Consider the following:

• Tom Riddle implicates Hagrid in his horcrux-murder of Moaning Myrtle; Hagrid is quickly dismissed from Hogwarts school.

• Lucius Malfoy escapes all punishment for being a Death Eater, while others go to Azkaban.

• Severus Snape escapes trial and punishment for being a Death Eater, on Dumbledore's say-so.

• Sirius Black is sent to Azkaban for the (false) murder of Peter Pettigrew...without any trial or investigation.

Why was there no objection to these travesties of Justice? No concern, or outrage?

What other examples of legal and moral injustice are we shown, and what does this tell us about Wizarding society and government (pre-DH and Voldemort's take-over of the Ministry)?

Did moral complacency assist in Voldmort's rise to power?

On the first one, while I agree that things should have been looked at more closely, Hagrid had an afinity for animals of lets say a dangerous nature. While I do not agree that h should have been dismissed on this evidence alone because there was no visible evindence to hoe Myrtle was murdered I can see how he may have been under suspicion. Or better yet one of the creatures he was responsibile for therefore still transferring the responsibility onto him.

As far as Lucious goes, yes it is a travesty, one that I may add resonoates in many a judical arena. It's called "He who has the most money has a better chance of buying their way out of trouble than one who doesn't." For a better example look back at Hagrid's case.

Severus was not imprisoned because of testimony given by DD to the Wizengamot. The Wizengamot made the final to decision not put Snape in prison. DD didn't tell anyone what to do but others made their decision based on his testimony as a key witness in Snapes defense. Much the same way I might remind you that he came to Harry's defense.

Sirius was framed by a lucky idiot. There really isn't much more than can be said than this. It was believed that he was the Potter's secret keeper. No on, but Sirius, Pettigrew, the Potters, and obviously LV knew who it really was. Sirius was the victim of unfortunate coincidance and circumstance. Wrong may it be it really wasn't anything more than that.

We see a Minister (Fudge) struggling to keep hold of his power by misusung his judicial power by dragging Harry in front of the entire Wizengamot. People were not speaking up because they were caught in a time when you could trust no one so you did trust no one.

I don't think a moral complacency allowed LV rise to power. And DD says it best. "Did I realize then I had just met the boy that would become the most evil Dark Wizard of all time?" (Or something to that effect) DD said no. Wizards may have magical powers, but they are still human and as humans they are flawed. They wil make errors in judgement just as we ordinary muggles do.

We do that Lucuis Malfoy goes to Azkaban, after the events that happen at the Ministry in OoTP. Admittedley, he doesn't spend much time there, and he was never imprisoned the first time round, but it is unaccurate to say he never goes.

I'd have to disagree with you here.
Complacency is more often than not the culprit behind a slew of existing dangers. The mere fact that Fudge, as Minister of Magic, led an all-out campaign against the truth of Voldemort's return tells us that wizarding society at best was complacent.

I'm not saying no one believed Voldemort was back, I'm saying no one bothered to find out whether or not it was true until it was too late. Dumbeldore meeting the boy Riddle in an orphanage years ago does not have anything to do with the complacency of society years later -- no one doubted Voldemort was pure evil -- they doubted that he was back.

As a result of wizarding society's refusal to dig a little deeper than the Daily Prophet's offerings -- and disregard the actual truth of the matter as ridiculous drivel -- a very powerfully evil wizard was allowed to rule for too long of a time, and he caused utter chaos and madness to everything and everyone.

Closing our eyes to the ugly truth is the reason why so much is amiss in the world. Not until the wizarding world found itself in dire circumstances, not until the 11th hour, did the majority of the community revolt against the forces of tyranny that had ripped their world to shreds.

It was almost too little, too late, and if not for the actions of a few, all would have been lost. Imagine the world if Voldemort had been left to rule....

Quite right, Professor. I should have been clearer on that point...I was referring to the trials of Death Eaters that occurred after LV's first demise. So then how should we analyze the discrepency in the Wizengamut's actions? Because the Ministry felt itself and its prestige threatened the second time? Because they were exposed as fools and naysayers when LV was himself seen at the break-in, and they needed a scapegoat? Lucius, after all, was still as rich and prominent as he'd been the first time round.

George Weasley's Girlfriend, you say: Sirius was framed by a lucky idiot. There really isn't much more than can be said than this. It was believed that he was the Potter's secret keeper. No on, but Sirius, Pettigrew, the Potters, and obviously LV knew who it really was. Sirius was the victim of unfortunate coincidance and circumstance. Wrong may it be it really wasn't anything more than that.


Sirius never received a trial or an investigation into the charges. He was sent away to Azkaban for life. "Unfortunate coincidence or circumstance" seems to me to be an understatement.

And I myself should have specified better. I meant his assent to power the first time. The second time it was harder because while not all of wizard kind wasn't being complacent a large portion of society was, helped along by people of authority. But it seems that that was mostly only for a few months. Then they heard Harry's side of the story and most people changed their minds. I have a question, how does one bring down the most powerful dark wizard of all time? Only DD knew of his Horcruxes and shared this informatio only with Harry. While others yes fought to try and keep him at bay DD didn't broadly share how to destroy him either. So what can be deemed as complacent for a short period of time can later be viewed as uneducated as to how to defeat him. As for it being the 11th hour. That is always when you discover how to defeat your enemy.

