Harry Potter

Harry also doesn't seem to actually learn that much in class, really.

I've definitely come across a few Harry Potter AU fanfics that manage to properly balance out making Harry more proactive and intelligent without being overpowered.

What are they and are they good?

Here's one of them. The premise of it is "Harry decides to send Christmas gifts to Dudley. This sets off a big chain of events that most notably include 1) Sirius breaking out of Azkaban a year early and 2) several sources of conflict between the trio being removed."

Edited by dmcreif on Dec 22nd 2020 at 10:20:16 AM

If there's one thing about the Harry Potter fandom that drives me nuts, it's the fandom's excuses against the use of veritaserum, pensieve, and legilimency in trials.

The few times we see the Wizengamot addressing criminal cases, they are shown to be horribly inept at best, to outright corrupt and vindictive at worst. The judges are stacked and biased, the defendants aren't given adequate counsel, standards of evidence do not exist, the defense doesn't appear to be given the opportunity to examine the witnesses, there is no such thing as due process, and the punishments doled out are disproportionately cruel and unusual by Muggle standards.

The world of Wizarding Law is so awful that during his hearing in Order of the Phoenix, Harry essentially receives the best possible legal counsel a person could possibly receive in the magical world (Dumbledore, who was once the rough equivalent of Chief Justice of the US Supreme court)...and he still barely managed to scrape by his trial despite a fact pattern that was clearly stacked in his favor.

Despite the Wizengamot's flaws, there are a few rather obvious fact-finding shortcuts available to the wizarding world that could easily solve many of the problems faced in wizard courts. The most common mechanics I see thrown around are Veritaserum (a magic truth serum), Pensieves (magical recording of a memory), and Legilimency (mind reading).

The Wizengamot does not use any of these resources. Instead, they appear to rely solely on witness testimony. The defense is never shown to submit any evidence of their own, instead being required to rely on evidence submitted by the state through the prosecution and (rather meager) investigation. Furthermore, the judge effectively takes the role of the prosecution—defendants are assumed guilty until proven innocent, and because the judge is the prosecutor, the court is anything but impartial. Ultimately, the prosecution gets to direct their witnesses and cross the defense's, but the defense is denied the ability to confront any witnesses directly. It is an absolute joke of a kangaroo court and a miscarriage of justice by the standards of even the most archaic modern Muggle justice system.

The addition of Veritaserum, Pensieves, and Legilimancy would not solve the Wizengamot's procedural failings, but they'd make fact finding far more reliable, and they remove much of the problems that plague Muggle trials due to the unreliability of non-magical evidence.

The main issue fandom likes to bring up to try to shoot down the introduction of magic-based evidence in trials is that it is "unreliable". Conveniently, opponents of Veritaserum and Pensieves always shut down any argument by claiming that Veritaserum can be fooled, and Pensieves can be altered. Everyone just parrots the exact same arguments regarding Pensieves and Veritaserum in particular without realizing that the most popular arguments don't actually make any sense when you think about it, and ignore the elephant in the room: that witness testimony is even less reliable than either of them. Guess what? People can lie and make up stuff during witness testimony. And it's much easier to make up a lie during testimony than it is to alter a Pensieve memory or to mentally train to resist Veritaserum.

"Pensieve can be fabricated?" It's ridiculous that people actually use this as a reason to never use Pensieves in court. Have wizards ever heard of concepts like discovery, and admitting relevant evidence and then settling questions of fact subsequently during trial? Do wizards seriously think that all exhibits have to be 100% clear of any doubt of authenticity to be admitted into court? Because if that was true, video and audio recordings would never get into muggle court (on the grounds that they can be faked). Photographs would never get into muggle court (on the grounds that they can be Photoshopped). Documents would never get into muggle court (on the grounds that they can be forged). Pensieves are no different than any other form of recorded evidence, and doubly so if the witness is available to testify about the memory's contents, and if fact finders and experts are available to examine the memory for its authenticity. Multiple corroborating Pensieve memories would paint an extremely convincing picture of the truth the vast majority of the time. In this regard, viewing a memory is absolutely more practical than hearing a witness try to recount an event from memory through witness testimony. A picture, or a video in this case is, after all, worth a thousand words. And it's much easier to mistake or fake testimony than it is to fake a memory magically extracted from your brain. As we see in Slughorn's memory, there are recognizable signs within a memory that it may or not be authentic. Authenticating a memory is a simple matter of calling an expert to the stand to analyze the evidence and determine if it is valid or not.

