Snape, A Murderer? (Was: Re: Is Wormtail an Occlumens or an open book?)

[kiricat2001]

No: HPFGUIDX 95512


> > Kneasy wrote:
> > << DD wouldn't have any qualms about accepting an ex-DE killer on 
to 
> > his side so long as he was convinced that he could trust Snape 
from 
> > then on. And he states (and so has JKR) that he knows Snape's 
reasons 
> > and believes that he can trust him. DD is a war leader. Deaths 
are 
> > inevitable. Note that DD doesn't descend into paroxysms of grief 
when 
> > deaths occur; a few sentences to the school after Cedric is 
murdered 
> > and mind games with Harry after Sirius snuffs it. Moody is a long-
> > time friend and he's a killer. Does DD look on him as a pariah? 
No. 
> > He did what was necessary. If you fight a war you get your hands 
> > dirty; to pretend that somehow it's possible to defeat Voldy and 
be 
> > able to avoid inflicting casualties on the enemy is not credible. 
It 
> > wasn't in the last Voldy war, why should it be different this 
time? 
> > He has to win the war. Any other alternative is not acceptable. 
And 
> > he will use whatever means are at his disposal that he thinks 
will 
> > work.>>

 
> Carol:

> I absolutely agree that DD has good reason to trust Snape. (I wish I
> knew what it was!) I also agree that Dumbledore has to accept the
> inevitability of deaths in war (though he did at least drape the 
Great
> Hall in black to honor Cedric Diggory and ask the students and staff
> to honor him). But acceptance of death is not at all the same thing 
as
> placing a known murderer in a position of trust for fourteen years.
> 
> Nor do we need to assume that because Snape was a DE, he was
> *necessarily8 a murderer. 

<snip of a list of Snape talents>

 And why use Snape to Crucio people, either, when he
> had specialists for that job (Bellatrix and her male followers, the
> Lestrange brothers; Dolohov and his assistant, Karkaroff)? Why not 
put
> Snape to uses that no other DE could be put to? Why not make the 
most
> of his prodigious talents? That's what a dictator with any
> intelligence would do, and Tom Riddle, at least, was known for his
> high intelligence (whatever we may think of Voldie now).

Marianne:
Several points - You may very well be right that Voldy prized Snape 
for his Potions ability more than his Dark Arts ability.  But, plans 
in the best of times get screwed up.  I'd imagine that during a war, 
especially one with a lot of covert operations, things could go wrong 
quickly.  And, if Voldy wanted someone to be killed, or felt he 
needed someone to be killed NOW, and his favorite assassins were off 
doing his bidding somewhere else, I don't think he's necessarily sit 
back and wait for them to show up.  If he felt it was imperative to 
kill someone and Snape was handy, I don't think he'd hesitate to 
order Snape to do it. 

Maybe that is the basis for Snape's switching sides.  He was ordered 
to commit murder, he did it, and couldn't live with himself 
afterwards. That was the wake-up call where he had to face the fact 
that he'd been sitting in his lab brewing potions for a completely 
ruthless megalomaniac. He could no longer hide behind the conveninet 
excuse that he was merely brewing potions, not physically forcing 
anyone to drink them.

So Snape turns to DD, passes on some valuable information and offers 
himself as spy.  DD, rather than hauling Snape in for a prison 
sentence, uses him instead.  The bargain is that Snape has to spy, 
and DD will not turn him in either during the war or after it.  And, 
if Snape pays with his life during the war, well then he's offered up 
himself as the price of his own redemption.  DD gets what he wants; 
Snape holds up his end of the bargain, but is perversely disturbed 
that he wasn't killed during the war.  He knows he's done something 
terrible, and his punishment is to land a cushy teaching job.  I can 
see that not sitting well with Snape's internal moral code.  So he 
carries on, in a job which is not the one he wants, with now the 
additional presence in his classes of the son of a man he hated. No 
wonder he's a surly gent.
 
 Carol:
> I'm fully aware that there's no canon to indicate that Snape 
*didn't*
> commit murder or perform an Unforgiveable, but there's no canon to
> indicate that he *did.* Any assumption that he must have done so is
> just that, an assumption.

Marianne:  Assumptions on both sides, then.

Carol:
> It simply does not make sense that such a man would hire Snape if he
> believed (knew) that Snape had committed murder in the past,
> repentance or no repentance. Yes, DD is using Snape to prepare the
> students for the coming war. And, yes, absolutely, there is a bond 
of
> trust between them. But given what we know of Dumbledore, it's more
> likely that Snape prevented or tried to prevent a death than that he
> committed murder. Had he murdered and repented, DD might have 
retained
> him in his position as spy. But giving him a full set of classes
> involving poisons and children as young as eleven? Making him the 
Head
> of House for one-fourth of the students? Trusting him to make 
wolfbane
> potion for a man he regarded as an enemy?

> No matter how practical DD may be or how seemingly indifferent to 
the
> deaths of unknown people in the unforeseeable future, the evidence
> does not suggest that he's indifferent to the welfare of his 
students
> now. Snape is a former DE. Trust or no trust, he could relapse. And 
if> he were to relapse into murder, Dumbledore would on some level be
> responsible. IMO, that's a chance he would not and could not take.

Marianne:
Are you saying that repentent murderers can never be forgiven? Or 
that they can be forgiven, but can never be completely trusted or can 
never be contributing members of society?  I can believe Snape 
committed murder, but I don't see him as being a bloodthirsty killer 
like a Bellatrix. I can easily see him killing one time, because he 
was ordered to do it or because he was trying not to get caught by 
the Aurors, but I don't see him as someone who likes killing.  In 
that respect, I think that DD could be forgiving of Snape, and since 
DD's the epitome of goodness, he'd want to help a bright, talented 
individual to regain a useful position in society.  

I think that DD giving Snape this responsibility and trusting him to 
handle it professionally and appropriately might be the exact way 
that DD proves to Snape again and again, over and over, that Snape 
can be redeemed.  And, I think it rankles Snape to no end.

Going off in another somewhat related direction, I'll make another 
prediction.  We will indeed find out that Snape killed someone.  
Harry, too, will discover this and will brood on how his own parents 
died fighting Voldemort, Sirius went to prison for crimes he didn't 
commit, and Snape committed a crime for which he has not been 
formally punished. Harry will have to find a way to reconcile this 
knowledge because he and Snape are pivotal players in the effort to 
defeat Voldemort once and for all.  And, Harry's going to have to 
deal with it.

Marianne