Harry's Use of an Unforgivable Curse

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 96155

I'm going to weigh in on this subject in general rather than respond
to anyone specifically. Jim and Dell seem to have covered the various
moral and legal implication pretty well. For the most part, my
feelings favor Jim's view, but Dell has made a few good points too.

In summary, I think Harry will be morally confronted for using the
curse, but not legally confronted. Also, we are only assuming that it
hasn't already happened. We don't know for a fact that Harry hasn't
been confronted off the page for his actions.

The legal issue-

True they can probably prove that a Cruciatus curse was cast, and they
can prove it was cast by Harry's wand, but casting the curse is not
'unforgivable', casting it against another human being is. So, given
the circumstances as they were left at the end of OoP, can they prove
Harry cast the curse against (meaning actually hitting) another human
being?

Answer: I don't think so. 

At some point in the future, Bellatrix may claim that Harry did this
to her, but I don't think, given her own immensely cruel actions, she
will get much sympathy, nor will she have much credibility. Further
more, since she is an escaped convict serving  a life sentence, I
don't think she will even get a hearing in which she could accuse
Harry. It's straight back to Azkaban for her.

So, again, I don't see anything happening to Harry legally.
Especially, given how politically motivated the Ministry is, I think
it would be a public relations nightmare to pursecute a national hero
(Harry) at the peak of his public acclaim. 


The Moral issue-

I think much the same way Lupin confronted Harry about sneaking into
Hogsmeade and wasting his parent sacrific for a bag of tricks, Lupin
or Dumbledore will confront Harry about using the Cruciatus Curse.
Certainly, Harry will claim she (Bellatrix) deserved it, but I think
Dumbledore will make Harry see that if you use evil to fight evil,
then you've become the very thing that you are fighting.

Regardless of the exact circumstance, I think Harry will be force to
look at the moral implications of his actions, and despite his anger,
he will feel appropriately ashamed of what he has done.


Why that curse?

What made Harry choose that particular curse? I think the answer is
obvious when you concider who was on the receiving end of the curse.
What curse would most likely pop into your mind in a duel against the
most vicious, ruthless, distructive, and gleefully cruel user of the
Cruciatus Curse than the Cruciatus Curse itself. 


Why not the Death Curse, Harry was certainly angry enough?

I think you need to look at Harry's attitude closer to the end of the
book, after he has heard the Prophecy. Even though Harry knows that he
must kill Voldemort to save himself as well as saving the wizard
world, he still sees that action as murder. Yet, who among us would
consider it so? A soldier doing his job, an act of self-defense, a
case of kill or be killed, but few among us would consider it murder.

Yet in his own mind, even knowing that it is to save his own life and
the wizard world, Harry, by his own thoughts and words, sees it as
murder. Harry is a boy who may mischeviously break a few rules, but he
has a strong moral character, and the idea of having to kill someone
is obviously very repulsive to him. He is someone who cares about
others regardless of who they are. He has repeatedly been willing to
sacrific himself for the good of others, but is always racked with
guilt at the thought of others getting hurt because of his actions. 

Harry is not a killer, and now knowing or assuming he must kill
Voldemort has to be a tremedous weight on his good heart.

Just a few thoughts.

bboy_mn