The Unforgivables Curses

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 94993

I (Carol) wrote:
> 
> >>> 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 wrote:
<snipped and moved> 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. <snip> 
(Still Ali:)
> 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.

Carol:
I don't think that Harry or any child who cast a failed Unforgiveable
Curse would be tried or prosecuted, or that the child's soul would be
sullied by the *failed* attempt. Harry did not have the hatred or the
cold indifference or the enjoyment of suffering required to cast a
successful Cruciatus Curse, and I think and hope he learned that
lesson. To me he resembles an angry teenager who's just been hit with
a belt by an abusive parent and screams back, "I hat you! I wish you
were dead!" and then does something to hurt the parent as much as
possible, breaking a valued possession or even hitting back. This is a
natural (if dangerous) response which could arguably be classified as
righteous anger (Bellatrix's term for Harry's reaction). Bad analogy,
perhaps, but I'm not arguing that the *failed* Crucio harmed Harry. As
you say, "he did not have the necessary level of intent." But had it
succeeded, I would have serious concerns about Harry's morality and
sanity. He would have no qualms about casting other Unforgiveable
Curses and would be well on his way to becoming another Tom Riddle.

The book is about choices, mostly Harry's choices. And to make the
choices that Tom made, to cast even one Unforgiveable Curse, would be
to make him no better than Tom because, again, the spells cannot be
cast without evil intent; otherwise they would be as forgiveable as
any other curse. At best, Harry would be damaged goods, able to
destroy LV but unable to live with himself afterwards because of what
he had become. Whether Dumbldore would be able to forgive him is
irrelevant. He would be, IMO, unable to forgive himself.

Carol