The Unforgivables Curses : what about Petrificus Totalus ?

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 94998

Del wrote:
>>> Another point I've been bothered with is the use of some other 
curses that have not been described as either unforgivable or even 
forbidden.

Petrificus Totalus, in particular, disturbs me a lot. It seems to me
that it should fall in the Unforgivable category as well, because :
 1. It annihilates one's freedom of action
 2. It can easily allow some horrendous crimes to be committed. >>>

 
Then Ali wrote:
> I believe that the difference between this curse and the 
> Unforgiveables is that it *can* be relatively easily blocked. This 
> makes it very different from the others.
> 
> I think that there are large number of curses which could kill, 
> maim or cause untold damage or pain. But it is only the 
> Unforgiveables that have the combination of intent, taking away 
> self-determination and unblockability (for the majority of 
> wizards, anyway).


Siriusly Snapey Susan now:
Excellent questions, Del, and an equally excellent answer, Ali.  I 
think your answer takes care of about all of Del's concern.  But 
*before* reading this post, I was going to say that I think there 
ARE many other spells which *could* get someone a life sentence in 
Azkaban, but that they're simply not the "givens" that the 
Unforgivables are.  That is, there might be ways/times in which 
these other spells could be used such that the intent is not really 
to harm.  

For instance, what was that spell used to "hover" Snape called 
[leaving the Shrieking Shack in PoA]??  It could be used as it was--
to more easily transport an unconscious person [though, granted, it 
also allowed some folks a few grins at Snape's head-knocking on the 
ceiling ;-)], but it seems to me it could also be used to immobilize 
a person or prevent him from doing something he wants to do.  The 
latter case has the intent of taking away self-determination, 
whereas the former is actually a spell of convenience or assistance.

I guess I'm trying to argue that while the Unforgivables are 
[almost!] always grounds for life in prison, some other spells could 
also get a wizard life in prison *but* might also be used in a 
totally innocuous manner, so they're not called Unforgivable.  The 
Unforgivables--even if we grant them "okay" status as a teaching 
tool in DADA--could never otherwise be described as being available 
for use in a totally innocuous manner.

Am I making any sense?

Siriusly Snapey Susan