 
to withstand blocks. The Imperious Curse can be blocked, but it 
still seems to be an exceptional Wizard that can do it. As we know, 
Harry is exceptional. His survival of the AK curse is the reason for 
the 7 books which we love.

Carol:
 
>> > To me, Unforgiveable is *not* synonymous with illegal. It 
relates not to law but to religion or morality. So my question is, 
*who* cannot forgive the use of these curses? Is it God, who is 
generally outside the picture in the WW except for the evidence here 
and there of an after life? Is it the WW as a whole? Suggestions or 
explanations, anyone?<<<

It certainly would fit for these curses to be unforgiveable for 
moral reasons, but, I still feel that this would have to be a 
Wizarding World judicious interpretation of it. We know that 
Dumbledore goes against the grain by believing in second chances. If 
there is some kind of divine reason for the curses to be 
unforgiveable, it would seem to go against JKR's message about 
forgiving and second chances.

It is true that humans can get used to, and learn to take pleasure 
in cruelty. I can imagine there being a WW belief that casting such 
a curse would sully ones soul or somehow alter ones chemical makeup. 
But, I believe that Harry will proof that this is not the case. I 
still believe that if tried in a muggle court for casting the 
Cruciatus curse, he would be found not guilty by reason of temporary 
insanity. If he was temporarily out of his mind, is his soul ruined? 
I think and hope not. I do agree that it was very significant that 
Harry did place the cruciatus curse on Bella. It is also significant 
that it didn't really work. In reality. although Harry tried to 
perform the cruciatus curse, he was unsuccessful because he did not 
have the necessary level of intent.

Ali