Sirius without a Trial - In Perspective

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 158751

...edited...
> James Lyon:
> 
> > He does nothing about a man being sent to Azkaban 
> > without trial, he does nothing to free said convict
> > when he learns the man is innocent. 
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> Sure he does. ... He (Dumbledore) might be the most 
> powerful wizard, but he has not the power to overrule 
> Barty Crouch senior's decisions. How many people 
> did go to Azkaban without a trial? Why should 
> Dumbledore help Sirius and not the other ones? Maybe
> Dumbledore wanted Crouch to give fair trials to 
> everyone and Crouch simply refused. ....
> 

Post# 158742

> Magpie:
>
> Sirius'story canonically rests on nobody doing any 
> investigation. They can't, because the frame-up just 
> wasn't that sophisticated. That's not a mistake on 
> JKR's part, it's the way she chose to get Sirius into 
> jail so that she *didn't* have to come up with some
> complicated magical forensics that made Sirius look
> guilty.

bboyminn:

I'm continually stunned at how irrational or hyper-
rational (more accurately) people can be on the subject
of Sirius being sent to prison. I do try to allow for the
fact that we all frequently overempahsize a point simply
to isolate and make that particular point, but what I am
reading seems to go beyond that.

First, we know for a fact that their was no trial for 
Sirius, but no trial does NOT mean /no investigation/.
Since Dumbledore gave testimony, their must have been an
inquiry; in otherwords, an investigation. I suspect the 
investigation was more like a hearing in which a 
committee headed by Crouch Sr. review the evidence and 
found it overwhelmingly against Sirius. Keep in mind that
right now here today, the USA is capturing and 
imprisoning people without trial or any 'due process' at
all. Just out of curiousity, do you condemn Bush, 
Rumsfled, and Cheney with the same vigor that you condemn
Dumbledore? 

Now to the critical point, a point I have made several 
times before, and a point which the anti-Dumbledore crowd
seems determined to ignore.

SIRIUS DIDN'T DEFEND HIMSELF!

Using a real-world example, we must see that the concept
of 'innocent until proven guilty' is just that /a 
concept/ not an absolute. If you get arrested and charged
with a crime it is because the Prosecuting Attorney has 
evidence against you.

You can come into the trial alone and sit doodling on a 
note pad while the evidence against you is presented and
put your absolute faith in 'innocent until proven guilty'
but I'm here to tell you that you are going to jail. You
are SCREWED. Or, you can hire some slick oily fast 
talking defense lawyer to refute every bit of evidence 
and offer alternate theories on what the evidence proves,
and perhaps even introduce new evidence, then you might
have a chance of getting out of it. 

Like it or not, if you are charged with a crime, you 
better be willing to vigorously defend yourself, or as I
so eloquently put it, you are screwed. 

We see from the little canon that we have that Sirius 
did not do this. He was overwhelmed with shock, grief,
depression, and mostly guilt. It is entirely possible
that if they had given Sirius Veritaserum, and asked him
if he was responsible for the Potter's deaths, he would 
have said 'yes' and in his mind he would have been 
telling the truth. We see that he is still reflecting 
this sense of quilt and responsibility 10 years later 
when he finally meets Harry face-to-face. 

I speculate that it is possible that, racked with quilt
and grief, Sirius may have even made statements implying
his guilt. But knowing what we know as readers, we can 
see that there is critical context to those expressions 
of guilt that in reality mean exactly the opposite of 
what they imply. That is critical context knowledge that
the Ministry does NOT have.

Further, Sirius was in prison, but he hadn't vanished 
from the face of the earth. He was perfectly free to make
his case at anytime over that 10 year period. He was free
to write letters to the new Minister, to the court, to
Lupin, or to Dumbledore. We see in PoA, that Sirius spoke
to the Minister himself and never made even the remotest 
claim of innocents. The entire time he was in prison, we
get no indication that he ever asserted his innocents.

It is hard to believe in the innocences of a man who will
not make a claim of innocence nor offer any explanation,
nor defend himself in any way. You can hold hard and fast
to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' but I am
here to tell you that if you are in trouble with the law,
you better be ready to fully and vigorously defend 
youself if you have any hope what-so-ever of not going 
to prison.

If Sirius had defended himself. If he had offerred any
explanation at all, he would have created enough doubt
to warrant a trial, he would have created enough doubt
to warrant Dumbledore investigating further. Notice how
quickly Dumbledore believes him once Sirius explains
himself. 

But, under the circumstances, with overwhelming evidence,
with Dumbledore testifying to the best of his knowledge 
andbelief, and most critially with Sirius not offerring 
any defense, there very probably and very really didn't 
seem to be any need for a trail. They examined the 
evidence they had, and lacking an alternative 
interpretation, they reached the obvious conclusion. 
Sirius was the Secret Keeper and he was guilty of 
betraying the Potters, and thereby causing their death. 

Innocent people go to prison all the time and it is 
usually because they don't have the resouces to mount
an effective defense.

It is likely that during all those year in prison, Sirius
did not defend himself because in his guilt ridden mind, 
he felt he was guilty. He had made the choice that ended 
the Potter's lives. He carried that quilt as a terrible 
dark burden that plagued and depressed him for all those
10 or more years. 

But when he saw that Harry was in trouble, when he saw
that Harry was at risk, he also saw his duty as a friend
to the Potter's and as Harry's god-father. He could live
with his own crushing guilt for his responsibility for 
Lily and James' death, but he could not live with the 
guilt of not acting in that moment to save the last of 
the Potters. Proir to that point, nothing mattered but 
his own guilt and penance. But he could not live with 
the additional guilt of having wallowed in self-pity 
while he sat back and did nothing and in the process let
Harry die.

I think if you look at it objectively, you can see that
the whole circumstance does make sense. Dumbledore didn't
act because he had no motivation to act. All the evidence
pointed to Sirius, and Sirius was not denying their 
interpretation of that evidence, what else could they 
conclude?

You can claim I have blaming the victim, and you would 
be right. Sirius at crital juncture chose to wallow
in guilt and self-pity rather than defend himself and
step up to his other responsibilities. As far as I'm 
concerned he is in a situation of his own creation, and
he is further perpetuating that situation by failing at
anytime (that we know of) to asset his innocents and 
tell his story.

One last point, based on a quote presented here, Hagrid
told Sirius exactly what Dumbledore planned to do and 
why, and in the end, after some argument, Sirius agreed.
Further, once Sirius innocences is unofficially 
established, he continues to agree that Harry is better 
off, in terms of protection and safety, at Privet Drive.
In OotP, he does not insist that Harry be brought to
Grimmauld Place immediately. He understands that by Harry
returning and staying at the Dursley, he renews the 
powerful protection that keeps Harry safe there.


I do believe that Sirius voluntarily gave up Harry to 
Dumbledore's choices, but I don't think that act 
nullifies his rights as guardian. It was as Harry's
guardian that he choses to allow Dumbledore to secure
Harry's safety. That act doesn't in any way prevent him
from asserting his rights as guardian at some point in
the future. We see this right of guardianship in action
when Dumbledore accepts Sirius signature on Harry's 
permission slip.

Just trying to put things in perspective? For what it's
worth.

Steve/bboyminn