Veritaserum in particular would probably have a place in Wizarding law of replacing high-stakes depositions where the witness (or defendant) consents to its use. So what if people can resist Veritaserum? People can also lie under oath. And the presence of an antidote is trivial to test for before administering the potion, and the antidote doesn't last forever (the fact that Slughorn carries the antidote to Veritaserum on him at all times when at Hogwarts instead of just drinking a dose once a month or so implies that the antidote doesn't last any more than a few hours, maybe a few days tops)^note Of course, Rowling is admittedly inconsistent between how she portrays Veritaserum in the books, and how she explains it away in interviews and websites. In the books, it is generally explained and used as an extremely powerful and reasonably reliable truth serum. Conversely, Rowling's outside attempts to try to downplay its efficacy through content outside the written narrative are vague. It's still not clear how unreliable it is, but based on how it is described in the books, it would seem reasonable to regard it as much more reliable than a muggle lie detector.

Legilimency is a third tool available to wizards that appears to be fairly reliable, assuming that the caster is able to actually get into the target's mind. This appears to be limited because only a few very powerful characters are able to demonstrate proficiency in Legilimency. Occlumency appears to be based on hiding thoughts through mental discipline, rather than actively fabricating thoughts. However, Occlumency doesn't have to exercised. Just because someone is proficient in a skill doesn't mean they will always automatically use it.

Furthermore the issues with witnesses actively being able to resist both Veritaserum and Legilimency seems to require active effort. Sedating or subduing the witness before administering these techniques would likely remove most of the resistance, like preventing the wizard from casting a spell to turn the potion into water, or sealing their throat, or whatnot. The vast majority of these effects can also be avoided by simply stunning the person to be interviewed before they receive the potion, then wake him up and question him. This is exactly how Barty Crouch Jr. was interrogated in Goblet of Fire, and the information that he provided was completely accurate. Obviously, this measure might only be relevant in emergency cases, but it seems appropriate when the potential sentences include life imprisonment in a torturous mental hell, or getting the Dementor's Kiss. Like, seriously—it would be more humane to just administer the death penalty at that point.

TLDR: Veritaserum, Pensieve, and Legilimency are perfectly valid legal tools in wizarding courts, and the excuses that the fandom uses to deny their usefulness are just cop outs, possibly because most of the fandom doesn't have any sort of legal background to understand how criminal and civil courts work. They think that admitting something like a Pensieve memory into evidence is the same thing as accepting the memory as absolute truth at face value. Most people must not realize that courts can still figure out the authenticity of evidence after it is admitted as a separate matter. It feels like the majority of the fandom doesn't know how think critically about the concept.

I don’t think any aspect of the wizarding world, especially in Book 5, is meant to make sense as anything other than a device to emphasize Harry’s feeling of persecution and teenage ennui. OOFP lays on the YA fiction tropes on very, very hard. There are more meaningful ways to show a legal system’s failings than to make it obviously and ludicrously unjust.

It's scary that you ignore the moral issues with using veritaserum and legilimency without consent. Would they be useful? Sure but that doesn't make using them morally right. You're essentially taking control of someone's mind and body against their will which is the exact reason the imperius curse is illegal. Like every use we see for veritaserum is morally reprehensible even if the books refuse to acknowledge it as such. Sure someone could consent as a way to clear their name but even that's dubious because are they really consenting of their own will if they do so because they feel like they have to? Likewise, outside of Harry's lessons with Snape legilimency is treated as invasive and even then it's treated as violating. Which again brings up the question of whether or not you can actually consent to it.

As for pensieves...those are pretty much the only ones that can be agreed to without being dubious (Barring the use of good luck potion but all things considered the use of that to obtain consent seems unlikely.) and we don't actually know how reliable they are. Yes the books treat them an infallible but even outside of tampering with memories on purpose people are absolutely capable of misremembering things (Which would also make veritaserum and legilimency unreliable for that reason.). However your idea of checking out multiple people's memories to collaborate testimony does make them more reliable otherwise. Still, there's the issue of consent because, again, if they don't the only way to get those memories to look at is through force.

TLDR: Memories aren't infallible and the use of veritaserum and legilimency would be morally reprehensible at worst, questionable at best.

It's really screwed up how many ways wizards have for invading and messing with people's minds. How do they even trust each other after a while?

