muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 155274

> Alla:
> 
> Okay, I guess I have to second the question then - is the main
> objection to use of magic as means for punishment, not to the
> punishment itself?
> 
> Magpie:
> Yes. That's what Muggle-baiting is.  
> 

a_svirn:
Besides which, there are usually a few stops between "crime" 
and "punishment". For one thing, there should be a crime in the 
first place. What is Dudley's crime against the twins? I can't 
recall of any. Or was he punished for his crimes against Harry? This 
seems to be somewhat excessive, wouldn't you think so? After all, he 
had already endured an amputation of that pig's tail for his sins. 
You don't get punished twice for the same crime. Unless, of course, 
it was a vicarious punishment for his father's sins...

For another there should be a just trial, shouldn't it? There is 
also a question of judges. I'd like to know who appointed the twins 
to judge Dudley Dursley? And last but not the least; the punishment 
must fit the crime. Of course it is somewhat difficult to adhere to 
this particular principle when the crime is not readily definable... 
When, however, and where punishments are meted out for the simple 
reason that some people's very existence offend the sensibilities of 
their judges-cum-executioners I'd say Muggle-baiting is a very mild 
term for that. 

> Alla:
> Um, of course Dudley will disapprove of his punishment, but as long
> as I agree with the author that what Dudley did is wrong, I could
> care less, really.

a_svirn:
The question is not whether Dudley was in the wrong or not. Although 
even that is debatable in this particular instance. The question is 
whether wizards are abusing their power or not. Power brings with it 
responsibility. Arthur Weasley has tried and failed to instil this 
bit of ancient wisdom into his sons' conscience on a number of 
occasions.