Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 160014


> > Pippin:
> > A child's intent is by definition not fully formed. If adults entice a
> > child to kill and help him to obtain weapons, then it is they who have
> > the murderous intent, not he, and they who need to be locked up
> > for the safety of others. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> By what definition? There is an ongoing debate on whether or not
> children should be fully responsible for their actions. No one ever
> doubted, however, that they are capable of forming intent and
> committing crime. 

Pippin:
Oh, lots of people doubt that. The age of criminal responsibility in Europe
alone varies all the way from 8 to 18 - below that age a child cannot
be considered to have committed a crime and no charge can be brought.
In RL Scotland the age is eight, but we already know that the WW
has its own rules. 

I think JKR made it plain on the tower that Draco's intention to kill
Dumbledore was not clear, otherwise he would have done it
as soon as he arrived. 

A_svirn: And finally, if you are
> right, and Draco was too young to be held responsible, it follows that
> he was too young to be allowed a choice. 

Pippin:
Draco launched the attacks while he was still underage, but had passed
his seventeenth birthday by the time he arrived on the tower. Then
he could make a choice with full knowledge of what he was doing. I
don't see him as mature enough to do so earlier and I think canon
bears this out.

> a_svirn:
> Actually, it's a very different sort of thing. The former is a rescue
> attempt, while the latter is a murder attempt. I am a little surprised
> that you cannot tell the difference. 
> 

Pippin:
So it's okay for Harry to yield to Voldemort's manipulations and endanger
his fellow students because he was trying to save his godfather, 
but it's not okay for Draco to yield to Voldemort's manipulations and
endanger his fellow students because he was trying to save his family?


> a_svirn:
> Say you are right – for the sake of argument. Where does it leave us?
> So because Dumbledore felt reasonably secure himself, he allowed Draco
> to continue, even though his activity put others in jeopardy?  I'd say
> you are a bit hard on the old man. 

Pippin:
The students are beset with dangers because they themselves are dangerous,
and because Voldemort is at large and wants them all dead or in his power. 

Taking Draco into custody would not have changed that. It wouldn't
have prevented the mead attempt, or the necklace, because Draco didn't
have to be at Hogwarts in order to send messages to Rosmerta.

Dumbledore  saw that Draco was warned, and the warning put a stop to the
attempts.  I'd say you are the one being hard on the old man. 

Anyway, does anyone really doubt that they day will come when Harry will
be very glad that Dumbledore helped Draco discover that he was not a 
killer on the Tower?

I haven't forgotten about the Vow, by the way, but I think that Dumbledore
and Snape meant to circumvent it by a ruse all along. The simplest
way out for Dumbledore and DDM!Snape would have been for Snape to pretend
to jump the gun and "murder" Dumbledore before Draco had a chance
to fail. But Dumbledore wanted to bring Harry up to speed on the horcruxes
first, and he wanted Snape to continue to serve as double agent and protect
Draco as long as possible, which would have been impossible once the
'murder' had been committed. This is what Snape didn't want to do any 
more, IMO.


> 
> Pippin:
> > Sirius's case is different. He was thought to be insane, which
> > AFAWK would have denied him a trial in any case, and the 
> > evidence against him was overwhelming. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't remember it's said anywhere in canon that people can avoid
> trial on the ground of insanity. Besides, in that case, Sirius would
> have ended up in St Mungo, rather than in Azkaban.

Pippin:
Bode wasn't tried for trying to remove the prophecy.
He was indeed sent to St Mungo's, not Azkaban, but  he wasn't considered 
dangerous.

Pippin