Edited by Blueace on Dec 22nd 2020 at 6:56:52 AM

Yes, people would need to consent, but I think voluntary use of Veritaserum could be very valuable. You’re not required to use it - but if it enables an innocent person with a poor case to go free rather than going to jail, that’s a good thing. It doesn’t remove free will, just the ability to lie.

The only case of Pensieve manipulation we’ve seen was very transparently done, so I think using Pensieves to give evidence would be a very good idea.

Legellimancy is not applicable to judicial settings because the thoughts are only seen by the person performing it, so that still leaves the question of whether the Legellimens is communicating what they see honestly. It doesn’t provide usable proof of anything, unless it’s being used pre-trial in criminal investigations to turn up new leads - and that, I agree, would be unethical.

Edited by Galadriel on Dec 22nd 2020 at 5:10:46 AM

The problem with an innocent person using Veritaserum voluntarily is that suddenly anyone who doesn't volunteer to use it looks incredibly guilty—which is especially bad because wizard trials seem to rely heavily on the opinion of the jury, who don't make much effort to remain objective.

Also, apparently Veritaserum is actually really tricky to make (you can only make a small amount once a month), which would make it difficult to use on any large scale.

The saving grace is that the invasive mind-reading stuff is really hard to do.

Legilimency is a very difficult ability to learn and master, and Veritaserum is extremely difficult to make.

The only easy mind manipulation spells are things like Love Potions, Memory Charms, and the Imperius Curse.

Edited by M84 on Dec 22nd 2020 at 10:30:11 PM

It's kind of scary alone how easy memory charms are to do, mind.

And Fred and George - well, just Fred now - sell love potions in retail to kids. Jeez.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Dec 22nd 2020 at 6:47:51 AM

For some weird reason the Wizarding World doesn't really seem to think love potions are particularly dangerous. Harry's pretty much the only one who thinks that love potions should be considered Dark Magic.

I don't recall him actually calling them Dark, but he was definitely worried about them more than anyone else. I can't remember if that started before he learned about Merope Gaunt raping Tom Riddle Senior, though.

Heck, even Harry mostly fears them because people keep scheming to use them on him.

In Chamber of Secrets, there was the bit at Lockhart's Valentines Day celebration where he was all but encouraging students to go to Snape for love potions.

"Why not ask Professor Snape to show you how to whip up a Love Potion! And while you're at it, Professor Flitwick knows more about Entrancing Enchantments than any wizard I've ever met, the sly old dog!"

Professor Flitwick buried his face in his hands. Snape was looking as though the first person to ask him for a Love Potion would be force-fed poison.

Then again, being dragged into Lockhart's nonsense by itself would be enough to get Snape really really angry.

Still, that's one thing about the books that aged really badly.

Love Potions are actually banned at Hogwarts - not that this stops some students from trying.

It's weird, because Rowling halfway acknowledged it. "The Big Bad is the result of Love Potion rape, and also someone tried to dose The Hero in a similar fashion." But then the other half had the stuff sold at joke shops and it's all treated as no big deal.

It might be Rowling's aversion to worldbuilding again, represented by Harry being horribly apathetic about asking questions. One fandom theory is that strong love potions are illegal, and the stuff Fred and George were selling was basically as effective as a glass of wine. But there's no detail, so it's impossible to say for sure.

If the one Ron got hit with came from the shop then that's quashed.

Though looking at the effect they had on Ron when he ate some chocolates spiked with Love Potion from their store, it's still kind of strong.

Yes, it was from their shop.

Edited by M84 on Dec 23rd 2020 at 12:21:30 AM

But that was stated repeatedly to be unusually strong because it was sitting out for months. So it's not indicative of how strong they are normally.

Looking at the wiki, there's apparently something called a Hate Potion too. Ironically, it's arguably more benign than the Love Potion. The Hate Potion doesn't actually cause you to hate someone - rather, it simply reveals the worst traits of the target to whoever drinks it. It's recommended use is to help get over unrequited infatuation.

Since the Weasley twins managed to make protective gear better than Ministry defence training for a joke (the Shield Hats), maybe they could handle the court reform. A pair of pants that catches fire (non-harmfully, presumably) if the wearer lies feels like something they'd come up with that works better than Ministry standard.

Creating a mind-reading article of clothing isn't unheard of - the Sorting Hat for example uses Legilimency to Sort students - but it'd be extremely difficult to do this for even one article of clothing, let alone mass producing it.