The Unforgivable Curses - Are aurors murderers?

[Latisha]

Originally Posted by MRWHITE213

There is a line there and just because it is sancioned by a governing body does not make it right. Unforgivables are just that and banned for a reason. When your fighting a war against evil and terrorism, you have to hold yourself to a higher standard. Giving the authorization to use Unforgivables is sinking almost to the level of DEs and Voldy. We, in the States, have seen what happens when you don't keep the moral high ground, just look at the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the world's perception of the US after that....and remember, those techniques of interrogation at the time were sanctioned.

Okay, don't really know about the Abu Ghraib scandal, but am assuming it was pretty bad and you also bring up a very good point.

My question is, was the interrogation or whatever effective. Did it produce the desired result of information?

[XxronniekinsxX]

Aurors are most certainley NOT murders, they are simply doing their job to protect inocient witches and wizards against the dark arts. voledmort is a murder, not aurors, its just like policemen, they aren't murders, just sometimes, in there duty, they have to kill bad people to protect the good.

[MRWHITE213]

Unfortunatly, it depends on which government official you ask. We, the general public, may never know.

[Latisha]

Originally Posted by MRWHITE213

Unfortunatly, it depends on which government official you ask. We, the general public, may never know.

That's a bit .... () don't they have a responsibility to at least inform their voters about why this happened and if the end jusitifies the means.

I mean, there's alot of really horrible stuff happening to your home troops aren't there?

Anyway, I think that this has gone a bit off topic and I apologise if i have offfended anyone. In very dire circumstances, you (public/ wizarding community) have no choice but to trust the people that you have elected to serve the country/community.

Remember as well that Dumbledore was telling Harry in OOTP, that LV's followers were just as ruthless as Voldemort himself. Look at the Longbottoms for example. Basically, if they do not want to pay for their crimes and surrender themselves, but rather fight to the very end. Then the person that is trying to bring them in will have no choice but to resort to extreme methods. Is it right, no. But is it necessary, IMO yes.

[MRWHITE213]

You do have to remember, that if you stoop to the level of what you attempt to stop or destroy, you risk becoming it. It is easy to say the end justifies the means when you are on the outside looking in and you putting the use of the curses on KNOWN DEATHEATERS.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of Stan Shunpike. Does he deserve what he is getting? Would you want to be hit with the Cruciatus Curse just because somebody thinks your a Death Eater? It has been proven that torture is not an effective means of obtaining information from a captive, because eventually they will admit to anything and tell you what they believe you want to hear to make the pain stop. I wonder how many people ended up in Azkaban as Voldemort supporters that were not because they were tortured into confession. Mirrors what happened to the Longbottoms, tortured into insanity because Bellatrix thought they knew were Voldemort was.

I am not saying that all, or even most aurors are muderers or torturers. I am saying that human nature and odds leads me to say some are or were back in the first war because of the belief of "any means neccessary". And honestly, how many feel bad for Barty Crouch Sr for what happened to him? He called for the any means neccessary and did not bother to listen to a single person, even his son, or show mercy. I believe Crouch Sr made Jr such a loyal follower of Voldemort because of his lack of mercy and "any means neccessary" attitude and maybe got what he deserved or what was comming to him, so to speak, because of it....

[voldemortsgirl]

I think Aurors being murderers basically comes to, Do you believe in the Death Penalty. Some are going to think that because the Death Eaters killed so many people, they deserve to be killed themselves. Others are going to maintain that it is never acceptable to murder and that it is only stooping to the evil of the Death Eaters.

[YaMo]

It is never stated in the books that aurors use unforgivable curses all the time, but it does say that at a certain time Crouch allowed it.
But they do say, for example, about Moody that he didn't kill unless he had no choice.

[MRWHITE213]

Originally Posted by voldemortsgirl

I think Aurors being murderers basically comes to, Do you believe in the Death Penalty. Some are going to think that because the Death Eaters killed so many people, they deserve to be killed themselves. Others are going to maintain that it is never acceptable to murder and that it is only stooping to the evil of the Death Eaters.

A good angle to look at it at . To be honested, I do believe in the Death Penalty, but I look at this in a differant way. I look at this more as a cival war, not so much like the Police VS a gang. Because of that outlook, I think more of the innocent people caught in the middle, being pulled by both sides while they vie for supremacy/leadership over the wizarding world.

By labeling Voldemort and DE as the "bad guys" because they torcher, murder, enslave (all by the Unforgivable Curses among other things), and shows no mercy or compassion, the MoM has taken the moral highground. It is very hypocritical for them to then use the same techniques to attempt to "flush the DE and Voldemort out".

