Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses - Helplessness

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 124513


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bleckybecs" <bleckybecs at y...>
wrote:

> Tonks:
> I think that in addition to luck, it was also the fact that their 
> wands had the same core that saved Harry. If another wizard had the 
> same luck but not the same core he would have been killed.

> Becky:
> I see Harry having the same wand core as luck. It just makes him a 
> lot luckier than any other wizard would have been in this particular 
> situation.

bboyminn:

Note that I said in my original post that the curses colliding, which
is techically speaking a potential shield against the AK curse, only
protected Harry for one instant. Beyond that point, it was the
connected wands and Brother Wand Effect that continued to /save/ him. 

So, yes, any other wizard would have, by a stroke of luck, saved
himself from one curse, only to be killed by the next.  

In a sense, it was all luck that saved Harry, it's just that we can
point to very specific lucky /things/ like common cores that represent
that luck.

Among other things, one of the key points I was making with that
reference was that Harry had indeed discover that there is a way of
blocking an AK curse. Something that the books have been telling us
all along can't be done. Indeed this collision of curses was
demonstrated by the author earlier in the book when Harry and Draco
dueled outside potions class. So, the effect is not unique to the
curses that were used in the graveyard scene.

I extended my point by saying that even though there is this newly
discovered /block/ for the AK, the odds of it working are
astronomically against any wizard trying to use it. So, huge gap
between what is technically possible and what is realistically possible.


> bboyminn:
> And when you get right down to it, shouldn't it be the result, that 
> is the crime rather the the method? ...Isn't that about the same as 
> saying, it's bad if you kill someone with a 38 caliber pistol, but 
> it's a totally horrendous unforgivable crime if you kill them with 
> a 9mm?
 
> Becky:
> ... from the point of `unforgivable', which is worse? Attempted
> murder or manslaughter? Manslaughter ...you may ...  forgive. 
> Attempted murder ... I'm not sure ... of forgiving ..., 
> because murder is what was intended.
> 
> ..., I feel that ... these particular curses ... are unforgivable 
> and ... their purpose is so clear cut.  Other curses given can be 
> used to much lesser or equal effect, but ... 'unforgivables' is 
> horrendous. They are not designed with anything else in mind.
> 

bbboyminn:

On your point of the /Unforgivables/ have one and only one very
negative purpose, I whole heartedly agree, but I'm not with you 100%
on /intent/. More on that later.

You are right, other curses have a range of intent and a range of
results. In my other post, I used the example of a Star Trek Phazer,
it can mildly stun, knock unconscious, lightly wound, severly wound,
or kill. Common curses have a similar range of potential. But, as you
have pointed out, the three Unforgivables have one and only one very
negative and destructive purpose. There is no way to dress them up
nice and pretty and say otherwise; it absolute murder, absolute pain,
and absolute control.


> Becky continues:
> 
> So, what I'm trying to say is, I'm sure it is the intention behind 
> the spell that makes it unforgivable. 

bboyminn:

Here is where we differ, and I've pointed this out in other posts. All
magic had intention behind it, so attention alone can't be the key. It
is a pleasurably sadistic intent that is required, but that can't be
the complete key, because not that may people can really muster that
level of pleasurably sadistic desire to make the curses happen. That
would lend a very limiting aspect to the Curses.

Personally, and I have said so on many occassions before, I don't
think the standard interpretation of Harry trying to Crucio Bellatrix,
or of her response to Harry's attempt, really reflect the true nature
of that Pain Curse. For the most part, the curse didn't work because
Harry did it wrong. 

The Pain Curse is a /sustained/ curse, for as long as you want the
pain to continue, the caster has to sustain his intent. Note that in
every example of the Pain Curse, the pain continues until the casting
wizard withdraws his wand and his intent. Only then does the curse stop. 

Harry cast the curse like he was shooting a gun; BANG!, short blast of
intent, hence Bellatrix only got one short sharp blast of pain. Harry
failed to sustain intent, therefore, the pain itself failed to sustain.

So, I don't put a lot of stock in Bellatrix explanation of how the
Unforgivable Curses work. It's true, you do have to be ruthless,
uncaring, heartless, and cruel to us them, but you don't necessarily
always need those characteristics to make them work. 

My conclusion is not that Harry lacked an special sadistics nature,
which of course is incidentally true, but simply that he did not cast
the curse correctly. 

Certainly, a selfserving sadistic desire, makes it easier to cast a
Pain Curse, it makes it easier to harm people, but I just can't see
that as being the soul cause for them being unforgivable.

I stand by my believe that part of the reason is that the victim are
so helpless and defenseless in the face of those Unforgivable Curses,
but I will also add to that your point about the Curses being single
use, single intent, single result curses.


> Becky continues:
> 
> As to the Aurors, ... In VW1, desperate measures were needed, so 
> desperate measures were introduced. I don't see any canon that they 
> were removed, so I'd assume those powers are still there. I doubt 
> that an Auror would be in trouble for killing a DE in time of war, 
> but I think that in peace times, an Auror would have more sense.
>
> ...edited...
> 
> Becky

bboyminn:

Well, we can argue whether the allowed use of Unforgivables was
withdrawn at the end of the conflict or not. You say there is no canon
saying those permissions were removed, equally, I say there is no
canon that they were not removed. I think that's called a stalemate.
However, from my point of view, it's reasonable logic with reasonable
real-world precedents that emergency measures are removed at the end
of the emergency. 

The measures were instituted to solve a problem, once solved, the
emergency measure were no longer needed. While that's not absolute, it
is common.

Also, we have both acknowledged that there are other means of
accomplishing the same tasks, given the availability of other less
harsh means, why continue to support the use of unforgivable means?

Good point on the single purpose nature of the Unforgivables.

Steve/bboyminn.