Lets try to have a level-headed discussion and try to look at the subject objectively. What did the curse on the DA parchment actually achieve other than simple revenge? Wouldn't it have been better if she had told them there was a curse in the first place? Wouldn't that have done MORE to prevent betrayal in the first place?

Now a common objection to this is that if Hermione told them there was a curse, Marietta could have just gone to Umbridge anyway and tell her that there was a curse and wait until Umbridge breaks it. However, that argument makes no sense and let me tell you why: if Hermione could create a curse for betrayal then she could also create a curse about telling others about the curse itself. Think about it. She could have simply told them that there was a jinx on the parchment and if someone ratted them out or tried to tell Umbridge about the jinx then they would have to suffer the consequences of said jinx.

I'm going to leave out the moral arguments about whether permanently scarring someone is justified, because they lead nowhere. The fact remains that placing a curse on the DA parchment and telling no one about it was a poor decision.

 

If you have read the OP, you would have known that I didn't write anything about whether it was moral or not. I just pointed out that it made no sense rationally.

 

I mean, if they knew about the curse, the students (especially the 6th- and 7th-years) could break it just as much as Umbridge. Hermione did it, no reason to think that another student couldn't undo it. So if the goal was for the curse to activate fast enough that the sneak didn't have time to give valuable information, it actually is logical to not tell them.

Obviously, it didn't work out.

 

I highly doubt they would have been able to break the curse if they didn't even know which curse it was. Besides, Hermione could have just hidden the parchment so that they wouldn't have had a chance to break anything.

 

It depends on what you think the motivation for the jinx was. If the idea was that if anyone told anybody without permission, Hermione would be warned due to that someone breaking out in boils and steps could have been taken to avoid further repercussions, then it's fair enough, but runs into obvious problems - namely, the ones seen in canon. Marietta breaks out in boils instantly, doesn't leave the office, and they're caught within the hour. Even if the boils hadn't been instant, it would only be of use if Hermione saw Marietta personally, since she didn't tell anyone else about it, or if she happened to be paying enough attention to the gossip mill to pick up on it.

If, on the other hand, the motivation was punishment...well, it works perfectly. IIRC, Marietta never fully heals, certainly within the timeline of the books. Given that Hermione doesn't say anything about it prior to it being activated, and seems quite satisfied by it, it seems pretty safe to say that it was all about punishment.

 

Err, bro? There's absolutely no reason a student or Umbridge could break the curse just because Hermione, a fifth year, cast it. Also, the curse objective was to reveal the "sneak" and punish him/her, not stop them from sharing the information (seeing how Kingsley's Memory Charm, not the curse, was the reason Marietta couldn't fuck the situation even more).

 

If it was simple revenge then it's actually fucking genius. Those books were more or less permanent right?

Imagine trying to bone a gal with Sneak written in scars across her face.

Hermione ruined that girl's life and that's the Hermione I subscribe to.

 

I suppose it was about punishment initially. It could have served as a deterrent as well had they told the membership about it, but Hermione loves her secrets too much, I guess.

 

So, Ron and Harry didn't know about it prior to signing (for context, this is the day after the initial meeting, when Umbridge has announced the Ministerial Decree banning student organisations etc), and Hermione makes a point of the fact that anyone telling Umbridge will regret it. Seems like revenge to me, more than anything else.

And then, after Umbridge finds out:

So the DA as a whole definitely didn't know.

 

Marietta got what she deserved tbh. No mercy to collaborators. #HermioneDidNothingWrong

 

Writing "sneak" on her face in acne is a pretty light punishment for being a traitor, in my opinion.

 

I have little sympathy for traitors myself.

 

I feel that people kinda miss the point of the thread which wasn't about whether Marietta deserved it or not. It was more about whether it would have been better if they had told them about the curse, even if they didn't specify which curse it was.

That being said, permanently scarring someone's face it too harsh. Unless you think we should permanently brand criminals and prisoners too.

 

In the Harry Potter universe, the criminals seem to have taken care of that themselves.

 

I doubt anyone actually believes that would be a good thing to do. They're just goofing around because it's so obviously messed up.

That said, I don't think it's permanent. It was probably removed off screen.

 

If they told them about the curse they would've risked people finding ways around it. Not telling them lets them catch and punish traitors more easily.

Branding criminals has merit, depending on the crime.

 

Rowling herself said that the boils went down, but white scars remained. She was very much branded as a sneak for life; I know because I had to do research for a short story I wrote.
I can't say whether it was a brilliant move or not, but I believe the DA members were given a general warning rather than a specific one regarding a curse on those who signed the document. That may have been the best plan Hermione could have implemented.

On the general idea of branding people as criminals, that was a necessary measure to inform innocent people of potential harm that could be done by a criminal. (In early America, you would get a 'T' for thief and other letters for other crimes. Even people who couldn't read could ask to see your hand before hiring you or agreeing to marry you and make an informed decision.) Of course, I say 'was' because today criminal records go with you if you skip town. What we have today is functionally identical, but does not require burning. The reason a criminal record would not work in Hermione's case is because Marietta could not be convicted of a crime. It was legally justifiable for her to breach an oral non-disclosure agreement after it was declared that clubs had to be registered.