Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 124359


Finwitch:"And - er - there are many ways to manipulate people without
Imperio. They have Veritaserum for getting truth out unwillingly - You
can use Stunning and Mobilicorpus or banishing to get people out of
harm's way - or confundus charm if you need someone to lie..."

That's the only one I don't agree with.  If an Auror can get a
prisoner to `come along quietly' with Imperio, that's clearly a more
ethical choice than many of the alternatives.  The Auror ought to
report when he used it, on who, why, and what the target person was
made to do.  I certainly also think that the use of Veritaserum has
ethical pitfalls at least as serious as those surrounding Imperio. 
What makes Confundus better than Imperio?

Why is Avada Kedavra a less "nice" way of killing someone than any
other way?

We never saw that *any* use of an "Unforgivable," ever, is an
automatic life sentence with no excuses, although the word
"Unforgivable" itself certainly seems it's that way.

Crouch!Moody described it this way: ""Now. . . those three curses -
Avada Kedavra, Imperius, and Cruciatus - are known as the Unforgivable
Curses.  The use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough
to earn a life sentence in Azkaban."

Enough. Not automatic, invariable, use it and you're gone, but enough.

We only have the word of a psycho, Bellatrix, that evil intent is
necessary for the casting of Unforgivables, and that only for Crucio,
in many ways the cruelest of all. Suppose Harry, instead of his
half-hearted Crucio, had been able to use Imperio to get Bellatrix to
walk back to the death room and join her fellow DE's in custody?  What
was wrong with Crouch!Moody using Imperio to teach students how to
resist it? Black Magic is a matter of symbolism and intent, according
to the Laws of Magic. No evil intent, no evil.