Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 174624

--- "colebiancardi" <muellem at ...> wrote:
>
> > DG wrote:
> > Harry doesn't use it as a form of torture; he uses
> > it as a powerful immobilizing spell.
> > 
> ><snip>
> > 
> > Call that what you want, but it isn't torture.
> > 
> 
> 
> colebiancardi:
> 
> Well, I call it torture. 
> 
> Harry shouted, "Crucio!"
> The Death Eater was lifted off his feet.  He writhed
> through the air like a drown man, thrashing and howling
> in pain, and then, with a crunch and a shattering of 
> glass, he smashed into the front of a bookcase and 
> crumpled, insensible, to the floor.
>
> "I see what Bellatrix meant," said Harry, the blood 
> thundering through his brain, "you need to really mean
> it" DH US ed p 593
> 
> words like writhed, drowning, thrashing, ... it 
> certainly sounds like torture to me.
> 


bboyminn:

Well then, from a practical perspective, let's define
torture. [Though I will be the first to admit that when
we start to reach for the dictionary to settle an 
argument, we are pretty much at rock bottom.] Is it 
merely causing pain, that makes it 'torture'? So then 
when you took your kids to get their shots 
(inoculations), you were guilty of torture? So, 
football players on the field are also guilty of 
torture because they certainly cause pain. So, police
when they break up a riot, subdue a suspect, or use a 
Taser are guilty of torture? 

And finally, if you cause 5 seconds worth of pain, and
the person it immediately all right, physically 
undamaged, is it still torture, or is it just 
torture-ish.

Real torture is sustained, and is done for one of two
purposes, either raw sadistic pleasure, or as a form
of coercion. That is, you do it because the victim
has something you want. Was Harry sadistic? NO. Did he 
sustain the pain? NO. Was he trying to coerce anything
from the victim? NO. 

You simply can not assign the label of 'torture' to 
every instance of causing pain. If that were true
brother and sisters would all be guilty of torture.
If that were true, every parent would be guilty of
torture.

Pain is part of torture, but pain, in and of itself,
is not torture. And, 5 seconds of pain, just doesn't
quite make it across the 'Torture' threshold in my 
book.

Certainly, Harry wanted to teach this guy a lesson. 
But I hardly think a 5 second lesson qualifies as
torture. 

> colebiancardi:
>
> And look at Harry's physical symptons - the blood 
> thundering thru his brain.  He is pumped up - he was
> not *indifferent* or in control when he cast this 
> spell.  
> 
> ...

bboyminn:

I once tried to kill someone in a fit of WHITE HOT
ANGER. And for the record, in the moment, 'blood was
thundering through my brain'. Sometimes you lose 
control, sometimes anger overrides good judgement. But
that moment of anger does not define a person. 

With the exception of that one moment, I have lived my
life as a kind and gentle soul. If we look at Harry life,
rather than that one moment, we see that he too is a 
brave, kind, compassionate, fierce but gentle soul. I 
think the bigger picture does a better job of defining 
Harry than a moment of anger. 

I also think people need to look at the event in
perspective. I hardly think 5 seconds of pain for 
a vile, evil, murderous, and disrespectful person like
Carrow constitute 'torture' by any definition. I hardly
think 5 seconds of pain even for a nice person
constitutes 'torture'; it's mean, brutal, and nasty,
but it doesn't quite cross the line into torture. 

And for the record, 'Crucio' doesn't mean 'torture',
it means 'torment' in Latin. [HP Lexicon]

So says I.

Steve/bboyminn