VA/H=Mx13+RP? Snape's Culpability?

[spotsgal]

No: HPFGUIDX 147239

>> Alla:
>> But Snape STARTED that chain of events. Not anybody else, but 
>> Snape. Without Snape's acting Peter's betrayal may have never 
>> happened, so YES IMO Peter's teast WAS Peter's test, NOT Snape's,
>> but the fact that Peter's test came to fruition BECAUSE of Snape 
>> actions makes Snape a very guilty person in my eyes and yes, tied
>> to what Peter did.

> Gerry: 
> I don't agree. They switched secret keepers because DD thought they
> had a traitor in their midst. Peter had failed his test long before
> he betrayed the Potters. 

Christina:

According to Sirius, the Secret Keeper is switched as a bluff.  It
doesn't matter whether there was a traitor or not - Sirius knew that
his close friendship with James was common knowledge to many Death
Eaters.  He assumed that Voldemort would be targetting him for that
reason, so by changing the SK he was keeping the DE's occupied and
distracted from the true SK.  Even if they found Sirius and tortured
him for the information on the Potters, he physically would not be
able to give it.  Which actually makes Sirius's actions very brave -
the SK switch didn't take any heat off of him whatsoever.  He did it
solely to protect James and his family.

Now I do agree with your general sentiment, Gerry - that is, that
Peter would have been a bad seed regardless of whether or not Snape
delivered the prophecy to Voldemort.  He had no problem passing on
information about his supposed best friend, so I don't see why he
would hesitate to pass on other powerful information (and I'm sure he
did so).  Also, it seems that the Order was losing the first war, and
we all know how much Peter likes to keep with the winning side, with
"big friends" that can protect him.

The idea that Snape's actions put subsequent actions into motion is
true.  Peter would have still been a dirty little rat, but perhaps the
Potters wouldn't have been targetted so heavily (although, I still
maintain that they were safer out of the line of fire and under the
Fidelius than they ever could have been as active Order members).  But
just because Snape may have set off a chain of actions doesn't mean
that he is responsible for an action 3 steps down the road.  That's a
complete fallacy.  Snape is responsible for what he did, not what
other events occured in conjuction with his actions.  Snape was doing
a job.  He was was dealing with information, a few words.  He was
working for a bad guy, and that is what makes him guilty of evil, but
the sentence or two he passed on to Voldemort does not even compare to
Peter's active betrayal of the Potters.  If you want to trade on shaky
logic, I'll give you mine - Peter's actions were closer to the
Potters' deaths than Snape's were, by far.  Snape could have given
Voldemort all the prophecies he wanted, but without Peter's betrayal,
the DE's would probably never have found the Potters.

The problem of causation is just that, a problem, because in the HP
universe, as in life, many different little things all combine to
create disaster.  If Snape turns out to be ESE, I will hold him to
that.  But even an ESE!Snape could have been truly repentant when he
went to Dumbledore to join the Order.  And if you hold with DDM!Snape,
well then it's certain that he was repentant.  I still think that
Peter's *actions* were much more evil than Snape's simple passing on
of information, but even if their sins were equal, I would still be
more forgiving of Snape.  Snape (supposedly, and I think he did) felt
bad about his actions because he realized that they were wrong.  If
Peter is regretful about any of *his* actions, it's only because
things turned out poorly for him.

Christina