A fate worse than death ALIAS finale vs Book 7

[triinum]

No: HPFGUIDX 152877

Randy:
<Snip> 
> I immediately thought of Dumbledore's statement that "there are 
> worse things than death".  I must confess that trapping Voldemort 
> for all eternity in an undead state with no horcruxes and no helpers 
> to find him would prevent Harry from having to actually kill 
> Voldemort.  I think this may be a possible ending for Book Seven.  A 
> dead Voldemort forces Harry to be considered a murderer, but an 
> eternally trapped Voldy is much more effective.  Harry will not have 
> become a trained assassin as his legacy from Hogwarts.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
Trin:

Yes, but wouldn't that be rather too cruel? I mean, Voldy is a poor
sick person, a psychopath. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to kill him
as painlessly as possible, rather than sentence him to an eternal
torture? He didn't *choose* to have a brain damage, did he? 

Can killing a dangerous mad beast be considered a murder? Of course,
in real life, planned killing of a psychopath would be murder, but in
real life they can be locked up safely in hospitals.

And for that matter, would you consider Harry a nicer person if he
killed the madman, or if he sent him to a much worse fate of a torture
with which there's no escape, never ever? 

Myself, I would understand Harry if he, out of rage and vengence,
chose the second one, but that would not make him anything *better*
than a murderer. Rather *worse*. 

This is the problem I have always had with the concern, expressed by
many, that Harry is going to be a murderer (murder being the ultimate
crime), and that he should avoid this at any cost. Claiming that would
be quite the same as claiming that Snape would be less guilty if he
killed DD by some other means than AK, e.g. strangling him, even
though AK is the most painless killing device there is! :) 

If the cost of avoiding AK use is sending your victim to a fate that's
*worse* than AK, would it really be worth it then??