Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 174655

> 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.
<SNIP>


Alla:

But see that goes towards my point and I believe Mike's. You think 
that there are situations when AK and Imperius can be used for good 
purposes, do you not?

I mean, correct me if I am wrong at any time if I am misinterpreting 
your words.


But it seems to me that you believe that there are situations when AK 
and Imperious use will still be illegal, but not Immoral.

WHERE in the books before book 7 you see Ministry making that 
distinction between those three curses?

ALL three of them are called Unforgivables, no? The fact that you 
cannot find a good use for Crucio curse does not mean that it does 
not exist, no?

I almost never bring fanfic into canon arguments, but I think this is 
a perfect place. The one good use of Crucio I read was to stimulate 
paralysed patient or something like that. I mean, the healer does not 
have intent to torture his patients, right?

So ALL that I am saying that in light of clear benign use of one 
Unforgivable the door is opened for the possible benign use of others 
depending on intent.

Was Harry's intent benign? Totally not and as I said even if his 
intent was to torture, I would not approve, but I forgive him.

But I think it is a totally sound argument that his intent was to 
cause short term pain and immobilisation.

I am snipping your thoughts about Sirius' words, since as I said I do 
not have a satisfactory counterargument to that.

Alla.