Did Snape "murder" Dumbledore?

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 138173

 

Julie wrote earlier:

> 1. Simply because Snape spoke the AK  does not mean that is
> the spell he actually cast. We know there are  nonverbal spells, 
> and we have no definite canon prohibiting speaking  one spell 
> while actually casting another. So he may not have cast  an
> AK at all. 

Marianne: But, do we have definite canon that  permits speaking one 
spell while casting another?  I'm not being  argumentative here, I 
don't recall that we do.
 
Julie now:
You're right. We don't have definite canon either way. At the 
moment we simply don't know if you can cast one spell while
speaking another. The best we can say is, it's possible. 


Julie earlier:
> 2. While an Unforgivable spell is said to  leave a stain on the 
soul,
> we don't know for sure whether this is  true of Snape, even if he
> did cast (or attempt to cast) an AK. The  Aurors were allowed to
> cast Unforgivables in the last war when  absolutely necessary,
> and presumably these didn't irrevocably stain  their souls if their
> intent in casting the spell was not an evil one but  served some
> higher or necessary purpose (like self-defense). If Snape  cast 
> the AK at Dumbledore's request and/or as a sort of mercy  killing
> that also aided his crucial undercover role as a spy (which  
> necessitated the spell be an Unforgivable rather than a lesser
>  spell), then would his soul still be stained?
>  
> And if he  cast an AK, but it was an incomplete one because
> he lacked the evil  intent to kill Dumbledore, yet it was still 
enough
> to kill  Dumbledore in his weakened state (perhaps from the fall
> itself rather  than the AK), would his soul still be stained?

Marianne:
I think this  point is the best one for looking at the gray areas of 
intent and just what  happens to the casters of Unforgivables. In GOF 
we were told that the Aurors  were given new powers to use 
Unforgivables. Not when "absolutely necessary",  but whenever. Which 
to me says that, if an innocent person was killed in the  accidental 
belief that that person was a DE, well, then, too bad. No harm  
done.  And that is a dangerous path to follow.

My reading of the  permission to use these curses was that it was an 
indication that the "good"  side was now on the slippery slope to 
acting very much like the people they  were fighting. And, that once 
being permitted to use them, it could become  easier and easier to 
do. Why bother trying to capture anyone? Just kill them  and be done 
with it.  After all, they're all horrible people.   Although, with 
that attitude it becomes harder to identify people, like  Regulus, 
who may be searching for a way out, who may be able to pass on  
additional information, etc. But, with this "shoot first, ask 
questions  later" mentality that might have developed, as least among 
some Aurors,  everyone on Voldemort's side is equally evil and 
equally derserving of  death.  

As for Snape's possibly weakened AK, yes, if his actions  killed 
Dumbledore, then I think his soul pays a price. Is he ESE? I tend to  
think not - I'm one of those who thinks Snape is out for his own 
skin  first, and consequently does good things for DD's side, and 
questionable  things.

Someone else asked on this or a related thread if people would  
declare Harry ESE if he murdered Voldemort.  If that's how it plays  
out, that Harry *kills* Voldemort, and doesn't *defeat* or 
*vanquish*  him in some non-lethal way, then yes, I think Harry's 
soul is tarnished by  that.  It doesn't, however, make him ESE!
 
 
Julie now:
Hmm. I don't know if I agree that one's soul is tarnished.  But
I do believe that you can't take someone else's life and not be
affected by that, even if it's in war/self-defense. It has take
something from you, or leave a permanent weight on you. 
But I think that's imposed by your own conscience, not by
any outside force (kind of how soul-tarnishing sounds to me). 


Julie earlier:
> 3. Murder is killing with malicious intent.  If Snape killed  
Dumbledore
> knowing that he was already dying,  with the intent being to end 
> DD's suffering and grant Dumbledore's own  wish to make his  death
> meaningful in the war against Voldemort  (and perhaps to keep 
> Dumbledore from turning into an Inferi if that is  a consequence  
of 
> his death by the potion), is that murder? Or  is it mercy killing,  
even
> a sort of assisted suicide? (I  realized assisted suicide is a 
touchy
> subject, but again I predicate  this on DD already being terminally
> ill with little or no time  left.)

