Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake?

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 123212


Lupinlore, responding to Nicky Joe:" And yet, then again we run into
that "epitome of goodness" thing. Sorry, but nothing justifies child
abuse. If Dumbledore did take this option, he is no better than
Voldemort. And no, the fact that the whole Wizarding World is at stake
DOES NOT let him off the hook."

Well, DD's definitely better than Voldemort.  Suppose the choice DD
made is not trying to "toughen up" Harry - no one could ever know that
allowing Harry to be abused that way would serve to make Harry
resilient.  Suppose the choice is, "Letting Harry stay with the
Muggles is the only way to guarantee Harry will stay alive."  

DD knew things would be "dark and difficult" for Harry, but I doubt he
knew just how bad things were.  How much and how well did Arabella
Figg report back?  You could argue DD should have done more to check
up on Harry.  That makes him negligent, perhaps, but nowhere near evil.

In the end, Dumbledore put his trust in ancient magic and Harry's
destiny, and the knowledge that Harry would have powers the Dark Lord
knows not.

Jim Ferer