I agree the fact that there was no trial was a huge miscarriage of justice, but the circumstance Sirius found himself in that landed him there was unlucky coincidence. While DD was not MoM he was on the Wizengamot, yet there is no canon evidence to prove that DD did anything to try and defend him or see to it that he did get a trial. Sirius was known to be the Potters secret keeper not Pettigrew and no one could prove other wise. Yes he should of had a tria;l but al the evidence pointed towards Sirius and I doubt that the outcome for Sirius would have been any different.

Well we know that Sirius never received a trial because of Barty Crouch, and that him sending people to Azkaban without trial wasn't exactly uncommon, so maybe miscarriages of justices in this sense can be acclaimed to the incompentencey of one individual (in this crouch) as opposed to the MoM or the wizarding communit as a whole....?

(Emphasis mine)
Well, to be fair, the lack of action on the part of the wizarding world went on longer than a few months. Dumbledore announced to Fudge that Voldemort had returned at the end of Harry's fourth year. It took pretty much an entire hellish fifth year at Hogwarts before the majority of society was convinced they weren't getting the whole truth of the matter.

I'm not trying to lay blame here really -- it's a sad fact that people would rather not think about how bad things really are in the world. It was much easier for someone like Seamus' mother to tell herself that Dumbledore and Harry were mental and to trust in her government. I'm sure she learned a hard lesson from going that route.

As for stopping the greatest dark wizard of all time, Dumbledore also told Harry to share this information with Ron and Hermione -- and Harry figured out why toward the end of DH. He told Neville, in a roundabout way, what to do so that if he didn't make it, there would still be three people left who could unlock the key to defeating Voldemort.

Although the rest of society wasn't in on the secret, doesn't mean they couldn't have done anything within their power to help fight injustice. At the battle of Hogwarts, the families of most of the students, and many of the cast of characters throughout the story made a forceful showing to fight against Voldemort and his minions. But had Fudge heeded Dumbledore's warning, had he announced immediately upon Voldemort's return the truth to society, had they known what they were up against, they wouldn't have had to wait until the 11th hour to do something, anything, about it. They could have put pressure on Fudge to send an envoy to the giants, to take Azkaban out of the control of the dementors -- in short, any action toward fighting back would have been better than none at all.

It seems that the muggle judicial system is actually more advanced than the wizarding one.

Well, Hagrid is both a minor and there's only Riddle's word that what Hagrid had was Slytherin's monster. Not much happens to Hagrid. He's expelled for keeping a dangerous pet in the castle. (Perhaps prejudice figured into the judgement. But I don't know about that.) He is not barred from working at Hogwarts though, so we must assume that expulsion and a prohibition against using magic was the extent of his punishment.Well, Malfoy used the excuse that others did, that he'd been imperiused. It comes down to a question of direct evidence. And that would make me think that justic was being done.

Recall that in DH Muggle-born and half-blood witches and wizards were being convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. The pureblood laws are a travesty in the first place, but they don't even pretend to use the established legal procedures to enforce them.

QUOTE

Severus Snape escapes trial and punishment for being a Death Eater, on Dumbledore's say-so.

And why not? If Snape was acting as a double agent, what he did would be considered as part of an act of war. Black, of course, offers no defence. He remains silent. And there's a legal maxim that goes "Silence is consent." With the eyewitness testimony and the blood and finger of Pettigrew as evidence, only Black could provide testimony in his defence. And he chose not to.

I don't see how any of these four cases could have been dealt with differently. Justice is blind. And without evidence and without abrogating human rights, the verdicts in these cases could not have been different.

Thanks, davidenglish, for your challenging analysis.
It seems to me that what was taken was the easiest escape route possible...continuing to implicate Hagrid. They must not have had much direct evidence, and Hagrid protested his innocence, so in the end he was not charged with the murder, but found guilty and expelled on the lesser charge. How curious that magical forensics couldn't distinguish the cause of Myrtle's death, since no other cause was ever identified...does death by Acromantula look identical to death by Basilisk? I wonder if Dumbledore testified on Hagrid's behalf, if such character testimony was even considered.

The system failed Hagrid, who was innocent of Myrtle's death, and was targeted and exposed (keeping his spider pet) by the real killer. And I think the price he paid, loss of his magical education and career, was much too steep. How is justice served here except by contortion?


I suppose he'd have the Dark Mark on his arm and his wand could be examined, but it seems plausible to me that he either claimed Imperius as you say, or bought or influenced his way out, or both. I don't think we can say no direct evidence was available, only that if any made it into the courtroom, it didn't decide the verdict. The law may indeed be blind, but the legal system can be perverted and rigged, and death eater Lucius free and wielding power and influence, lovingly embraced by the Wizarding World that he terrorized, seems like perverted justice.

I'm not quibbling with Snape's guilt or innocence. But given the atrocities of the Death Eaters, an inquiry should at least have occurred, not just reliance on DD's assurances. And I can understand Dumbledore's wish to shield Snape from scrutiny against the chance that LV will return, but taken beside Sirius's summary judicial treatment, I proclaim slippery justice here.

But I believe Sirius was given no legal proceeding, so the maxim is moot unless applied within an established legal framework. As far as I remember, he was swept off to Azkaban while still in shock...unable to gather himself sufficiently to offer a denial. It seems to me the episode was extra-legal and unjust, and yet even Sirius's friends and people who knew him just accepted his guilt without demur or curiosity about what he might have to say if he were, say, allowed to defend himself in court.

*edited for clarity