The Avada Kedrava's Possible Origins and Intent to Kill

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 167177

> Ryan:
 
> If an AK does require hatred to cast, it doesn't mean that the 
> hatred needs to be for the target of the spell.  It could just 
> require hate as fuel, in the same way that the Patronus charm 
> requires a happy memory to generate power.

Goddlefrood:

As is somewhat apt at this time of year, the first shall be 
last and the last first.

(a) Intent to kill, mens rea in the law, literally the guilty 
mind. To establish whether a homicide is unlawful the intent 
of the killer has to be determined. The difficult part of this 
is that there is guilty intent in an attempt also, as well as 
in secondary offenders, but I'll keep it as simple as possible.

There are also a number of defences, not just self defence, 
that, although they contain the guilty intent element, can 
still lead to a conclusion that the person accused of killing 
is not guilty of murder, but of the lesser crime of 
manslaughter. One example would be diminished responsibility, 
another severe momentary provocation. Oh, and of course, acts 
of war are not considered homicide, unless you are on the 
losing side, in which case the victors consider them such ;). 
Refer to the Geneva Conventions if you must :)

These three latter may be relevant to the point under 
consideration, that being in part Severus Snape's intent atop 
the Tower (it was certainly not self defence as Dumbledore 
posed no immediate threat to Severus that I could perceive). 
The term used would be fratricide if Snape is accepted as 
DDM, which, btw, I have difficulty accepting, however that 
issue is another post altogether ;). Otherwise it would be 
murder, as it is in my interpretation, but possibly with 
extenuating circumstances (again for another time and place). 
Fratricide is defined as killing of a brother or in a military 
context killing of a friend. The WW is, I remind you, at war, 
albeit on a relatively small scale so far. This is likely to 
change in DH as far as I'm concerned.

Legal systems throughout the world differ, but perhaps the 
simplest to understand for all is the English & Welsh system, 
specifically in relation to offences of homicide (meaning 
those where one person kills another). There is murder - this 
is where intent and act are clear, or clear enough. Then there 
is  manslaughter - this is where either the guilty act or the 
guilty mind is missing from the elements of the offence or 
where some other mitigating factor is present. The elements 
are (in simplified form, no summing ups here ;)):

(i) There is someone dead

(ii) Someone else did the act that led to the death or 
omitted to do something that led to the death.

(iii) The mental element of the offence.

Look for these in Severus Snape's case and you should be able 
to determine which offence he is guilty of or otherwise. It 
is unnecessary to consider what state Dumbledore himself was 
in at the point where Severus did whatever he did. The 
condition of the victim and the possible proximity to death 
from another cause is never *usually* considered. For those 
interested in such things this is called "the egg shell skull 
principle".

Personally it appears that the most likely verdict at this 
stage would be one of not proven, as in the Scottish legal 
system. Not all the facts are in to be able to determine with 
certainty what went on. Speculations can be made, but 
certainty is unavailable. This will, naturally, change once 
DH is released shortly :). It is though malum in se, that is 
wrong in itself, and not because it is against the law 
necessarily, to kill another.

(i) and (ii) are pretty much satisfied in Severus's case, 
despite arguments going on otherwise. I say this because of 
the possible omission to do something as well as the AK as 
cast, whatever mechanism was used to cast it. Snape's intent, 
IOW part (iii) of the above elements, is far from clear, I 
think we can agree on that. One reason he is a gift to 
analysts and theorists :). Also as suggested by Ryan, there 
must be something behind it, rather more than just righteous 
anger, witness Barty Jnr.'s class on the Unforgiveable curses 
in GoF and not improbable extrapolations from what Bella 
said in the DoM. That it may have developed from a more 
benign use is a possibility that should not be excluded, 
and this would apply equally to the other Unforgiveables, 
at least the ones the MoM knows about ;).

Follow the above guidelines and each situation where someone 
has died in the books should be a little clearer, at least I 
hope so :)

(b) Turning then to the origins of the AK, I present a little 
explanation that may or may not be the reason for the words 
Avada Kedavra being used as the words for what has become to 
be known as the killing curse.

