Hard time for Snape?(was Re: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort)

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 140018

> Alla:
> I am not sure I agree, Julie. For all we know( unless I forgot 
> something in canon of course), Dumbledore vouched for Snape 
> unconditionally, no strings attached, as long as Snape showed 
> genuine remorse. That seems to me to be more in character for 
> Dumbledore,as I read him of course, than saving Snape only if Snape 
> does something for Dumbledore.

zgirnius:
I agree that "no strings attached" is in character for Dumbledore. 
But he would not have had the power to just make any charges against 
Snape disappear, and he certainly would not (IMO) have lied for him. 
So all he would have been able to do for Snape is show up as 
a 'character witness' at a trial to say 'Yes, he may have been a 
Death Eater and done all these terrible things, but he's *truly* 
sorry.' I can see this having some effect on length of sentence, 
maybe, given DD had an impresive reputation, but not on the verdict. 

But we know what Dumbledore actually did say in Snape's defense. 
(GoF, Pensieve scene of Karkaroff's hearing, after Karkaroff names 
Snape as a Death Eater. Dumbledore states he has already testified 
about this before. And that while Snape was once a DE, he started to 
spy for the good guys at great risk to himself before Voldemort's 
fall. And is now no more a DE than DD himself. Excuse the 
paraphrasing...) 

I think it is reasonable to suppose that the question of 'what now'? 
certainly came up in the conversation when Snape came to DD. Both men 
would have known that DD's ability to help Snape would be greater if 
Snape helped the 'good guys'.

Alla:
> If Snape was truly remorseful, I believe that he chose to pay the 
> debt that he owed  to Light side, if I may, after he became DE.

zgirnius:
I agree. (Though it did also have positive practical consequences for 
him...)
 
> Julie:
> 
> Part of that deal probably also involved 
> > protecting Harry. And Snape teaching at Hogwarts keeps him near
> > DD, so DD can both protect and keep an eye on him, and where
> > Snape can also help protect Hogwarts and strategize with DD once 
> > Voldemort returned. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Again, do we have a proof that Dumbledore saved Snape from Azkaban 
> only IF Snape agrees to something? I believe that it is more of 
> fandom creation which of course leads to Puppetmaster!Dumbledore,   
> which I am very doubtful of. JMO, of course.

zgirnius:
Julie has not outlined exactly what form she believes the deal might 
have taken...however, it would seem to me that unless something along 
the lines of an Unbreakable Vow was involved from the outset, 
Dumbledore's leverage over Snape would have been gone once the DE 
trials were over. So if Snape continued to act according to some deal 
he made with Dumbledore, it would at this point have been just 
keeping his end of the bargain. This changed in GoF, as at this point 
Snape has to go back to Voldemort or face assassination by the Death 
Eaters. So he would either need DD's help to hide, or would have to 
go back (as a spy, if he's still with the Good Guys).

> 
> Julie: 
> > I was just point out that Snape being at Hogwarts all these years 
> > teaching,
> > and later protecting Harry, may not--probably isn't--how he 
would  
> have
> > chosen to spend his life, before he limited his choices with his 
> own 
> > regrettable actions (telling Voldemort about the prophecy). 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, but Snape made a choice - to join Voldemort, no? After he 
> renounced Voldemort, IF he truly did, he does not have much  choice 
> left, IMO, IF he truly decided to behave as a decent person. Again, 
> IMO.
> Alla:
> 
> Well, yes, of course and that is what I had been saying. I am just 
> arguing that as part of his penance, Snape got off much easier than 
> he should have been, IMO.
> 

zgirnius:
OK, Alla is saying that Snape owes a debt to society. Julie is saying 
that Snape has been paying that debt by working for Dumbledore all 
these years. Alla points out that yes, that is true, but Azkaban, 
which he really deserves, is a much nastier fate. I agree with both, 
and I'll add a paraphrase of Snape himself...Snape recounting his 
memories of 16 years in Azkaban is far less useful to society than 
what Snape has actually been up to all these years (provided he 
*really did* turn on Voldemort, of course...) 

I also would like to point out that while Snape's actual life for the 
past 16 years does seem to beat Azkaban hands down, it did not have 
to be that way. If he had been discovered before Voldemort's fall, a 
long Azkaban sentence might have started to look good by comparison. 
He did not know which way it would work out when he made his 
decision. 

>  
> Julie:
> 
> > But he doesn't have a duty to go *out of his way*
> > to do so, as he did when he saved Harry from Quirrell in PS/SS.
> > He didn't have to do that, as no one but himself seemed aware
> > of Quirrell's plans. He could have let Harry die then and there, 
> and
> > been done with him, done with everything, without any blame 
> > being placed on him. 

> Alla:
> 
> I disagree that Snape went out of his way in PS/SS. I think that 
> being a former(?) DE, he recognised the dark curse faster than any 
> other teacher and reacted faster. But that is JMO of course.
> 

zgirnius:
I think Julie is trying here to point out that if Snape has come to 
consider his work with Dumbledore burdensome by PS/SS, he could have 
just done nothing to save Harry. Allowing Harry to be killed by 
Quirrell would be something he could "get away" with. Of course if we 
are supposing a truly remorseful Snape who wants to make up for his 
past crimes, this would not be something he could consider...