The Unforgivables Curses : what about Petrificus Totalus ?

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 95041

Carol wrote :
> But you can't do permanent harm with Petrificus
> Totalis (unless you use it to immobilize your opponent and do
> something else to him, like modifying his memory).

Del :
Or rape them, or torture them, or whatever. As I said in my previous
post, it's similar to tying someone up in RL, and this is rarely done
with a good intention. I agree, though, that we don't punish people
for just tying someone else up, but rather for what they do next.

Mentioning Obliviate is only adding an item to my list of potential
Unforgivables :-) That's another charm that should be used *only* by
authorised people, and stricly forbidden for use by another else.

By the way, neither Imperio nor Crucio do permanent harm to their
victims. Imperioing someone doesn't do them any harm (it actually
makes them feel *good*). It's what you make them do when Imperioed
that can be a problem, just like with Petrificus Totalus. And Crucio
obviously didn't traumatise Harry or Cedric : they "forgot" about it
as soon as it stopped. It might give the victims a nightmare once in a
while, but I wouldn't call that permanent damage.

Carol :
> Even then, apparently, it wouldn't be a crime. (Shouldn't Lockhart be
> in Azkaban for modifying all those memories? But in his case, intent 
> and results, rather than a spell that's evil in itself, would be what
> mattered.)

Del :
Well, it seems no agreement has been reached yet then, since you seem
to consider that the Unforgivable Curses are evil in itself, while
others say that it's precisely the intent behind them and their
results that make them Unforgivable. We didn't get anywhere :-)

> Carol, who's still certain that the Unforgiveable Curses are
> Unforgiveable for a reason

Del, who still thinks they should only have been called the Restricted
Curses, or Forbidden Curses, but not Unforgivable, since they are
obviously forgivable under specific circumstances.