Unforgivables - from a different angle

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 174476

Mike wrote:
<snip>
> Crouch!Moody was the one that told us they garnered one an automatic
life sentence. At the time we all assumed it was coming from Moody 
the Auror. Can we not reassess this statement in light of the fact
that it was delivered by a convicted DE?

Carol responds:
I don't see a need to reassess that statement, but I do see a need to
reassess Fake!Moody's statement that Dumbledore had approved his use
of the Imperius Curse on the students and the demonstration on spiders
of the other two. I doubted that statement on a first reading and
assumed it was a lie after Fake!Moody was revealed to be a DE. But now
I think that Fake!Moody may have been following a lesson plan laid out
by the real moody and that Dumbledore had indeed given his approval
(behind the Ministry's backs). That Crouch enjoyed making the students
act like puppets and Crucioing the spider and making Neville suffer as
he watched does not take away from the importance of such a lesson, I
am sorry to say.

Mike:
> Because it certainly doesn't seem that they are truly
"unforgivable", does it? Crouch Jr said they were OK for his aurors.
Umbridge, a Ministry official, was prepared to use one in front of 12
witnesses. And Dumbledore seemed to think it was OK for Snape to use
one on himself. 

Carol:
There are huge differences here, of course. Crouch Sr. (not Jr.)
authorized them for his Aurors but not for the general public, rather
like authorizing policemen to use guns against criminals, and even
then the real Moody only killed when he had to. And he must have done
so using Avada Kedavra, the Killing Curse, not so unforgiveable in
that circumstance. And Dumbledore wants Snape to kill him with the
instant and painless Killing Curse for a variety of reasons, one of
which he withholds from Snape, and Snape is given to understand that
his soul may not be harmed if he uses the curse (the only one or the
best one available for the purpose) so that the already dying and
helpless Dumbledore dies by his hand rather than Greyback's teeth and
so that he can carry out the rest of DD's plan (including helping
Harry and protecting the students at Hogwarts), which cannot happen if
he lets himself be killed by the UV. It's a highly exceptional
circumstance. But if the Order members are using the AK to kill DEs
(surely the DA members aren't using it), then you're right. The
Killing Curse isn't unforgiveable in itself. Murder of an unarmed
victim like Lily Potter would be unforgiveable, presumably, but the
Killing Curse seems to have its uses. It certainly isn't Unforgiveable
in a moral sense as we assumed. I don't think JKR or her characters
ever stated that it was. (Movie Hermione comes close, and I was with
her, but I don't think that's JKR's view.) Slughorn's words on killing
splitting the soul don't help, either, but I think he means murder,
and particularly a murder performed with the intention of making a
Horcrux (seems you were right that the Horcrux-maker can't use just
any stray soul bit). At any rate, Tom Riddle's soul is split just as
much by murdering Myrtle using the basilisk as by using his wand as a
murder weapon. (JKR says that Myrtle's was the murder used to create
the diary, as I always supposed.) So murder is murder. I don't think
anyone could view Snape's death as something other than murder, and
surely it was more horrible than death by Avada Kedavra. Or how about
poor Regulus, suffering that horrible poison and killed by Inferi? Was
that not murder, even though Voldemort was not on the spot to perform
it? That, to me, seems much more unforgiveable than a painless Killing
Curse. So, it seems that "Unforgiveable" *is* just a label, as
Fake!Moody (pretending to be the real Moody) said. And he knew whereof
he spoke regarding the Cruciatus Curse; he would have died in Azkaban
had his father not yielded to his mother's pleas to let her die there
instead.

Umbridge's attempting to Crucio a student in front of several others
is a bit different. She is (IMO) subverting Fudge, using him as her
puppet. She has no respect for him ("What Cornelius doesn't know won't
hurt him). Perhaps she expects to be the next MoM. Has Lucius Malfoy
hinted to her about what's coming? Is she really related to the DE
Selwyn? If she doesn't have DE connections, how did she get Mad-Eye's
magical eye after his death? So we can't judge by Umbridge, a powerful
official in a corrupt Ministry (though no match for Centaurs, ha ha!)
as to whether the Cruciatus Curse is in itself unforgiveable. She
could have gotten out of a sentence, or thinks she can, because of who
she is, and maybe she knows what's coming. Harry gets away with his
attempted Cruciatus Curse in OoP either because it was unsuccessful or
because it was untraceable. Too many curses were being cast to trace
it to him, and half of them were cast by DEs and/or Voldemort.

