Oh my god, Deathly Hallows contains a plot hole. My entire universe is flying apart at the seams. You need to spread the word, let people know. This has to get out there.

Here, borrow my horse.

 

Oh my god, your point - proven by exactly as much evidence as it is disproven by - appears to be mass-extrapolation and fanon. Word needs to be spread. I'm sure someone is surprised.

Someone?

Well, seems like no one's surprised. Funny, that.

 

"Meaning it" doesn't necessarily imply enjoying the experience, though. Enjoyment means that the pleasure centers of the brain are engaged while the wizard is casting the Killing Curse. But as much as I try, I can't really imagine Snape deriving pleasure from killing Dumbledore.

I think what matters is you intend that your target's life ends, and are fully committed to using your own hands and magic to accomplish that. Whether a wizard feels pleasure in doing it would then depend on the wizard. The Carrows might enjoy it, others might not.

The Cruciatus might be a partial exception, because not many people can carry an intent to cause horrific suffering and be emotionally cold while doing it. If not outright pleasure (a la Bellatrix), I'd think that most people would at least feel a sense of vicious satisfaction. IMO, that best describes how Harry felt about it.

 

It might also be that Harry simply lacked the conviction to hold the curse on Bellatrix. It did work okay, but she just got up a bit too easily.

And it's also Harry's first time with the curse, so it's not like it should be expected to work perfectly. I'd also guess that Bellatrix has her own twisted way of using the curse, and her explanation doesn't necessarily have to be the only way of doing it.

 

This is an important point, and let me put the idea into my own words: just because somebody says it in canon does not mean that it's true. This sort of thing happens from time to time. People lie. People exaggerate. People are simply wrong. And I don't know about you, but I don't really consider Bellatrix to be a very reliable source.

Which isn't to say she can't be right. It all depends on how you choose to interpret it.

 

However it is hard to think of any other explanation as to why the killing curse is considered an unforgivable spell.

The only other explanation I can think of at the moment is the killing curse cause more pain in the victim than any other way of dying. However, there isn't sufficient canon evidence to support such a theory.

 

Considering the curse instantaneously kills someone, there also happens to be no way of asking them... plus, instantaneous death probably doesn't cause pain. Being too fast to register.

I think the simplest explanation, being the common sense one, is the correct one in this. The killing curse has no other use but to kill, so it was made illegal. The addendum of intent and emotional backing makes it even more plausible.

 

I'm pretty sure someone killed by the Killing Curse has come back as a ghost... Perhaps someone could ask them if it was painful.

 

There aren't exactly a ton of ghosts running around despite that they can stick around indefinitely, which suggests that becoming one is extremely rare. We also don't know how long the Killing Curse has existed; even the idea that Voldemort invented it isn't directly contradicted by canon (although it's the sort of thing you'd expect to come up at some point). It is entirely possible that no one killed by a Killing Curse has ever become a ghost.

 

People arguing against shouldn't ignore the logistical arguments for - that is, using the Killing Curse gives you a significant advantage when you're fighting for your life because it's much more difficult to defend against than any other spell. That alone is reason enough to justify it.

Now... I understand if you're a serial pacifist or if you come from a country with shitty self-defense laws, but here in the US, it's fairly well accepted in most jurisdictions that you have the right to defend yourself using lethal force against an attack that could be lethal or permanently damaging.

Magic being what it is, anything above a stunner could be lethal or permanently damaging, so I'd err on the side of caution.

 

However, even when most of us make use of lethal force for self-defence, we generally do not have the intent to kill a person. At the most, we would stop at incapacitating the assaulter, and seek help immediately.

It is not morally acceptable for the defendant to seek revenge at his incapacitated assaulter by shooting him again and again.

Even soldiers who are familiar with weapons and killing others, do not shoot at their enemy for the sake of killing them. Most soldier's guns are aimed at shooting down the enemy and incapacitating them, without any special intention to ensure their enemy is dead.

Furthermore, it is not like the killing curse cannot be blocked. Seeking cover is enough to block you from being killed by that curse.

 

I wasn't clear, but I was actually thinking of the second, more successful Cruciatus that Harry used against Amycus Carrow in DH.

We can even make a further distinction. With a handgun (the weapon typically cited by gun regulation proponents as being the weapon whose "only purpose is to kill"), you can still own one and even brandish one without actually killing someone. You can merely show it and hope it intimidates the attacker away. You can fire a warning shot. And so forth.