The use on suspected Death Eaters and Voldemort supporters is inexcusable. There are too many innocent people caught in the middle. We have already seen how the MoM has gotten it wrong in the past, people like Lucious Malfoy, Crabble, Goyal, Macnaire all being "cleared" of being DE but Stan Shunpike and Sirius Black being incarcerated unjustly for being one.

[LadyFal]

Originally Posted by MRWHITE213

A good angle to look at it at . To be honested, I do believe in the Death Penalty, but I look at this in a differant way. I look at this more as a cival war, not so much like the Police VS a gang. Because of that outlook, I think more of the innocent people caught in the middle, being pulled by both sides while they vie for supremacy/leadership over the wizarding world.

If we go with this analogy, that it is not the police vs a gang, then I would have to call it a revolutionary war, not a civil war. The Ministry being the established government, and Voldemort and his minions in the roles of the rebels attempting a coup.

Originally Posted by MRWHITE213

By labeling Voldemort and DE as the "bad guys" because they torcher, murder, enslave (all by the Unforgivable Curses among other things), and shows no mercy or compassion, the MoM has taken the moral highground. It is very hypocritical for them to then use the same techniques to attempt to "flush the DE and Voldemort out".

I don't agree that the Ministry ordered them as offensive techniques. I perceived them as being permitted to use them as defensive measures in a time of war, and to be used during combat.

Originally Posted by MRWHITE213

The use on suspected Death Eaters and Voldemort supporters is inexcusable. There are too many innocent people caught in the middle. We have already seen how the MoM has gotten it wrong in the past, people like Lucious Malfoy, Crabble, Goyal, Macnaire all being "cleared" of being DE but Stan Shunpike and Sirius Black being incarcerated unjustly for being one.

While I agree the Ministry has indeed gotten it wrong in the past and is doing a fantastic job of getting it wrong again, the books seemed to imply that the Aurors were given permission to use the Unforgivables during the height of Voldemort War I. From this I concluded the Aurors only used them in combat situations. Actually, I have always had it in my head that they only used the AK, so there must have been something in the books that gave me that impression (this is my opinion, but may or may not be what JK meant).

There is a difference between being the direct cause of death (killing), and maliciously intending to cause death (murder).

There is also a difference between law enforcement or military personel (legally authorized) and a vigilante (person who unlawfully takes it on their own to keep order and punish crime.

Conclusion: If any Auror uses an Unforgivable in a combat situation where it comes down to a choice between dieing or taking down a Death Eater (standing there in the full glory of hiding behind a mask), then the Auror has not murdered, but has rather killed a rampaging criminal in the act of breaking the law.

[MRWHITE213]

Originally Posted by LadyFal

Conclusion: If any Auror uses an Unforgivable in a combat situation where it comes down to a choice between dieing or taking down a Death Eater (standing there in the full glory of hiding behind a mask), then the Auror has not murdered, but has rather killed a rampaging criminal in the act of breaking the law.

Agreed. But from GoF we can see it wasn't always the case.

GoF paperback US edition pg 527

The Aurors were given new powers - powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn't the only one who was handed straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side.

(Emphasis mine)

As I said in a previous post, I am not saying all or even most of the Aurors were guilty of such, but I would be willing to bet a few did cross the line and authorizing use on suspects is quite differant than authorizing use against known Death Eaters or during a combat situation. We have seen coruption and ruthlessness without compassion come out of the Ministry from those that are not Death Eaters. As Sirius said, the world is not divided into Death Eaters and everyone else.

[LadyFal]

Originally Posted by MRWHITE213

Agreed. But from GoF we can see it wasn't always the case.

(Emphasis mine)

As I said in a previous post, I am not saying all or even most of the Aurors were guilty of such, but I would be willing to bet a few did cross the line and authorizing use on suspects is quite differant than authorizing use against known Death Eaters or during a combat situation. We have seen coruption and ruthlessness without compassion come out of the Ministry from those that are not Death Eaters. As Sirius said, the world is not divided into Death Eaters and everyone else.

Your quote clears up a lot for me, thanks. I'll modify my statement to say that Aurors who, when acting within the laws of both legal and moral standards, use the AK defensively are not murderers. As for the Cruciatus and the Imperious curses, neither kill so I don't see how they come into the discussion of whether Aurors are murderers if the use the Unforgivable, although the thread title implies all three Unforgivables.

[Latisha]

Originally Posted by LadyFal

I don't agree that the Ministry ordered them as offensive techniques. I perceived them as being permitted to use them as defensive measures in a time of war, and to be used during combat.

Agreed, as they are the one's that are fighting to defend their rights as they currently stand.

