MetaFic

I think some of what you describe comes from how Jo wrote Harry's frame of mind near the end of OotP. "...it was still very hard to believe as he sat there [by the lake] that his life must include, or end in, murder..." Many fanfic authors took that as the launch point for their plot vectors. It was also the launch point for 'Harry is in even worse mental shape than after Cedric died' plots.

The problem, in my view, was the word vanquish. In this instance it was a very nebulous term. Another problem is how Jo framed the conflict. At the end of OotP everyone is discussing the "Second War" yet Jo treats it as a civil criminal issue. I always thought she wrote the Second War more like gang warfare. The Order and Death Eaters are analogous to the Montagues and Capulets with their skirmishes and the Ministry is in the position of the Duke of Verona. Except no Italian Renaissance Duke would ever survive ruling with THAT level of incompetence.

So the reader is left with a perception problem. Do the two sides count as actual legal combatants? If so the doctrine of in jus bello, the conduct of just war, applies. If not then both sides are illegal vigilante groups and the taking of a life is legally murder.

A part of me is rather please that Jo, and many of her readers, never needed to learn the difference. In a truly peaceful world such a topic would be esoteric enough that only a Hermione would bother to study it.

Thank you for pointing that out, I'd forgotten this.

She did write that being a Death Eater and participating in their activities were acts punishable by the Ministry. I'm not sure what that means for Harry though. But if someone were actively trying to kill you and in a confrontation with said person if you killed them wouldn't it be self defense not murder?

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read" Groucho Marks

This is a commonly held belief, but ultimately a gross oversimplification that's too often wrong to be useful. This position is not supported by the legal framework of the USA. I can't vouch for other locations.

The issue is very much context-dependent. How much of a genuine threat were you in, what alternate options did you have and attempt to use, and what was the mechanism that was employed to cause the loss of life?

As a trained martial artist of sufficient rank to matter, in some states I am legally considered a weapon. In one in particular, I am required to warn any would-be attacker three times that I am such before being allowed to strike back in any way that could be considered offensive. I think that's retarded, but I don't make the laws.

To put in simple terms, if someone attacks you and you feel your life is threatened, you may take measures to safeguard your life, but you may not take measures to threaten the other person's life unless there are dire circumstances present. If they are threatening you physically, your first legally accepted option is to leave while calling for the police. If they have a weapon in hand, you may use a weapon of equal -- but not higher -- danger level. If you elevate the seriousness of the conflict, then you are the one that winds up in more trouble at the end.

Example: idiot pulls knife, so you pull a gun. You're both going to jail, even if your owning a gun is legal and you have a permit. You elevated the level of conflict, because in the legal system, a knife is not as dangerous as a gun. Caveat Texas, in which case if the other party is having an affair with your life, you may do as you like.

Example: idiot pulls knife, you pick up a baseball bat. That's fair and you're okay pretty much everywhere, though you should expect to wind up in a jury trial.

Example: idiot is pummeling you with fists, so you pick up a stick. You're busted, because you elevated the level of the conflict -- unless you can show or prove that the person attacking you is trained in unarmed fighting such as boxing or martial arts or some such (see the above "I'm a martial artist!" silliness).

While these are amusing and interesting issues to explore, to bring it back to the Harry-Voldie dynamic, there are two components.

1) Voldie is not giving hugs and kisses, he is using the equivalent of a gun and is known to be a raging psychopath. So long as Harry is attacked first and cannot escape by other means, killing in self-defense is legally justifiable in every legal system I'm aware of.

2) The psychological impact of seriously hurting another, or taking a life, is not trivial. He would be rightly afraid to do any act that could lead to such, not out of fear of risking his own life but out of the damage he would do to himself by carrying it out successfully.

This is apropos of nothing, but I know that I am amongst friends when I see a discussion of jus in bello with regards to Harry Potter. A fine community, this is.

Perhaps it is because of my warped sense of humor but HOW Voldemort was vanquished made me laugh.

Jo has two quotes that preface the final book. Both are rather grim and my first impression was "Oh crap. This IS going to be bad." I also thought it interesting she quoted Aeschylus because the climactic scene reminded me of THIS Aeschylus quote:

Harry did not take his Voldemort's life, it was Voldemort's OWN Avada Kedavra that killed him. Now, think about "not by others' hand" and then think about how she worded the Prophecy.

Hmm...

Most of the stories I have seen where this is an issue have Harry thinking this. Often as not there are numerous other people trying to reassure him otherwise, either that it's self-defence or that it's more equivalent to putting down a rabid dog. Other times he is left to struggle with his own conscience, not a fight that's likely to end well either way.

I don't recall ever hearing anybody telling Harry "you can't kill Voldemort, that would be murder!" and I'm not sure who might ever consider saying such a thing.

The authors are the ones writing Harry's thoughts. The kind of angst I'm talking about is when Harry is upset and believes he must become a murderer and that no one will love him anymore once this happens. I am not dismissing this position, as Moshpit pointed out killing does have an undeniable emotional impact on the one who does it. Having raised farm animals for food I understand that killing is not as easy as it looks on TV - and I've only killed animals.

I'm actually wondering why so much attention seems to be given to this particular issue in the minds of fanfic authors, not the legality of it. Harry has never seemed to be the type of person who would get hung up in the legality of killing Voldemort. Rather he has often done what was illegal or at least against the rules if in the end it was intrinsically the right thing to do. So for Harry to get all emotionally caught up in the idea that he must murder Voldemort would seem to assume that Harry sees no fundamental difference between killing someone to save others from them and cold-blooded murder. Is this an artifice on the authors part, something they used just to have other characters argue with Harry and tell him it's not murder, etc... or is this something people actually believe?

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read" Groucho Marks

If you want to complicate things even more, you also have to consider the fact that the government was no long truly valid. You had Pius Thicknesse as Minister, yes, who was installed as a (literal, in the case of the Imperious Curse) puppet ruler. But Voldemort was the true authority, and the essential head of state. Harry, and anyone associated with the Order, would then be either considered criminals or revolutionaries. Therefore, Harry killing Voldemort isn't murder (if he was to kill him, rather than Voldemort killing himself) - it's revolution. Or possibly counter-revolution, as he sought the reestablishment of the previous civil government.

I agree with you. Also, I think assassination would be applicable in that context.

Also, I think what was up with Harry and this murdering things is like Draco and his task of killing Dumbledore. He may not like the guy but he can't bring himself to take a person's life.

Eh.. assassination's got a pretty negative connotation to it.

I do agree that the stories that have Harry agonizing over the task seem somewhat forced. If I was Harry and some whacked out wizard with the hybrid personality of Osama bin Laden and Charles Manson had killed my parents and was personally after me, I think I'd be okay with killing him right back.

(That does bring to mind that the Draco/Dumbledore thing really isn't quite the same. Dumbledore wouldn't kill Draco, after all.)