By the time Harry starts casting Unforgiveables (Imperius in an
emergency and Crucio when another curse would have better served the
purpose of disabling a DE), the Ministry is run by Death Eaters and
their allies, including Umbridge. I think we can assume that the
Unforgiveables no longer result in a lifetime sentence to Azkaban.
That's a sentence reserved for enemies of the new regime, supporters
of Undesirable Number One, and, evidently, for Muggle-borns and "blood
traitors." The new regime is lawless, and any legal connotation of
"Unforgiveable" has lost its meaning. And for such people as Mulciber
and Yaxley, the terms never had a moral connotation, or that moral
connotation was meaningless.

Mike: 
> I am forced to conclude that "Unforgivable" was a Ministry 
manufactured legal construct, that the Ministry could also suspend. 
> <snip>

Carol:
And I'm forced to agree with you. I do still think that the Crouches
paid the price for their use of Unforgiveables, but I think that
Sirius Black's view of Crouch Sr. as being as ruthless as a Death
Eater was colored by his own experience. Crouch Sr. didn't just turn
his son over to the DEs; he knew him to be guilty of a horrible crime
(along with the Lestranges). And, against his own better judgement, he
rescued his DE son later and paid the price. One dies remorseful; the
other is soul-sucked. It's hard to believe that JKR doesn't believe
that they brought their respective fates on themselves through the use
of these curses, used in the one case for selfish ends and in the
other for evil ones. Mr. Crouch has put himself above the law, or
altered the law. At least he doesn't torture his son, but his son has
no such scruples. I think we're supposed to see his rescue of his son
and his control of him through Imperius and his son's use of the
curses on Krum and his own father as unjustified. There's no question
in my mind that Barty Jr. deserved Azkaban and should have stayed
there (maybe without the Dementors). But Crouch Sr. just made a
terrible mistake and paid the price of using a sustained Imperius, one
of the curses that he had made legal for his Aurors. I thought that
the Crouch family was part of a beautifully incorporated moral tale.
Now I don't know what to think.

Mike:
> <snip> 
> And in light of Snape's own moral ambiguity, plus the fact that he
had just used one himself not for sinister design, I now greatly 
discount his words to Harry in HBP. I too thought JKR was giving us a
clue with Snape's words. Turns out I was wrong, turns out it was 
another red herring. And it turns out TEWW EWWW was Snape's ultimate
moral compass. Snape's credibility is greatly diminished in my eyes.
>
Carol responds:
Why? Snape's words to Harry have nothing to do with Lily, nor is he
making a moral or ethical statement. Snape actually says, "No
Unforgiveable Curses from you, Potter! You haven't got the nerve or
the ability!" (HBP Am. ed. 602). Having just killed albus Dumbledore
against his will, summoning the "nerve" and the "ability" to "mean" a
curse he didn't want to cast, Snape is taunting the "mediocre" boy who
is calling him a coward for performing one of the bravest acts of his
life. Snape is in anguish comparable to Fang's in the burning house,
the boy is flinging every curse he can think of at him while Snape
parries them without deflecting them onto the sender, and we can't
expect him to be nice.

But, on another level, Snape is (IMO) giving Harry last-minute advice
(comparable to "shut your mouth and close your mind"). It has nothing
to do with the legality or morality of Unforgiveable Curses (or even,
really, Harry's ability to cast them). Instead, it relates to what
Dumbledore has told Snape about Harry and Voldemort. Snape knows, but
can't tell Harry until Nagini is in her bubble, that Harry can't fight
the Dark Lord with Unforgiveables or any other kind of curse. He
(Harry) has to face him willing to die. To try to Crucio or AK the
Dark Lord will result in Harry's destruction. He has to die to destroy
the soul piece in the scar.

". . . [W]hile that fragment of soul . . . remains attached to and
protected by Harry, Lord Voldemort cannot die."

"So the boy . . . the boy must die?" . . . .

"and Lord Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential"
(DH Am. ed. 686).

"No Unforgiveable Curses from you, Potter, because you have to let the
Dark Lord kill you." That's what I think Snape means, but he can't say
it for another year.

Carol, who admires Snape for continuing to help and protect a boy he
hates, doing the will of Portrait!Dumbledore and trying to bring about
the destruction of Voldemort, after the boy has tried to Crucio him
and called him a murderer