Originally Posted by LadyFal

Actually, I have always had it in my head that they only used the Avada Kedavra, so there must have been something in the books that gave me that impression (this is my opinion, but may or may not be what JK meant).

Same here. I think that it was Sirius's comment that Moody always tried to bring them in alive, whenever possible. Implying that the Avada Kedavra was used as a defence. Though Sirius said that aurors were given the power to use unforgivable curses. His example shows us that it was the Avada Kedavra that was more commonly used in defence, as it also shows that the majority of the aurors, just killed them when other avenues could have been available at the time.

Originally Posted by LadyFal

There is a difference between being the direct cause of death (killing), and maliciously intending to cause death (murder).

There is also a difference between law enforcement or military personel (legally authorized) and a vigilante (person who unlawfully takes it on their own to keep order and punish crime.

Conclusion: If any Auror uses an Unforgivable in a combat situation where it comes down to a choice between dieing or taking down a Death Eater (standing there in the full glory of hiding behind a mask), then the Auror has not murdered, but has rather killed a rampaging criminal in the act of breaking the law.

Excellent point There is nothing more that I can add

Originally Posted by MRWHITE213

Agreed. But from GoF we can see it wasn't always the case.

I'm not quite sure what case your referring to. Moody killed Rosier in a combat situation, this is evident because Rosier managed to destroy half of Moody's nose just before he died.

Originally Posted by MRWHITE213

As I said in a previous post, I am not saying all or even most of the Aurors were guilty of such, but I would be willing to bet a few did cross the line and authorizing use on suspects is quite differant than authorizing use against known Death Eaters or during a combat situation. We have seen coruption and ruthlessness without compassion come out of the Ministry from those that are not Death Eaters. As Sirius said, the world is not divided into Death Eaters and everyone else.

I agree there, as we know, not everyone is as pure of heart as Harry and every government has some form of corruption down the line.

Originally Posted by LadyFal

Your quote clears up a lot for me, thanks. I'll modify my statement to say that Aurors who, when acting within the laws of both legal and moral standards, use the Avada Kedavra defensively are not murderers. As for the Cruciatus and the Imperious curses, neither kill so I don't see how they come into the discussion of whether Aurors are murderers if the use the Unforgivable, although the thread title implies all three Unforgivables.

Agreed.

Wow, there's really nothing to add You two basically cleared it up perfectly

[MRWHITE213]

Originally Posted by Latisha

Wow, there's really nothing to add You two basically cleared it up perfectly

Thank you. LadyFal was great about really bringing in the general thought to the concensus I think we all agree with and feel . And in the words of the man (or I guess his imposter) who always brought them in alive when he could "constant vigillance".

[bubbadude_88]

I very much doubt that the Aurors use Unforgivable curses it just isnt right it is the law that you cannot use them against another human being or you will be but in Azkaban for life.But there are other ways of killing without the Unforgivable curses.And also maybe when Voldemort had full power the Ministry gave permission to use the Unforgivable curses.

[mileyhp]

Probably if they have to, remember when Harry was going to use one it OOTP? It may be a bit different but still, they do whatever they can to catch these wizards. I expect they don't use the killing curse though!

[hermiobonni]

In the United States, law enforcement officials that kill someone in the line of duty are not considered murderers, it is called Justifialbe Homocide. Of course, they should not intentionally kill, therefore in the HP series (if British law is similar which is what I was taught) the aurors are considered law enforcement (like FBI) and that is why you don't see them using the Unforgivable curses. If they need to though, such as self-defense or defense of another I'm sure they would.

[dobbysfriend]

I don't remember that the Aurors have used unforgivable curses in any of the books. Couch used one on his son, but he was not an Auror. They certainly know some powerful curses to stop Death Eaters or other wizards they need to apprehend, but I doubt they routinely use Unforgivable curses. Perhaps they do use the killing curse if there is no other way, much like a police officer shoots a crook if their life or the lives of others are at risk. Most of the curses we see used in battle are not the unforgivable ones. It probably takes a lot out of you to use one, so the other curses are done more frequently.

[ID824]

I don't think they are murderers, but they are killers. A murderer kills without any kind of legal sanction to do so. At one time, the aurors were not allowed to use the unforgivable curses, and Moody was stated to have brought death eaters and others to justice without killing if he could do it.

I equate them to the police...they kill only when others' lives are in immediate danger.

[EBJ23]

I don't think that Aurors would kill people if they didn't have to, just to protect themselves or other people.

[Chris]

Forgive me if this appeared early on in the thread, but what other curses / spells can be used to kill? that is, that isn't an "unforgiveable"? I seem to recall that sectumsempra isn't an unforgiveable. Could Moody have killed with another curse?