Marianne:

Well, it's certainly more convenient for  explaining away Snape's 
actions if we assume DD was moments from death  ;-).  Just shove the 
old man off a tower so he dies from the shattering  impact with the 
ground. 

Maybe we're into Wizard world legalities,  which have always been 
murky to me.  If Snape's actions are not murder,  assuming his intent 
was indeed to end DD's suffering while simultaneously  handling the 
explosvie situation with the assembled DEs on the tower, they  would 
certainly at least be manslaughter here in the US. The Wizard World  
doesn't seem to allow for degrees of ending a life, so we don't know 
if  a mercy killing is acceptable or not, whether it involves 
slipping someone a  potion or pushing them off a high elevation.



Julie now:
It is convenient to say DD was moments from death, but it also
appears that way in canon. At the very least, he's becoming
progressively weaker. It's unclear if he can be saved, since
we have few facts as usual! (Did he originally call for Snape so
Snape could counter the potion's effects? Will those effects 
wear off, or will they eventually kill him? Is it already too late?)
 
You're also right that we don't know how "mercy killing" is 
viewed in the WW. Snape may still be guilty of some sort of
manslaughter even if he killed an already dying DD. But 
Snape's already carrying plenty of guilt, so what's a bit more. 
Snape, and DD, may be willing to bear that guilt if Snape's
action provides a means to save the WW from Voldemort. 

Julie earlier:  
> 4. If DD asked Snape to deliver the final  killing blow, does this
> mean the same thing as asking Snape to commit  murder, i.e.,
> to stain or split his soul? I don't think it has to mean  that. If
> it isn't murder, i.e., killing with malicious intent, but is  some 
> combination of mercy killing/releasing DD's soul before it  can
> become an Inferi, then it isn't actually murder, and DD is  not
> endangering Snape's soul. (And I agree that DD would not
> ask  Snape to do something that would endanger his soul).

Marianne:

If  this situation comes to be resolved exactly as you've postulated, 
there will  still be debate on whether or not it's murder.  In JKR's 
world it might  not be, but I suspect many readers would still find 
Snape's actions to be  the equivalent of murder, just as many people 
do not accept the idea of  assisted suicide because it involves the 
taking of a life, or it allows  people to play God. 

I'd like to add a question of my own here. The  question of intent 
has come up periodically. Some of the Snape defenders  have argued 
that his intent was not to kill DD, but to end DD's suffering,  and 
thus protect Draco and himself from the consequences of the UV.  If  
we non-Snape lovers are asked to, if not forgive Snape's actions, 
then  to at least understand them, can we Sirius lovers ask the same 
in  return?  If it is revealed that Sirius' intent in sending Snape 
into  the tunnel duing the Prank was merely to scare the pants off 
him, then we  really can't accuse him of attempted murder, now, can 
we?

Julie says  now:
I've never thought Sirius was guilty of attempted murder, just of
recklessness and lack of forethought. But then, I don't think he
had any intent kill Snape, or even put enough thought into it to
consider all the possible consequences. And if Snape didn't
want to kill DD, and did it because it served a higher purpose
to kill a man who was already dying in a manner of that man's
choosing, then I can see that as extenuating circumstances
which would allow me to understand the necessity of Snape's
actions and to forgive him. (Should this be the case, the most 
interesting part will be seeing if Harry comes to that same
conclusion!) 
 
But that's just me.  I have no doubt you're right about a 
continuing debate on Snape's guilt.  I've always felt JKR's
frequent statement that she's writing the Harry Potter saga 
for herself, not for children or to conform to anyone else's 
views, is her way of defending herself and her right to portray
her fictional WW in whatever moral light she sees fit. And it
is a fictional world, so I for one can accept whichever way
she decides to come down on the murder/not murder issue
with Snape, even if I don't end up liking it ;-)
 
Julie 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]