My starting point was this extract from J K Rowling at the 
Edinburgh Book Festival, Sunday, 15 August, 2004:

"JKR: Does anyone know where avada kedavra came from? It is 
an ancient spell in Aramaic, and it is the original of 
abracadabra, which means "let the thing be destroyed". 
Originally, it was used to cure illness and the "thing" was 
the illness, but I decided to make it the "thing" as in the 
person standing in front of me. I take a lot of liberties 
with things like that. I twist them round and make them 
mine."

Found at:

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80

Abracadabra has certain other synonyms that include hocus-
pocus, open sesame, presto and voilà, at least one of which 
has been used in canon, but not relative to the killing curse.

I took a look through some available resources to see what I 
could find to expand a little on this quote from JKR. The 
first point of contact was the Wikipedia etymology of 
abracadabra. That can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abracadabra#Etymology

A snippet, relative to Aramaic says 'A possible source is 
Aramaic: ???? ????? avra kedabra which means "I will create 
as I speak," which is thought to be in reference to God 
creating the universe' 

There's some other interesting stuff in this article at Wiki, 
including a reference to an Alexander Severus and an amulet, 
as well as to Abraxas. Links to these are contained within the 
article referred and these links within the link may also 
interest some :). If inclined the coins of Alexander Severus 
are available for purchase, as the ultimate Snape lover's gift 
at (exclude me from such gifts ;)):

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=578

One of the links from allexperts (that follow) may ultimately 
lead you, as it led me, to this:

http://www.roman-emperors.org/sevjulia.htm#Note_jd

This gives a good breakdown of the Severan dynasty, to which 
Alexander Severus belonged, as did his relative Septimus 
Severus. This also has a nice little map of the Roman Empire, 
which is an interest I have. Alexander's wife was known as 
Augusta, but this is probably only a coincidence, I could not 
imagine Augusta Longbottom being the person Severus had 
loved :) The source I often use (allexperts) has this to say 
on Alexander Severus (for those interested in such things):

http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/al/alexander_severus.htm

My next point of note came from:

http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ab/abracadabra.htm

Where a small extract that interested me says "In ancient 
times, however, it was taken much more seriously as an 
incantation to be used as a cure against fevers and 
inflammations. The first known mention was in the 2nd century 
A.D.". This may also suggest that the Avada Kedavra as it 
exists in the WW now was not originally designed as a killing 
curse, but has been adapted over the centuries into something 
other than what it was initially devised to do. I will say no 
more on this point, as I do not wish to speculate too much in 
this post. The link to allexperts is in essence very similar 
to what can be found at Wiktionary:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abracadabra

There is also a little exposition on the word abracadabra 
at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ddstuhlman/crc55.htm

Which I also found interesting and hope others do too :).

Possibly just some food for thought, or also possibly of some 
significance to the story yet to unfold. I like trying to work 
out twisted thinking as I often think in such a manner myself 
:)

One last thing to leave you with, this time from Anelli, 
Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet 
interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part One," The Leaky 
Cauldron, 16 July 2005:

"MA: So no one - Voldemort or anyone using Avada Kedavra - 
ever gave someone a choice and then they took that option 
[to die] -

JKR: They may have been given a choice, but not in that 
particular way."

Extract from:

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm

This may add a little to the consideration of what went on 
atop the Tower, it may equally refer to another situation 
altogether (Lily perhaps?). My little interpolation is now 
over, but others should feel free to expand, if they wish. 
Currently trying to unravel some other little mystery, and a 
real life murder case :)

Goddlefrood, with the date for this post being 1289, a year 
in which an International Warlock Convention was held 
(refer Professor Binns's lesson in CoS chapter 9). It was 
also the year of the completion of the Tower of Kamianiec 
in Belarus, which you may see when following the link that 
will follow, looks somewhat like it would find a place at 
Hogwarts :). That link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Kamianiec