The Killing Curse is more straightforward. To cast it properly, it seems you have to really want to kill the person. There's no such thing as a warning Killing Curse.

For all of that, I think even the laws surrounding Unforgivables can be bent. If someone had reported Harry's use of the Cruciatus against Amycus, are we really to believe that he would have been locked up in Azkaban for life?

 

I always thought using the killing curse successfully required the mindset similar to a serial killer.

What I am trying to say is that, serial killers don't have the same belief that the majority of humanity does. Most murders in 1st world nations take place because of rage, or revenge. The chances of them murdering again are pretty small and that is why many of them don't spend their whole life in jail. I bet this happens in the Wizarding World as well, someone just getting fed up and pointing their wand and shouting a curse. I do not think the killing curse would work for them though, as the spell would be filled with hate or anger rather than a sadistic pleasure.

Serial Killers/ Hired killers, however, don't necessarily care who they kill. For them they just want the rush or money. They disregard human life. I believe they would be able to power the killing curse. It's why the Death Eaters can kill so easily, they believe muggleborns and those standing with them are less than human. It also explains why Voldemort can cast it so easily.

This would also explain why training Aurors to use the killing curse is so bad, because you would be practically making them into hired killers.

In my belief, the killing curse could not be used to peacefully kill anyone as it goes against everything the curse is powered by.

Anyways, I bet there are spells to peacefully put someone to sleep and have them never wake up again.

 

This seems about right to me, and considering that it requires an explicit desire to kill, it would be automatically illegal under ordinary circumstances, like in Sesc's explanation. Self defence is a bit more of a grey area, though considering the fact that it is unblockable would mean that there is realisitc justification in using it rather than the Stunning spell or any other spell to incapacitate the target.

"Intending the target's life to end" also doesn't imply an automatically malicious intent, simply the willingness to achieve a possible goal (ie.survival) no matter the cause, so if we take this interpretation (which seems the most canon consistent to me when factoring in Snape/Dumbledore and legalising for Aurors) then there indeed would be cause to using the spell in self-defence.

 

IANAL but that basically sounds like crap. It is illegal to brandish a gun if you are using it to threaten someone. Warning shots are basically illegal too. Guns should basically be used in fight only if you are convinced that you will be killed or have a life changing injury. If you are able to fire a warning shot, you aren't in a life threatening situation. A women recently got 20 years for firing a warning shot when she was trying to scare off her abusive husband.

 

I was comparing the type of intent involved with having and using a handgun, vs. using the Killing Curse. The letter of the law may cause your actions to result in different penalties from place to place (the incident with the woman was actually a collision between two controversial issues: gun self defense and mandatory minimum sentencing). But nobody of consequence in the Western world is seriously considering an automatic life sentence for brandishing a gun.

There are many possible intents involved with the use of a handgun. When such a case goes to court, the court's job is to determine what the nature of the crime (if any) was, and what the appropriate sentence is for it. The Killing Curse is different. If it works like I think it does, its very use signifies your intent beyond all doubt: a focused and lucid desire to kill.

Of course, cultural and historical considerations probably also played a part in the sentencing for using the Unforgiveables. I.e., it's not just that they're bad, but also that their use was associated with really bad people.

 

To answer the first question, I'd say there's a definite stigma surrounding it, specifically since Voldemort seems to throw it around all willy-nilly. Simply put, it's what bad guys do in the wizarding world. Combine that with the idea that Fake!Moody presents about it being a powerful piece of magic I'd also say it's not one most wizards sit around with a picture of that bint that did them wrong in school and toss AKs at it like a game of darts just for practice.

To answer the second question, no. I say that because of the fundamental difference between civilians, police officers, and soldiers. You don't put war-fighting weapons in the hands of a general populace unless you're running a resistance. You don't employ police officers in the same manner as you do an army. Police officers are there to, well, keep the peace and enforce laws. Soldiers are there to kill or capture enemy personnel and intel, destroy infrastructure and destabilize the populace to the point that the enemy is either gone or surrender.

Also, Sesc, coherent legal framework or Wizengamot. Pick one.

 

In DH, Harry uses the imperuis on a goblin and 'everyone' know that they are 'filthy half-breeds'. Who knows, maybe their minds are so weak that even an imperius cast my an amateur(Harry in this case) might be enough to put them under control.