Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[Ceridwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 174648

Alla:

So, was it wrong for Snape to use AK? I mean, if one unforgivable 
spell can be NOT unforgivable sometimes, why the others cannot?

Ceridwen:
I know you're asking colebiancardi, but I have an answer from my POV, 
too.

I always thought that Imperius and Avada Kedavra could be used for 
good purposes (restraining fugitives; euthanasia or execution).  If 
the WW at some point came to the conclusion that these particular 
spells were 'Unforgivable', then that's their law.  There are 
probably other magical ways to do these things.  In fact, I went on 
flights of fancy and imagined that, perhaps, the AK was used for 
compassionate executions, then executing people for wrongdoing became 
illegal and so that curse became 'Unforgivable', too.  In the time 
frame of the stories, they are 'Unforgivable' and merit incarceration 
in Azkaban.  Which, when it hosted Dementors, was another issue 
altogether.

Given what DD said about saving him from pain and humiliation, then 
morally, I don't think Snape's AK was wrong.  Within those 
parameters, I don't think his soul was ripped.  However, given that 
it is illegal and merits incarceration, then it was wrong in that 
context.  The law, as we know it, would have made some sort of 
allowances, I think, for DD's wishes (with Snape's memory in a 
Pensieve for review) and all the reasons of the war, planting a spy, 
etc.  But, I think there would have been a formal hearing, if not a 
trial, because of it.  That would be the only way to satisfy the law, 
in my opinion.

Alla:
Again, let me stress I am perfectly fine with thinking that Harry 
made a mistake in using Crucio and should not do so.

As I said upthread I still do not see convincing counterargument for 
Sirius' words, but it seems to me with the use of AK for perfectly 
benign purposes, JKR left the door very open for the argument that 
intent of the caster is what matters and NOT spell itself.

Ceridwen:
The only Unforgivable for which I could not find a good or benign 
purpose was the Cruciatus curse.  Imperius can restrain fugitives, it 
can restrain violent, ill people.  AK can kill quickly, cleanly, and 
apparently without pain, for Euthanasia or for execution.  But the 
only reason which has been presented to us in canon for the 
Cruciatus, is to torture.  To want to cause pain.  Even flights of 
fancy couldn't give me any other reason than torture to use this 
curse.  It can't heal, it can't restrain, it can't kill painlessly 
and humanely.  It doesn't give the recipient any guidance, as 
incarceration does.  To me, this curse is worse than Umbridge's blood 
quill.

I haven't seen a counterargument for Sirius's words, either.  
Nothing, in this or any other thread discussing the use of these 
curses, has changed my mind.  Arguments go from wanting to have a 
true-to-life hero who has feet of clay, to saying that it is the 
intent that counts, not the legality or illegality, the moral or 
immoral, purpose of the curses.  I'm not against a hero with feet of 
clay.  I like my heroes imperfect, because I'm imperfect.  I'm not 
against realistic portrayals of personality.  The arguments, to me 
anyway, have just gone against themselves - a realistic hero in an 
unrealistic world, where the Good can break the law without 
repercussions while the bad are defined as Bad by the same acts.

Sirius was against Crouch's allowance of the Unforgivables in 
wartime.  For two of those curses, I would argue with him.  For the 
Cruciatus, he is absolutely right, in my opinion, because there is no 
good reason for it that I can find or imagine.  Even though I would 
argue with Sirius, his words are canon.  Crouch is looked down on by 
the Good Guys for having made that exception.

Alla:
I am really waffling still and the description of the scene that you 
brought up really does make it sound like torture to me and NOT just 
a little of pain to immobilise, but I do think that Mike made very 
very sound argument.

Ceridwen:
It's on page 593, Scholastic hardcover, chapter 30.  Harry was under 
his cloak.  Amycus's threatening the Ravenclaws with torture and 
possible death didn't move him out from under the cloak.  Then, 
Amycus spat:

"Harry pulled the Cloak off himself, raised his wand, and said, "You 
shouldn't have done that."

As Amycus spun around, Harry shouted, *Crucio!*"" (*=italics)

The rest is in colebiancardi's post.  Harry could have immobilized 
Amycus from ambush.  Apparently, Amycus wasn't even facing Harry, he 
had to spin around when he heard Harry's voice.  At the least, he had 
his profile to Harry.  Harry had the element of surprise but gave it 
up.  He wanted to torture Amycus Carrow.  To this point, McGonagall 
was holding her own with AC in a verbal bout.  Amycus raised the bar 
for action, but not quite that much, IMO.

If it had been a little different, if Amycus put McG under Crucio, or 
worse, if he had killed her or tried to kill her, then sure, I can 
see Harry losing his temper and retaliating in kind.  I can also see 
him struggling with this later, if not at the moment.  But with the 
element of surprise on Harry's side, it seems to me that, as the Good 
Guy and symbol for Good in the books,  he should have used a body 
bind, or a stunning spell coupled with a body bind - something less 
than a curse which can only torture.

This is my opinion on that scene.  YYMV.

Ceridwen.