Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables - Context

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 174969

---  "colebiancardi" <muellem at ...> wrote:
>
> DG wrote:
> <snipping>
> > And then, once he had Carrow in his custody, he 
> > turned it off, thus avoiding crossing the line 
> > from necessary force into torture.
> > 
> > Agsin, I have absolutely zero problems with this.
> > Harry. Never. Tortures.
> > 
> 
> 
> colebiancardi:
> 
> The Cruciatus Curse:  per GoF - You don't need 
> thumbscrews or knives to torture someone if you can
> perform the Cruciatus Curse.  p 215 US ed hardcover
> 
> As a DE stated this, I think this is pretty much canon.
> If anyone would know about torture, it is a DE
> 
> Your arguments aren't convincing me or others who 
> believe that Harry performed a legit UC called the 
> Cruciatus Curse, whose only purpose is to torture 
> someone - perhaps it is to convince yourself, I don't
> know. Whether it is for a second or prolonged, it is
> does what it is supposed to do - torture someone.
> 
> Harry.Does.Torture
> 
> and he meant it, according to canon.
> 
> colebiancardi
>

bboyminn:

It seems as if the lines are drawn. People have made
their choice and they are not willing to be swayed.
I'm sure it will come as no surprise to anyone when
I side with Dennis. 

The thing that many people are ignoring is context.
Something can exist in one context, but the exact
same thing will not exist in another context.

If I used electric shock to induce pain and did so
repeatedly, would you classify that as torture?
Well the courts have said that the use of a Taser
(Stun Gun) by the police is not torture. That it is
humane way of subduing a suspect when the alternative
is even greater and even excessive force. 

Yet, would any of us deny that a Taser COULD be used
as an instrument of torture? Perhaps with some 
modification, even an instrument of death? 

So, what is the difference, how can it be torture in
one case and not the other. Simple; context. Context 
matters, details matter, intent and purpose matter.

Without a doubt Harry wanted to cause this person 
pain, but he did so in a restrained way. Just as police
officers with a Taser must restrain themselves. He did
not prolong it. He did not sustain it. He did not repeat
it. 

Did he 'mean it'? Well it worked, but I think Harry
comment was more a case of sarcasm than anything else.

Harry found himself in a den of Dragons, and even 
though one of the hungry dragons wasn't immediately
attacking him, doesn't mean he didn't understand the
supreme danger he was facing. Compound that with one
of the dragons insulting and degrading someone Harry
cares about, and I think Harry's actions can be 
understandable. Wrong, but understandable. 

I do understand the counter point. JKR set these
curse up as Unforgivable, and then creates a 
circumstance in which she expects us to forgive them.
Well, either they are unforgivable or there aren't.
But it is not that simply. Can you come up with any
other broad action like this that isn't ruled by
context?

Again, while I understand, all I can do is appeal for
understanding of context. Are you really comparing
what Harry did, to Crabbe and Goyle taking joy in
using the Cruciatus Curse as punishment for wayward
students? To me, one seem a nice dose of Karmic
Justice and the other seem impossibly cruel and cold
hearted. 

I simply can't isolate an action from it's context.

I would never say Harry's actions were right, only
that in context, they were understandable and
forgivable...but none the less still wrong. 

Steve/bboyminn