Potential Ethics Within Harry Potter And Their Hypothetical Effects

So remember You Think You Know?

That's right, that big fuck-off piece of Harry Potter fanfic that I posted about a month ago and I doubt any of you read.

Well I'm going to pose some theories, and ask some questions, and if anybody wants to chip in with an informed/intelligent/doesn't-know-what-they're-talking-about-but-slightly-curious opinion then that would be greatly appreciated. To save you the trouble of reading it, I give you a basic synopsis.

Harry Potter and Co. won the war. Big surprise. At the end of the war Draco was still fighting for Voldemort. And if you read a lot of Harry Potter fanfic then that really should be a big surprise. Anyway, Draco spends much time angsting whilst in the custody of the Ministry and specifically the Weasleys.

What should happen to him? What kind of system would Dumbledore (plus Harry Potter and Co.) implement to deal with underage war criminals?

The wizarding world presented by J.K. Rowling is a curious one. On the one hand it is notably antiquated in comparison with our own (muggle) world. The school system, the mail, the clothing, banking and disastrously haphazard law-enforcement all point to a society firmly stuck in the past in many aspects. However, there are also frequent occasions where the up-beat modern nature of the wizarding world is sharply pointed out to readers. The parallels between attitudes towards quidditch and football are hardly subtle, the power, presentation and nature of the media is also easy to relate to. For me the most convincing example of Rowling's intention to enable us to identify the wizarding world as familiar to our own is the mostly bureaucratic nature of the Ministry. I believe Rowling has stated herself that the behaviour of the insufferable Professor Umbridge in Order of the Phoenix was a direct expression of her frustration over government interference in teaching.

She takes modern day people with modern day problems, relationships and interactions and places them in a world just antique enough for her to be able to utilise the elements of fantasy that make the Harry Potter books so appealing. She gains the aesthetics and storytelling potential of such a world whilst retaining characters and situations that readers will hopefully be able to relate to. The world by nature clings to the past, but the people advance relentlessly.

My question is, on the basis that wizarding society has progressed much along the same lines as muggle society, to what extent have the morals of both remained comparable? (And how would this affect the creation of a judiciary system?)

The fact that readers are supposedly sympathetic to so many of Rowling's characters would hopefully imply that readers are also sympathetic to their behaviour and ethics. It is difficult, for example, to create a character whose behaviour conflicts greatly with our own basic understanding of right and wrong whilst maintaining the character's overall integrity. In order to achieve the necessary degree of believability such characters must come attached with a comfortable sense of backstory, as is the case with Professor Snape. The underlying morals in the world of Harry Potter are reassuringly identical to our own at first glance. Bullying is bad, killing people is bad, controlling people against their will is bad, discriminating against people on the basis of birth is bad.

And yet the styled black-and-white conception of evil sharply contrasts with an adult view of the modern world. That can be worked around, the books were initially targetted at children and although that presentation is slightly patronising it is understandable. In attempting to consider the morals of an adult wizarding world, however, it is necessary to discard this view in favour of a more familiar array of grey areas. If not the the wizarding world is lost to a thoroughly archaic set of principles and thus all pretense of modern society must be abandoned. In the creation of a world otherwise ideal for storytelling and fanfic I do not believe this to be at all beneficial, and so it is the conception of evil that must be adapted for my purposes.

Another point of dissonance between the morals of the wizarding world and the muggle is brought up by Hermione and her failed (house-)Elf Liberation Front. This highlights the differences between the two very effectively; the complete lack of understanding on both sides and the lack of resolution to the situation helpfully illustrates that their must be some differences. The support for the wizarding equivalent of the death penalty, 'the Dementor's Kiss', also contrasts well with popular opinion from our society. This is perhaps more logical considering that the wizarding world has experienced a great deal of horrific war in its very recent history, but there are overtones throughout the books that leave me considering this explanation not entirely sufficent. My opinion is that the point stands, differences must exist. How deeply are these differences likely to run? What effects would they have in the handling of a post-war situation?

For the purposes of my fic I have the age of majority at 21. I have wands being snapped and preliminary hearings sending young offenders such as Draco to a hastily set up rehabilitative institution attached to Hogwarts and supervised by Dumbledore. Practical magic to be thoroughly prohibited, although continued education in subjects such as History of Magic to be encouraged. As a nod to Guatanamo Bay and to conveniently spin out the story setting, situation indefinite, pending trial.

What do you think? Opinions from all welcome, knowledge of actual law of epic value.