Attitude toward Unforgiveables

[vegablack]

Ilene Bones asked this on the Dumbledore thread and I thought the issue deserved its own thread.

Is Harry going to tell his kids about using Imperio and Crucio during the war?

I wonder if Harry will get in trouble for his Crucio against Carrow. Will he hush it up? How will it fit in to the trials of Death Eaters for using the curse?

[pigwithhair]

Since it was used in war and in the process of defeating Voldemort and his followers - a group who used Unforgiveables indiscriminately - I can't see anyone questioning Harry about their use. If they did, that would mean Molly could go to Azkaban for using one to defend her child.

The question of will Harry tell his children is an interesting one, and I think it likely Albus would, at an older age, ask his father. If asked, I think Harry would answer honestly and explain why he had, but I can't see him offering up the information without it being requested first.

How Albus, James and Lilly would feel about that answer is another question. James would probably think it really cool, while Albus would be much more contemplative about it.

For Harry, I think he'll put it behind him and not think on it much at all other than when, and if, he has to tell his children.

[vegablack]

I'm not sure its clear that Molly used an unforgiveable against Bellatrix. We're not told the color of the curse and it hits Bellatrix directly over her heart. She never says the words Avada Kedavra as Voldemort does and everyone else does when they use the curse. I'm not sure that is a curse that can be given silently, since even Voldemort says it out loud. When he uses the curse the green light is mentioned. Now this could all be JKR's style of writing, but it is up in the air. She could have simply hit Bellatrix in the heart with another curse. Bellatrix was also hurling curses at her.

Harry used a crucio against a person who didn't know he was there when he could have just as easily used any stunning spell to disarm the man. McGonagall could have followed up with her binding spell. The Crucio wasn't necessary, if Crucio could ever be called necessary:

"Harry pulled the Cloak off himself, raised his wand, and said, "You shouldn't have done that.
As Amycus spun around, Harry shouted, "Crucio!"

The Death Eater was lifted off his feet. He writhed through the air like a drowning man, thrashing and howling in pain and then, with a crunch and a shattering of glass, he smashed into the front of a bookcase and crumpled, insensible, to the floor.

"I see what Bellatrix meant," said Harry, the blood thundering in his brain, "you really have to mean it." " Page 593 DH

The man made no move to defend himself. Harry could have used any spell to defeat him. He appears to enjoy hurting him rather than simply wanting to capture or defeat him. (I agree Carrow was a disgusting man.)

Why couldn't any of the Death Eaters have claimed that they were at war and used their spells to fight in that war? Why is it wrong for them to use the spell in war, but not Harry?

I agree that Harry's youth is a mitigating circumstance.

[queenie]

I agree with vegablack. I was just as disgusted by McGonagall's reaction, "That was - gallant!" You'd think that as a Gryffindor she would find that act more cowardly than gallant.
I've heard people saying that "Well, torturing and killing are different in war," and I... I'm passionately anti-war, so you can imagine how it goes over with me. That doesn't change the fact that it's torture. Why couldn't Harry have used a Stunner? Was it a five second spate of revenge against Carrow for what he'd done to the students? If there had been less approval of the act, I might not have minded. But when McGonagall voiced her approval, I was lost.

Now, I may have been able to accept Crucio if Harry had used Avada Kedavra against Voldemort or someone else. I could have accepted that - if Harry had fully tasted the three temptations of the Unforgivables, to deny someone freedom of will (which he did out of necessity - though still stupidly), freedom of sensation, and freedom to live. But Harry didn't. He did not use Avada Kedavra, and later shows utterly no remorse over using Crucio.

Maybe Harry would have to pay a fine to the Ministry, or to St. Mungo's, as punishment for performing Crucio and Imperio. Granted, we never hear of a fine being implemented as a form of punishment in the WW (while it is in the U.S.), this is an unusual case. Harry will never be completely out of the public eye, so I think that if he paid the fine for using the Unforgivables in wartime (after all, it's not like he can't afford it) it would be more of a gesture than anything else, a sign that the Aurors are willing to admit to the wrongs they themselves had done.
I actually kind of like that idea.

EDITED because I take that back. Torture is never right, and I only recognize the right for people to have differing opinions - not the right to torture.

[vegablack]

I disagree that torture is more acceptable in times of war. To quote the comment made in the book the Kite Runner when a soldier demands the right to rape a woman in exchange for letting refugees pass, "War doesn't negate decency. It demands it, even more than in times of peace."

My problem with a fine is that Harry's and Kingsley's take over of the ministry and the Auror department is supposed to reperesent a clean up of the place. How is it a reform to give a slap on the wrist to the reformer for doing something that others had been sentenced to Azkaban for life for doing?

One would think they would want to make the use of the Cruciatus Curse less normal not more. Since they have a whole generation of kids who've been taught by their teachers to use it that might be very important.

What I think will happen is Kingsley will make a deal with Carrow and mitigate his sentence in exchange for keeping quiet about Harry's action. That would be the most like real life. It would be in the style of Dumbldedore keeping quiet about his own past for the good of the future.

I really hate the impression that it is normal to torture people. I'm not that old but when I was young torture in a book for youth would have been portrayed as abnormal as cannibalism.

