In addition to punishment, the purpose is identification of the traitor so that they can be excluded from the group.

 

Criminal records are one thing, scarring the faces of criminals for life is another. Also, don't even get me started on what happens if someone innocent gets permanently branded as a criminal. At least criminal records can be erased.

 

There is no risk of false conviction here though.

 

In hindsight, that didn't count for much either, since Umbridge didn't seem to care enough to conceal her identity. Not that she could have, of course, but she also wanted Marietta to testify to Fudge with Harry and Dumbledore present, so they would probably have found out regardless.

 

There were different ways of betraying the group than directly telling Umbridge and testifying about the whole thing later. If she wanted to conceal her identity, she could have given an anonymous tip, possibly through a third party. If the Inquisitorial Squad broke into one of their meetings while in session, that would have provided them with more than enough evidence. Marietta could have even been absent the day of the raid.

 

Snitches get stitches permanent facial scarring, bitches.

 

Snitches get bitches???? Must be a new witness protection program perk.

 

The mechanism of identification leaves something to be desired. As was said before, it requires that either Hermione see Marietta or rely upon the rumor mill for word that the jinx had activated; not the most reliable way of knowing, especially if the violator were to be able to cover it up somehow or be held out of the public eye for a period of time in custody until a raid may be arranged.

It was mentioned before that Umbridge didn't care to conceal Marietta's identity as the collaborator. how very fortunate. This relies upon the enemy being incompetent which a terrible strategy to base anything off of. What if Umbridge was just a little more competent in concealing the snitch?
"Oh, have you guys seen that Edgecome girl anywhere? " said Ron.
"No, she's not at the meeting today." replied Hermione.
"Marietta was given detention by that wretched Umbridge woman for calling her a toad's arse where she could hear. I heard Malfoy bragging loudly in the Great hall to his inquistorial squad goons about it." Said Cho breaking into the private conversation and coming in like a wrecking ball.
"Hey guys, what's that noise?" said Harry.


This seems to be a situation where being as it is a school setting the punishment/identifier could only be so severe before crossing into curse territory and becoming blatantly criminal (ie. something more deadly/immediate/permanent) in it's effects. Which would bring unneeded heat upon Hermione.

 

"You know somethin', Utivich Harry? I think this just might be my masterpiece!" /roll credits.

 

The simplest explanation for this is that JKR didn't think about it. It doesn't make any sense. Punishment are there to keep people in line, and they lose potency if nobody is told about them. I also now will never consider Hermione the same after realizing the scars are permanent.

 

Well, Hermione could have easily triggered some sort of tongue tying curse in the event of a betrayal. There was no real reason for the curse to be have bad as it was.

 

But scars for the rest of her life? For snitching? I mean this takes 'snitches get stitches' to a whole new level, and personally I would much rather get beat up then have that scar.

 

And we all know that bitches never catch Snitches.

 

But do they get knishes?

-----

As for the discussion, let's not confuse Muggle morality with Wizarding morality. It seems they're more accepting of the dangers of magic all the way around. I'd argue that extends to dangers one can place another in for violating trust. Think of the goblins dropping someone in front of a dragon for wearing a disguise going to a vault. (unless that was only in the movies, it's been a long time since I read book 7).

 

Was just the movies.

 

The parchment was enchanted to scar the traitor until they felt remorse for their actions, therefore this is irrelevant, poor decision or not.

 

I agree with the OP. Hermione's objective was to cause permanent facial scarring and it was effective. No questions asked.

I think that it was deliberate to not mention the curse because it would have caused tension within the group due to the threat hanging over their heads . Maybe, it would have prevented new members from joining as well .

 

I think it's quite karmic.

Umbridge was permanently scarring students with the blood quill. People that collaborate with Umbridge get permanently scarred.

100% Fair. 100% Moral.

If Rowling has been writing a more gritty/realistic work, then 6th year would have seen massive retaliation against Umbridge and Fudge outside of Hogwarts, and Inquistorial Squad collaborations within.