Harry, Crucio, and emotion in spellcasting (WAS: Re: Blowing his cover)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 181491

 > > bboyminn:
> > > Yes, Harry used the 'Pain' curse...
> 
> > CJ
> > Look up the Latin. It's not the "pain" curse. Crucio --
> > "I torture". 
> > Latin has a perfectly good word for pain; "cruciatus" ain't it.
> 
> Mike:
> Then we have a conundrum, since the "Cruciatus Curse" is cast by 
> uttering the word "Crucio". So which is it, the pain curse or the 
> torture curse? Crouch!Moody doesn't help us, he explained "Pain, 
> ... to torture someone if you can perform the Cruciatus Curse." 
> <GoF p.215, US>
> 
<SNIP>
> I've no doubt that Harry intended to cause Amycus a moment of 
> intense pain with his Cruciatus Curse. I've also no doubt that 
> he held it only long enough for Amycus to be blasted into the wall 
> and get knocked unconscious. That, to me, does not constitute 
> torture, any more than a well placed kick to the groin prior to 
> delivering a knockout blow would be torture in a fight.

a_svirn:
And I've no doubt that Harry used the torture curse for its exact 
purpose – torture. I don't understand where you see a conundrum, by 
the way: it means torture and is used for that purpose. Torture means 
inflicting of severe bodily pain as a means of persuasion or 
punishment. Harry used it for the latter. As for "only long enough", 
honestly, just imagine how intense the pain must be to get one 
knocked unconscious. Harry was tortured by Voldemort himself and *he* 
wasn't knocked unconscious. A muggle equivalent would be a few hours 
on the rack or something equally appalling. Obviously Harry "meant 
it" to be really intense to get such spectacular results in such a 
short time. 

Besides, the WW does not recognise any degrees for the Unforgivables. 
You use them on a human being you get lifetime sentence in Azkaban. 
Not that there is a question of Harry standing his trial for this 
transgression. The concept of the impartiality of the law seems to be 
completely alien to the WW. 

But that's not why I was slightly taken aback by this scene. What 
shocked me was the triviality of Harry's usage of Crucio. Until DH 
there had been quite a lot of discussing the Unforgivables on-list, 
and while lots of people found certain justifications for the use of 
the two of them, the Cruciatus was practically unanimously voted as 
the most unforgivable of the Unforgivables. And really, how can one 
justify torture? Yet here we see Harry torturing someone as a 
punishment, and for what crime? For a trivial insult. And his teacher 
is not only gratified, but actually calls it "gallant". I think it 
was Montavilla who said that sometimes "Huh?!" was the only response 
the characters' reactions could elicit. That was one of those moments 
for me. 


> > CJ
> > Cruciating Amycus for past injustices is not defense, it's
> > retribution.
> 
> Mike:
> Regardless of the spell, fighting the known enemy is definitely not 
> retribution, it's battle. Plus, past injustices are what makes them 
> your enemy. Whether it's offensive or defensive is a moot point in 
> war. Killing is killing whether it's done as part of an offensive 
or 
> defensive maneuver.
> 
a_svirn:
There are so many inaccuracies here. First and foremost, torturing 
someone as a punishment for an insult – and that's what Harry was 
doing; he said as much himself – is not the same thing as fighting an 
enemy. Far from it, in fact. Second, sneaking on you enemy from 
behind and knocking them unconscious is not the same thing as 
fighting a battle. Not that I have anything against it, mind. It's 
just not the same. Third, we are not discussing killing, are we? We 
are discussing torture. And torture cannot be construed as offensive 
or defensive manoeuvre, nor can it be justified by war.