Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, -Legal or Moral?

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 174894

---  "Jane Penhaligon" <penhaligon at ...> wrote:
>
> One might consider that under the new regime, the
> "unforgivables" are no longer unforgivable. The 
> Carrows were instructing students on the use of
> Crucio.  I would not be surprised at all to learn 
> that the new ministry under Thickness had passed new
> laws to allow the previously illegal spells.
> 
> Panhandle
> 
> --
> Jane Penhaligon
> penhaligon at ...

bboyminn:

This brings up an interesting point that I hadn't
considered before. With Death Eaters in charge of
the Ministry, they would have certainly removed
the restrictions on the use of Unforgivables. Like
their use was now very routine in the Ministry. 

But that bring a whole new perspective. Even it the
curses were now 'forgivable' curses, does that 
remove the moral implication. Are the curses 
automatically OK because they are now legal, 
tolerated, and even common? 

Is the alway an unforgivable moral element even if
they are now legal? 

I suspect more than ever, the curses are now seen as
OK for the good guys, but not OK for the bad guys.
Trouble is, it is the Death Eaters who have change 
the rules and they see themselves as the Good Guys,
and those that oppose them as the Bad Guys. Makes
thing very confusing.

I've already said that I think Harry's actions were
wrong, but that they are understandable and forgivable.
But circumstances play a role in that view. I would
never say that Harry, as OUR personal Good Guy, has 
blanket and unlimited rights to use those curses. 

Still from a purely legal perspective, I think you
are right. The Ministry, under control of Death Eaters,
would likely have removed the restriction on those 
curses. That means that Legally, Harry wasn't wrong.

Steve/bboyminn