Blowing his cover

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181330

Lee wrote:
<snip>
> And, aside from all these post hoc attempts to justify Our Hero's
questionable moral choices, there's little to no indication in canon
that the Unforgivables are anything but.
> 
> But even if one wants to argue the Unforgivables aren't, their use
is by all accounts a matter of grave import. Neither Harry's burst of
anger in OotP, nor Amycus' spittle in DH come close to justifying a
Cruciatus, particularly when they were obviously cast not out of
necessity but from a desire for vengeance.

Carol responds:
I agree with you that both of Harry's AKs, the weak one against
Bellatrix and the successful one against Amycus, were cast out of a
desire for vengeance, not out of necessity. (Bellatrix may consider
the first one "righteous anger" but I'm not sure that she's right. I
certainly wouldn't say that of the second one; he admits that she was
right: "You have to mean it." IOW, you have to want to hurt someone
badly to cast a successful Crucio.) In neither case is Harry in a
life-threatening situation. I would add the Crucio that he attempted
to cast against Snape in HBP to the list. He's not trying to defend
himself against Snape, who is effortlessly deflecting his curses. He's
furious and he wants Snape to fight. Later, twice, he vows vengeance
against Snape.

I won't talk about who decleared the Unforgiveables Unforgiveable; all
we know is that, supposedly, they earn the caster a life sentence in
Azkaban (if they're completed). I suppose that the only reason Harry
didn't earn one for the Crucio against Bellatrix is that the DEs were
casting Unforgiveables all over the place, or had been moments before,
and it was impossible for the MoM to know who cast it. (Either that,
or it's a failed Crucio like the incomplete ones attempted by Harry
and Draco in HBP, but I no longer think that.) The second Crucio is
cast in a time of lawlessness when the MoM is no longer keeping track
of such things. (Ditto for the Imperios against Travers and the Goblin
in DH.) So, in essence, Harry got away with what should have been
crimes, and would have been had he or anyone else committed them in a
time of peace.

At any rate, I want to point out that Harry seems to lose his desire
for vengeance after his visit to Snape's memories in DH. (Harry
doesn't think that Severus deserved the treatment he received in SWM,
BTW; he's back to his original horror at the bullying. I wonder if
that was one reason for his change of heart regarding vengeance, not
just against Snape but in general, as we see from his willingness to
sacrifice himself rather than attempting to kill LV.) Even before he
loses the soul bit, his whole attitude changes as he prepares to enter
the forest to be murdered (as he thinks).

Also, aside from Snape's unavoidable AK (and Molly's, if she cast
one), we don't see any other good guys casting Unforgiveables. I would
like to think that Harry renounced them, along with a desire for
vengeance, even before he lost the soul bit (which *may* have
contributed to his hatred and anger in DH as it evidently did in OoP).
I'm not excusing Harry's casting of the Crucios (I do think the
circumstances partially justified the Imperios, assuming that a
Confundus Charm would not have served the same purpose). I'm only
hoping that, legal or illegal, Auror or no Auror, Post-soul bit!Harry
no longer casts them for any reason.

Carol, still appalled that McGonagall would consider a Crucio "gallant"