Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio.

Steve bboyminn at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 3 18:21:59 UTC 2007


No: HPFGUIDX 174402

---  "littleleahstill" <leahstill at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "dumbledore11214" 
> <dumbledore11214@> wrote:
> >> Alla:
> > 
> > ....
> > 
> > Who said that you should mean them in the first 
> > place?  One DE and another DE, no?
> > 
> > Who said that they were telling the truth. 
> > Especially Bella???
> > 
> > Alla.
> 
> Leah
> The problem with all of this, Alla, is that the clear
> message of the early books was that the Unforgiveables
> were just that.  We didn't get any presentation of 
> moral or legal ambiguity, we not only got CrouchMoody
> and Bella, we got reinforcement from Sirius, ...

bboyminn:

Well, I'm never one to deny anyone their rightful 
opinion. You are certainly welcome to yours, but I 
think you are taking one isolated aspect of the 
Books to its extreme.

You say no 'moral or legal ambiguity', but there is.
The Ministry authorized the use of 'unforgivables'
in the first war. Second, right after telling his
students that these three curses were 'unforgivable',
Moody then in turn uses those very curses, specifically
the Imperius, on his students. If that isn't
ambiguity, then I don't know what is. 

According to Moody -

"So...do any of you know which curse are most
heavily punished by wizarding law?"

He goes on to demonstrate the three Curses.

"Now...those three curses -- /Avada Kedavra/, Imperius,
and Cruciatus -- are know as the Unforgivable Curse.
The usr of any one of them on a fellow human being is
enough to earn a life sentence in Azkaban. ..."

Then, later, goes on to use the Imperius on them

Now, I may just be nitpicking, and casting a preferred
interpretation, but I took 'enough to earn a life
sentence' as being 'enough to earn /up to/ a life
sentence'. Implying that it was not always an automatic
/life sentence/.

Also note that in the original text /Avada Kedavra/ 
is in italics, but the other curses are not. I'm not
sure what that implies, but it does set the AK off
from the other curses. 

In the /up to/ a life sentence, I think intent and
purpose are taken into consideration. Moody did not
cast the Imperius on his students with the intent of 
forcing his students to do things that were dark, 
immoral, unethical, or illegal, and he did so with 
their implied permission. Therefore, despite using an 
/Unforgivable/ on /fellow human beings/, this would not 
be considered an arrestable offense. 

You may chose not to see it, but I see clear moral
ambiguity, even legal ambiguity, in the enforcement and
use of the Unforgivables. Even if you don't see ambiguity,
it is clear that the legal nature of the /Unforgivables/
is not absolute.

But then...that's just my opinion.

Steve/bboyminn





More information about the HPforGrownups archive