Unforgivables - from a different angle

[littleleahstill]

No: HPFGUIDX 174412

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
> Alla:
> 
>(snip) Gran Longbottom does not said though anything that they were 
tortured 
> by Crucio, does she not?

Leah:

No, but it is said in the pensieve scene in GOF, when Harry views 
the trials of the Lestranges and Crouch Jnr.

"The four of you stand accused of capturing an Auror-Frank 
Longbottom-and subjecting him to the Cruciatus curse...You are 
further accused...of using the Cruciatus curse on Frank Longbottom's 
wife..."

Neville's reaction during CrouchMoody's torture of the spider with 
Crucio also makes it clear (with hindsight)that this curse was used 
on his parents  

> 
> Torture is immoral, but I am just not sure now that the means of 
said 
> torture are what matters or the result.

Leah: I'm not quite sure I understand your meaning here.  If you are 
saying other spells could be used to torture people, you are clearly 
right.  You could for example conjure a small flock of birds to 
permanently fly round someone's head pecking them, that would start 
to drive them mad.  The point is that the conjuring of small birds 
is not in itself an offensive act. Crucio is a spell which, properly 
used, causes extreme pain in the victim. There is no purpose in 
casting Crucio other than in causing extreme pain. If you use Crucio 
you must intend to intend to cause them pain.  I can't think of a 
reason for using Crucio other than for the intent to cause pain when 
other spells such as Stupefy etc etc exist. 
> 
> 
 > Alla:
> 
> 
> Nothing was done to change our view on Unforgivables? In my 
wildest 
> dreams I could not imagine Dumbledore's casual disposal of Snape's 
> worry that using AK will split his soul. What is it if not 
changing 
> our views on Unforgivables? Isn't it an indication that intent is 
> what matters the most? IMO it is.

Leah: Well, I'm not desperately happy about Snape having to AK 
Dumbledore, and neither was Snape.  However, let's look at what DD 
says. Firstly, DD does not want Draco's soul ripped.  If Draco uses 
the AK successfully on DD, he will have committed murder and his 
soul will therefore be split.  DD then suggests to Snape that his 
soul may not be split if he kills DD with the intention of putting 
him out of his misery- it is euthanasia in effect.  Frankly, I don't 
like this.  I'm not an opponent of euthanasia in certain 
circumstances so it isn't the idea per se that I object to.  It's 
that this isn't properly debated within in the framework of the 
story (and there's no plot time for that to happen, neither it this 
the sort of story where it would happen). So instead, we get a 
sudden pass for using AK in certain circumstances, because that's 
what the story needs.  I had hoped that Snape had indeed stoppered 
death in DD and that the AK used was, as many speculated, a fake- 
Snape used a different non-verbal to remove DD's body to safety. 
That didn't happen- it was a proper Ak but it didn't count.

In any event, this event happened during DH. The point I was making 
was that IMO we had been presented with a consistent picture of UCs 
in all the previous books which then disappears in DH.  

>> Remember how vehemently I argued that Snape's use of AK is what 
is 
> bad in itself?
> 
> Um, ooops. Does not look like that to me anymore.
> 
> Alla

Leah:  I think we've arguing the same point here actually, Alla.  If 
Snape actually AK'd DD then that was wrong. Of course I can 
rationalise Snape's use of AK as DD invited Snape to do; I can argue 
that intent was what mattered. It would be possible to have a whole 
complex debate about what's murder, what's manslaughter, what's 
euthanasia, but the books don't give us that, and as said above, 
there's probably no room for them to do so. So what you are left 
with is six books saying that these curses are wrong in and of 
themselves, and one book that says, well actually no, they're really 
not that important if you don't mean them, and hey, even if you do, 
it doesn't matter if you aim them at a really bad guy.  I think 
JKR's editors should really have been addressing this, because it is 
just moral slackness.

Leah