[birdg]

Yeah, I wasn't too happy with McGonagall sounding appreciative of the act. Though she did sound like she was trying to talk Harry down and after watching the Carrows torture students it's understandable if not forgivable that she'd want some revenge.

My problem with a fine is that Harry's and Kingsley's take over of the ministry and the Auror department is supposed to reperesent a clean up of the place. How is it a reform to give a slap on the wrist to the reformer for doing something that others had been sentenced to Azkaban for life for doing?

That seems to be how the wizarding world rolls. Harry won't go to jail for using Cruciatus anymore than he did for using Sectumsempra anymore than Draco went to jail for attempted murder of Dumbledore and nearly killing two other students in the process.

Like someone on LJ one said, "The Unforgivables? More like the Unpunishables."

The wizarding world as a whole seems to have a much more casual attitude towards violence which makes sense, for starters they're all armed and have been since the age of 11. Wizards apparently can jump into frozen lakes and not worry about heart attacks or hypothermia, they can toss kids out of windows and they'll bounce (hopefully, anyway) and they can surf through hot coins and only come out with mild burns. And what their magic doesn't insulate them from there are spells and potions that will help heal them.

In the Muggle world, if you broke someone's leg during a fight, you'll probably get charged with aggravated assault and expelled from school. That's because you've caused someone serious damage that will leave them in a cast for week, possibly requiring surgery and physical therapy, possibly leaving them with a permanent limp and likely costing thousands of dollars. The charge is serious because the crime was serious.

In the wizarding world? That can be fixed overnight - faster than it takes a bruise to heal in the Muggle world. And would probably warrant a detention and a stern talking-to for the perpetrator. It's just a very different attitude arising from the differences between the two worlds.

Also, it's possible the whole "sentenced to life" thing was something that happened more under Crouch and wasn't the norm for their society. I'm always amused at how their laws can change depending on who the Dictat - I mean, Minister for Magic is.

[Chocolatepot]

The question of will Harry tell his children is an interesting one, and I think it likely Albus would, at an older age, ask his father. If asked, I think Harry would answer honestly and explain why he had, but I can't see him offering up the information without it being requested first.

I agree.

On the one hand, I had a serious problem with the use of the Unforgivables, if only because the Ministry's use of it in the first war was presented as so, well, unforgivable. (If I've said this in another thread I'm sorry for repeating myself. I feel like I have ...) On the other, there's a big difference between torturing a captured prisoner and attacking with an instrument of torture - and that's the difference between what the DEs do and what Harry did.

One would think they would want to make the use of the Cruciatus Curse less normal not more. Since they have a whole generation of kids who've been taught by their teachers to use it that might be very important.

I'm ... not entirely sure how you've gotten that their teachers would have taught them to use it. It seems more likely to me that the teachers would want to put everything to do with the war behind them, and I wouldn't be surprised if a fic had the next generation learning much less about Defense because the older generation wanted to protect them.

[birdg]

I think she meant the Carrows as it is implied they were teaching it in their classes. Remember, we're told under Carrow the DADA class basically became the Dark Arts class.

[vegablack]

That's exactly what I meant birdg. IN that year under the Carrows seven years worth of students who were either taught the Cruciatus curse in class or were being groomed to learn it in the future.

They were asked to use the curse against fellow students. Kids as young as eleven would have known that students were using the curse on each other on Carrows orders. This would have happened along with Carrow using it on them. This wouldn't have been an isolated incident but would have been happening for much of the year -- over and over again.

This would have been similar to being a child soldier. Children were being desensatised to torture, violence and cruelty. If Harry felt like Cruciating Carrow after just hearing about it how would a student feel who watched it or who had been tortured by another Student on Carrow's orders? Do you think a kid might not be temtped to use it himself in the hallway one night against someone who had hurt and humiliated him during a detention?

If we claim that the students did use it then a generation of students have spent a year acting as if this curse is a viable action. If we say that they refused to use it and indeed never used it on their own in anger against other students who had tortured them then we've made them more self controlled and strong than Harry who used it with far less provocation.

(Having Harry use it places a weird logical bind. Either Harry did something that his peers would have refused to do, or we have a large group of kids entering adulthood having tortured people all ready. I think we are meant to believe that Neville refused to torture. I take this from his statement. This seems logical from his family history. I would like to think that the other DA refused as well.)

The Carrows and the Death Eaters are to blame for the situation, but it would still exist. Kids as young as eleven witnessing the frequent use of torture, and older kids doing it themselves. That is not a good recipe for a peaceful society.

ETA: Queenie I knew you weren't making an argument supporting torture, but were repeating other's arguments. I'm afraid I didn't make that clear in my post.

[Chocolatepot]

TY, that makes a lot more sense. Oh self.

I think we are meant to believe that Neville refused to torture. I take this from his statement. This seems logical from his family history. I would like to think that the other DA refused as well.

I agree! And to travel off-topic, I have to wonder why so few of the people who really liked the dystopic-future genre didn't get in to writing about that year.

[vegablack]

Chocolatepot, I'm always amazed at the number of stories that portray DA actions seventh year as a string of fun little pranks.