ray245 wrote:I don't think sending Harry back into an emotionally abusive environment after Sirius died (an event Harry blamed himself for) and he dropped the prophecy on him was beneficial to Harry's mental health.
Where else do you want to sent him to? Unless Harry is living with Dumbledore, there not too many places that is safe for Harry.
Well, I would have expected him either staying at the castle with Dumbledore or with the Weasleys until the status of the wards at Grimmauld place could be ascertained. Or some random cottage in the country, really. There would be members of the order required to guard him either way. On further thought, sending Harry back after traumatic events without counseling into an environment without emotional support seems to be a recurring theme. First year he killed Quirrelmort in a quite gruesome way, second year the fight against the basilisk and Diary-Riddle (who appeared human enough to count as killing), fourth year Cedric's death and Voldemort's resurrection, fifth year Sirius and the ministry debacle, sixth year Dumbledore's death (Okay, that one return was Harry's own doing).
ray245 wrote: Well, it is quite possible that Dumbledore simply don't think that the Dursely's attitude and actions towards Harry counts as abuse, especially considering the environment he grew up in.
That's certainly possible, but in that case I wouldn't want such a person in charge of a whole school of children. Considering that Harry was forced to wear the extremely oversized hand-me-downs of Dudley despite the family being quite well off I wonder why no teacher or other person of authority made some inquiries. Although considering the shit people get away with in real life I can give that a pass without resorting to memory charms. Still, at least McGonagall who thought of them as "the worst kind of muggles" could have checked, or Remus for that matter.
The Romulan Republic wrote:Calanor, I really think you're being rediculous with the whole Dumbledore supports rape thing
As for Sirius, it is incredibly easy to explain why Dumbledore couldn't get Sirius free.
1. Did Sirius ever tell Dumbledore that he made Peter Secret Keeper? If not, Dumbledore had no reason not to believe he was a traitor.
2. Those who got off seem to have mostly done so by one of two means: claiming they were under the Imperious Curse, or switching sides and giving information on the Death Eaters. Sirius had no means of doing the latter, and as he committed his supposed murders after Voldemort's death, the Imperious Curse excuse would not hold up (since we have evidence of spells not surviving the death of the wizard who cast them).
3. Is there any evidence that Dumbledore was Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot at that time? In the trial memory scenes, it looks like Crouch is running the show. Maybe Dumbledore only got the position after Crouch lost support.
4. Sirius appeared to commit a mass murder in public in front of a lot of witnesses. The same is not nessissarily true for all those who got off.
5. Sirius was denied a trial by Crouch. Dumbledore is powerful, but I doubt even he had the clout to simply tell the Ministry what to do. In fact, we see very clearly during the series at various points that he does not have this power (Hagrid's arrest in book two, Buckbeak's execution in book three, pretty much everything Umbridge did). Yes, he got Snape off, but Snape had actually switched sides and helped Dumbledore. So Crouch would probably accept that as a reason to let him off, just as with Karkaroff. The same cannot be said of Sirius.
As far as Harry's home situation is concerned, I expect Dumbledore did know something of how miserable it was from Ms. Figg (and for that matter, he could have heard from Lilly what the Dursleys were like about magic), but what was he supposed to do? Harry needed the protection from being there. Sure, Dumbledore could threaten the Dursleys, but they had lots of wizards come and tell them to treat Harry better over the years. It doesn't seem to have made much of an impression. So what more could Dumbledore do, other than use magic (like an Imperious Curse) to force them to treat Harry well? Which would have been unethical.
I didn't mean to imply that he personally supports rape. It was meant as an exaggeration for his definition of love. If actions under duress or simply not joining a madman who is out for your blood count as love, what else does?
I don't require Dumbledore to simply free Sirius, just to make some inquiries that get the ball rolling. Like, actually talking with him one time and asking him why he did it. Or if he really was a Death Eater, what he might know about the Dark Lord's plans, other Death Eaters or the fate of some people that simply disappeared during the war.
1. Unfortunately unknown, as well as who actually cast the charm.
2. I doubt Voldemort personally cast the Imperius on each and every victim, and there were still dangerous Death Eaters running free that could have done it, like Bellatrix for example.
3. Unknown, but Crouch was only Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement at the time. We know that Millicent Bagnold was Minister of Magic, but not if Dumbledore was Chief Warlock. Conceded.
4. I don't have the books on hand to check, but I believe there was a case mentioned where a man under the Imperius killed his own family. On that count, can a secret keeper reveal the secret while he is under imperius? If he has one of those pieces of paper with the address on him certainly, but can he talk about it to others?
5. That is certainly true, but I wonder how much the situation in the books was a result of so many Death Eaters and Death Eater symphatizers allowed to run free and getting into positions of power over the years. It almost seems that Dumbledore literally can't do anything, his power and influence should have been much greater immediately at the end of the war. Especially because Crouch was out of power very quickly after his son's association with the Death Eaters and attack on the Longbottoms became public knowledge.
Concerning the wards, it's very unclear what actual protection they offered. Aside from the first book where his touch was deathly to the posessed Quirell, he didn't seem to be effectively protected in a personal sense. Quirrell could cast spells at him with abandon, and the Horcrux-Riddle likewise didn't seem to have any problems. Nor did any Death Eater, like Wormtail. It might be that only the Dursley house was effectively protected by the stationary wards, but how far did that protection extend? Could Snape as a marked Death Eater enter Privet Drive? Was he still protected at elementary school? Could a imperius'ed patsy enter, or somehow set fire to the house? I think mainly the fact that his location was unknown protected Harry in these early years.
Considering the usual prejudices against muggles I think it highly unlikely that the Dursleys would have gotten custody of a magical child if it had been up to the ministry.