Snape: Crime and Punishment -Nature of Punishment

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 143855

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
> ...edited...
> > bboyminn:
> <SNIP>
> > As I said, Snape has doomed himself for all time. He will 
> > suffer to his dying day for his act. ...
> 
> ...edited...
>
> Steve:
> > Just because the many characters... don't face formal ... 
> > punishment doesn't mean the cruel hand of fate won't punish
> > them in some karmic way.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I offered someone a bet ... I am happily offering the same bet
> to you. Ten butter beers that Umbridge WILL be punished for her 
> actions in book 7. :)
> 
> And although I will not offer the same degree of certainty about 
> Snape, based on how I read JKR intentions, I am offering five 
> butter beers that Snape will be punished somehow too or will be 
> apologising. It will not be long punishment or apology but it 
> will be effective:-)
> 
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla, preparing to buy those five butter beers for Steve. :-)
>


bboyminn:

I think the arguement has somwhat fallen into the area of Semantics.
Just exactly what constitutes 'punishment'. In some ways it seems that
people will be happy if a person is merely confronted regarding his
actions. What happened to the Dursleys in the latest book could hardly
be called 'punishment', yet it satisfies many people's desire to see
the Dursleys confronted for their actions, to not simply have the
world ignore it, but for someone to speak it out loud and to their face.

So, I have to wonder if we are really talking about punishment? I've
already said Snape will be /punished/ for killing Dumbledore, and
while people may not agree on the method, they seem to agree that my
suggestion is sufficient /karmic/ punishment. So, again, are we really
talking about punishment, or are we talking about a character's action
not going unnotice and, more importantly, unacknowledged? 

As I read Lupinlore's previous post, I could see a situation in which
Snape could be confronted about his actions. For example, Snape is
desperately trying to convince Harry to accept his help. That leads to
a row between them in which a lot of shouting is done on both side,
and nothing is left unsaid. Would it be sufficient for readers, if a
situation like this occured, assume the situation leads to some degree
of resolution and cooperation between said characters?

Let's shift for a moment to Umbridge. People absolutely want the evil
and vile Umbridge punished. But in real life, few politicians ever
suffer punishment in proportion to their crimes. Congress in the USA
has pretty much insulated themselves from ever facing true justice for
their actions. 

In Umbridge's case, wouldn't (or would) you say that Umbridge being
dragged off into the forest by Centaur, an action that left her in a
catatonic state, and with a deep seated fear of Centaurs, and a
substantial lose of humility, was enough of a punishment? 

As Dumbledore might put it 'impaled upon her own sword'. That is,
Umbridge's self-absorbed all-superior self-important actions lead to
her being taken by the Centaurs. If she was smart and a good diplomat
she could have probably talked her way out of it. But in her mind she
is all-powerful and all-important, and the idea that the world ever
would or ever could oppose her, doesn't even remotely occur to her. 

This I think is Karmic punishment. Umbridge was 'impaled on her own
sword' of arrogance and stupidity.

I could see Harry and Umbridge verbally having it out as some point in
a manner similar to what I suggested for Snape (above). If Harry or
one of the other characters close to Harry confronts Umbridge in this
way, leaving nothing unsaid, would that satisfy you?

Actually, I have visions of Harry going to the Ministry and saying I
want this and that, I want free unrestrained access to Aurors, I want
Stan Shunpike freed, I want free, open, and unrestrained access to all
the Ministry's resouces and information, and in return, I will tell
you what I think you need to know and when I think you need to know
it. Would the Ministry accept such one sided terms for even the
slightest hint of Harry's cooperation? 

I know I left Umbridge out of the above paragraph, but if Harry could
secure the Ministry's cooperation under such terms, it could easily
set up a shouting match between Harry and Umbridge in which Harry
reminds Umbridge of her very substantial crimes and of the many
witnesses to her confession of such substantial crimes. That would
certainly put her in her place. In a sense, it would be Harry
threatening her in return for her future restraint and cooperations.

Would that be enough to satisfy people?

Again, I'm in the same boat with 'punishment' as I am with 'abuse'. To
hear people bandy this term about seems like overkill. But if you
simply mean that in someway the crimes of the individual must be
acknowledge and those people confronted with their crimes then I agree
with you. 

Snape's actions must be acknowledge, not just swept under the rug and
ignore. Umbridge's actions must be acknowledged and not just sweep
under the rug and ignored. But does it actually have to be punishment,
or are we simply looking for face-to-face acknowledgement? I would say
that the scenario I painted between Harry and Umbridge certainly
qualifies as 'comeuppance', Harrysoundly puts her in her place, but
not as punishment.

What say you all?

Steve/bboyminn