Harry's detention - James saved Snape's life incidentg

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 135871

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lisa Williams
<LisaGWilliams at g...> wrote:
> Saraquel says:  More significantly, why was Sirius allowed to stay 
> at Hogwarts and not expelled, what punishment did he recieve? If I 
> was Snape, knowing that someone had deliberately set out to either 
> kill me or at least make me into a werewolf for the rest of my life,
> I would be pretty pissed off if they were only given a detention. 

> ===============

> Lisa replies:
>
> The Sirius-admiration I've read about constantly since PoA has
> always boggled my mind -- since we learned about that particular 
> incident. Sirius was no more than an orchestrator of an attempted 
> murder, and meant to frame an allegedly dear friend for said 
> attempted murder. While Sirius may have been on the "right" side of 
> the fight against Voldemort, he was NOT a nice person and should've 
> been prosecuted then and there, certainly not allowed to remain at 
> school with his intended victim.
> 
> Lisa/SassyMomOfThree

bboyminn:

First, we can't trust Snape's account of the incident because it is
highly biased. In fact, even Sirius's account is biased. Second, we
don't know what happened, so we can't be sure exactly what anyone's
intent was.

For example; Sirius could have said to Snape, don't go down to that
tree, don't prode the knot with a stick, do not go inside the tunnel,
and do not walk to the far end of the tunnel where you will surely
find your death. What we have here is 'plausable deniability'. In
other words, Sirius, regardless of his true intent, can honestly and
legally say that he warned Snape NOT TO GO, and that it was not his
fault Snape ignored his advise. A load of crap, true; but a valid
legal load of crap.

Of course, it would have been obvious to anyone that Sirius was
goading Snape, that his statement for Snape to absolutely not go, did
indeed create an absolute certainty that Snape would go. But you don't
convict people on intent, you convict them on actions, and Sirius's
actions, in the example I created, gave him 'plausable deniability'. 

Next, let's us not forget that Snape was out-of-bounds, in an area he
clearly and unquestionably was not suppose to be in, doing something
he clearly and unquestionably was not suppose to do. Snape is not
without his own guilt here. He is not the poor innocent victim he
makes himself out to be. 

I think the administration of Hogwarts, rather than make a public
spectacle of the /apparent/ risk of one student's life by another,
would be inclined to say 'detention for all' and 'don't mention this
to anyone'. That doesn't seem far off the mark for the way Hogwarts
operates. They handle their own problems. No one was actually hurt;
Snape was OK. Sirius realized the seriousness of what he did. So,
everything was OK. Best leave well enough alone.

So-

We don't know what happened.
We don't know exactly what Sirius said to provoke Snape into entering
the tunnel.
We don't know to what extent people were punished for the act.
We really don't know much at all.

We do know that Snape DID enter the tunnel which by NO path of logic
could he have believed was a wise or legal thing to do.

We do know that James entered the tunnel and pulled Snape back;
something I'm confident that Snape greatly protested until he was what
he was facing.

So, I think we need to proceed with caution. Calling Sirius a murderer
or attempted murderer, and using similar harsh language is a little
over the top, and we can not absolve Snape of all guilt in the affair
either. Snape clearly broke rules put in place for his protection. He
went into a tunnel that was SUBSTANTIALLY guarded and protected from
entry. There is no way Snape can claim he is an 'innocent victim' here. 

So, I'm not absolving anyone of any guilt. Sirius made a young
implusive and dangerous choice, and so did Snape. There is no
indication that Sirius truly intended Snape to be killed. He was
certainly short sighted, rash, and irresponsible, but we don't know
for a fact that his intent was for Snape to be killed. Likely, he
never thought that far ahead; impulsive headstrong teens are not know
for being farsighted. So they are all quilty, and I'm sure they were
all punished. Certainly not punished in the way Snape wanted, but
punished none the less.

Just trying to keep things in perspective.

Steve/bboyminn