Snape's Remorse: another erratum

[eloise_herisson]

Pip:

> However, the ruse de guerre defence we used was also a defence 
> against attempted murder; to quote from the Law Lord Viscount 
Sankey:
> 
> "If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a 
> reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the 
> prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the 
> deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made 
> out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No 
matter 
> what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the 
> prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the 
> common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be 
> entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove 
> (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) 
> malice of the accused." 
> 
> So - there is reasonable doubt that Snape's intervention was the 
> actual cause of Dumbledore's death (that's point (a) ) and, thanks 
> to the ruse de guerre possibility, there is also a reasonable doubt 
> that he acted with malice towards Dumbledore (that's point (b) ). 
> Acquittal on murder, acquittal on attempted murder.

Which is really the point I was making with regard to the law resting 
on technicalities. A legal judgement doesn't necessarily indicate 
whether someone is morally guilty. Surely if I stab someone, it is 
really a matter of sheer luck that I am not convicted because someone 
else has already slipped them poison. My action is still that of a 
murderer, morally I am still guilty of an act designed to bring about 
the death of another. I'm also a bit intrugued by the malice thing. 
Maybe it's not technically murder , but bringing about another's 
death in any manner, whether with or without malice is certainly 
punishable under the guise of other crimes.

In the context of a discussion about *legal* guilt or innocence *of 
murder with malice*, I guess I have to concede the point, although 
still maintaining that he wasn't actually tried on a charge of 
attempted murder at Accio. However the legality isn't nearly so 
interesting as the morality or motivation of the characters involved, 
IMO. If Snape's doing whatever he did or didn't do to Dumbledore on 
the tower can be dismissed as innocent, then it loses much of its 
power. It becomes more interesting if Snape *believes* he has killed 
Dumbledore, or if he genuinely intended so to do, whatever his 
motivation. Also, of course, if the other characters believe he 
killed him, which apparently they do.

I have to admit I'm struggling with this whole thing. If the law 
really says that you can go through the actions of a murder and not 
be culpable simply because someone else got there first, then as Mr 
Bumble said, "the law is an ass". 

~Eloise