Timeline for Is it illegal to create a Horcrux?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 9:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 23:06 | vote | accept | Möoz | ||
| Jan 20, 2017 at 15:52 | comment | added | Oskuro | I was thinking about means by which a horcrux could be created legally, but the devil is in the details, namely in that what the horcrux needs is a splintered soul, and that is caused by murder, not by killing. Killing someone in self defense, or maybe executing someone for their crimes, or killing them out of mercy (like Snape did) or even accidentally wouldn't be murders per se, as there would be no true intention to murder and wouldn't fracture the soul. As such, with no way to divorce the creation of the item from the crime, it would remain strictly ilegal. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 3:34 | comment | added | BolteAltamont | There is no canon evidence that all Dark Magic is illegal. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, what with Durmstrang having classes that teach the Dark Arts and Knockturn Alley shops displaying Dark artefacts in their windows. See here for further discussion: harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Arts#The_Dark_Arts_and_the_law | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 7:40 | history | edited | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Oct 27, 2015 at 7:25 | comment | added | BMWurm | @JaneS Exactly, the malicious intent would be the point, I think. Arguably Harry never killed anyone ... (scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/65440/…) | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 5:58 | comment | added | Prakhar Londhe | @JaneS Well In my view Technically The Elder wand killed Voldemort because his curse backfired since it was cast by Elder Wand which wouldn't kill its own Master (Harry). | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 22:55 | comment | added | alexwlchan | @Lexible I’m not suggesting that’s the actual wording of the law, or the only law involved, just that you’re unlikely to find a law specifically outlawing horcruxes. Dark wizards are inventive, and you need scope for punishing dark acts you haven’t thought of yet. A blanket ban on dark magic – in addition to more specific laws about crimes like murder, assault, kidnapping – gives you wriggle room when something like horcruxes show up. | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 22:30 | comment | added | Lexible | @alexwlchan I appreciate your consideration and work, but I don’t think you’d find a law saying “thou shalt not create horcruxes”, more “thou shalt not practice dark magic”, is still, to my my mind, quite unrealistic. (A) It treats all dark arts as equal before the eyes of the law (e.g. legilimency = as illegal as aveda kevadra = as illegal as making horcruxes… the fact that in Rowling horcruxes are buried secrets, whereas aveda kedavra is front page news would seem to belie that), & (B) actual criminal codes do not aim at simpler (i.e. they do not get by on Thou shalt not be bad. Done!) | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 21:32 | comment | added | Jane S | spoiler alert Technically Harry killed Voldemort at the end of the Deathly Hallows. It didn't seem to tear his soul apart. I would suggest that it must be premeditated murder, not self defence. | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 21:14 | comment | added | alexwlchan | @Hypnosifl I don’t think it’s clarified. If killing another person – in any fashion – splits the soul, then a battle would fit the bill. But does it still qualify if it’s killing in self-defence, or without premeditated intent? I really don‘t know. :-/ | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 21:06 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | Would killing in battle still be a potential way of making a horcrux? It's not clear from that quote. Even though the good guys are forbidden from using Avada Kedavra, and they are usually shown using non-lethal spells like stupefy in battle scenes, we do have the example of Molly killing Bellatrix (speculated here to be by a spell that stopped her heart, different from Avada Kedavra). If a wizard went into battle knowing they might have to kill, and they figured "if I have to do it anyway I might as well make a horcrux", would that be illegal? | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 20:53 | history | edited | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 258 characters in body
|
| Oct 25, 2015 at 20:46 | comment | added | alexwlchan | @Lexible I’ve tried to tweak the answer to de-emphasise the murder aspect. I think the point about rarity still holds – assault and battery is a fairly common and well-known crime, whereas horcruxes are astonishingly rare and poorly known. | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 20:42 | history | edited | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 94 characters in body
|
| Oct 25, 2015 at 19:44 | comment | added | Lexible | -1 This answer misses @AnthonyGrist's excellent point in comments that making a Horcrux many itself present a crime beyond that of the murder. An example from US law (not sure if UK law works the same) are assault & battery: battery (generally unlawful and malicious physical contact with another's body) requires that assault (generally the credible threat of unlawful and malicious physical contact) also took place. So one can be prosecuted for assault, or for assault and battery. Can one be prosecuted for murder and horcruxiteering? | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 10:34 | history | edited | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 43 characters in body
|
| Oct 25, 2015 at 9:19 | history | answered | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |