![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
My question this week has several parts-if Snape had lived, would Harry's testimony before the Wizengamot have exonerated Snape (as fanfic often attests)? Would he have ended up in Azkaban? Another commonly held belief before DH was that Dumbledore did ask Snape to kill him-did you find the explanation in DH satisfying? What are we to make of Dumbledore telling Snape it was he that would determine whether killing Dumbledore would split his soul? Does this endorse Euthanasia or is that not the point?
Please feel free to expand on this.
Please feel free to expand on this.
I was always partial to the idea that Snape killed Dumbledore on his own initiative, for strategic reasons, and that Dumbledore had told him previously that only Potter was indispensable in this war. So Dumbledore wouldn't really have arranged his own death, but would have consented to it indirectly. I was also convinced that Dumbledore kept Snape around because as a lonely Slytherin among a largely Gryffindor Order, he would be certain to choose his own life rather than to resort to useless and reckless self-sacrifice.
Not so. *sniff*
I think Harry-the-hero's statement (+ pressure from Harry's friends) in favour of Snape would have convinced the Wizengamot; but I am also certain that many people would have continued to have doubts. The ease with which people like McGonagall accepted Snape the Villain as truth still sits uneasily with me, and it's clearly not a good sign :/.
But I was disappointed that the killing was planned in advance. I would have preferred for it to have been Severus' painful choice as a result of his assessment of the potential consequences of either option because I wanted him to have been more in a position of control than Rowling let him. Because even without knowing about the pre-arranged death pact, killing Dumbledore was the choice that had the better chance than its alternative to lead to a positive outcome for the war effort in general. (BTW so many of those who before DH were sure Snape's killing of Dumbledore was the incontrovertible proof of his evil nature after DH started saying that any hesitation by Snape in executing the plan was a sign of cowardice. Yeah, sure.)
As for what would have happened at a trial - all depends on when such a trial would have been held, public opinion at the time, Harry's popularity, etc.
- Oryx
As I mention below, I don't think he and they would work very hard at it. I'm considering the reaction online of the Snape-haters, as well as Rowling's public comments and, as you point out, people like McGonagall. They never did like him, in some cases despised him, and now they have a reason to shut him up (both literally and figuratively).
Yes, I called it cowardly.
To truly choose for euthasia in case of a lethal affliction which would end in a truly painful or dehumanising death is okay with me. It takes courage to choose your own fate, after all.
If Dumbledore had openly asked Poppy and Snape for a 'kind death' if things would be unbearable I would be fine with it.
If Dumbledore and Snape had made a pact together that, when compromised, Snape would've killed Dumbledore as a strategic act to go deeper undercover, I would view it as an militairy act; unpleasant but necessary.
In both these cases Snape's 'soul' (if such a thing exists) would not be damaged. A gentle death on request can be an act of mercy or of love and an act of war in which one sacrifices himself so the other might further the cause can also be viewed as an act of love and sacrifice, not evil.
Dumbledore, however, does none of these things. Dumbledore asks Snape, who is unwilling and begs him to reconsider, to kill him so as to spare him possible humiliation and torture at the hands of Bellatrix and Fenrir. Nobody is to know, therefore Snape would be branded a murderer. He would be an outcast and a criminal in the eyes of his peers.
In short; Dumbledore asks Snape to perform a gruesome (for him) task, one Snape does not want to perform, one for which he will be vilified and spit upon and possibly killed for, for no other reason than to spare Dumbledore a bit of pain and a bit of humiliation at the hands of his enemies. Not for strategic gain, not for 'the greater good' but pure out of selfish reasons. Snape does not want to but Dumbledore bullies him into it.
So Snape is branded a murderer and Dumbles gets the over the top state funeral as the great hero of the age.
Dumbles is a SELFISH COWARD.
As for what this does to Snape's 'soul'; I don't believe in 'souls' as seperate entities from our physical bodies, but if one translates 'soul' into psyche, I would say that this damages Snape very much. Snape is already a deeply clinically depressed man (and every time it looks as if he might get better, Dumbledore is sure to kick him down into guiltridden depression again; won't do to have a psychiologically healthy Slytherin spy after all, he might not be that easily manipulated into sacrificing his own life) and killing Dumbledore dunks him deep into selfloathing again.
Even if the whole Order would've known in front that Snape had been ordered to kill Dumbles on his command, it would've damaged Snape to actually do it. Come on, the man has suffered for twenty years that somebody he cared about died when he, unadvertantly, told Voldemort about some vague prophesy. The guilt has eaten him alive, the flames of which were regularly fanned by Dumbledore (for the 'greater good' of course) and this man is asked to perform a 'mercy killing' or even a 'strategic killing'?
Bad move, Dumbles. Bad move.
But then, Dumbles isn't too careful with his toys.
I do think Dumbledore's true reasons were strategical and tactical, and he does allude to some of this in his conversation with Severus. He only demands that of Severus after the latter agrees he would be Voldemort's choice for headmaster and he woud look out for the safety of the students. IOW he certainly meant for Severus to gain favor with Voldemort through killing Dumbledore, and that should have been obvious to Severus. (What was not obvious was the whole Elder Wand set-up.)
If the 'abandoning duty' thing was a true reason for a headmaster's portrait not to appear upon his death then we know why anything that looked too much like suicide to the castle was out of the question. What would have happened to the grand plan without the portrait to order Severus about? After all Dumbledore left enough pieces to himself. (eg sword of Gryffindor)
As for souls - I don't believe in them either, but then I don't believe in magic and a whole lot of stuff that happens in the Potterverse. If in the Potterverse souls are like bits of cloth or flesh that ripped by certain acts, can be torn, split, what-not then that's yet another part of the Potterverse that has its own rules and does not necessarily reflect anything in the real world.
- Oryx
He may not have gotten off scott free though. I assume he'd be in Azkaban awaiting trial, do they do it that way? He may have still gotten off since JK wants it to seem like others did but his life would not have been easy, not many people would really consider him a friend after...maybe not even the Malfoy's, despite his keeping his vow to them.
-Satisfying? Eh, again like some other people said already, asking Snape to kill him because he was sick and dying is okay I suppose, and since he took the vow he pretty much had no choice. In the end he could have asked Poppy to kill him, or he could have killed himself. I know the public killing of him did deepen Severus's cover which was good, but there was no real way out of that situation. In 'real' life, had Severus lived, Sev would have gone to prison more than likely...just not in JK's world of letting people off the hook.
-I'm not so sure about the soul splitting thing, tons of people wandering around with split souls if that's the case. I don't think Sev enjoyed doing it at all and more than likely began to grow to hate him for making him do it, which may have made it easier for him to kill him. I think he began to see that he was being used and was not too pleased, but he probably did not want him dead despite that. He probably knew that was it for him as well, as I'm sure he'd rather die than go to Azkaban and killing DD would under normal circumstances earn him a one way ticket there.
-I don't think it endorses euthanasia really. Did he make the vow before DD asked him to kill him? I really can't remember...it seemed like DD was going to die one way or another, him be euthanized did offer a better explanation for those who thought Sev was nothing more than a cold blooded killer.
In the end I do think DD thought that since he was going to die anyway, it was best for Severus to do it, to "further" his cover and gain favor, and for that reason only I can't say he was 100% selfish.
He did do many other selfish things (the Elder-Wand being one...) but asking Severus to kill him was not exactly 100% selfish on his part since at that time it did help Severus to do so...but how could he think for one moment that Severus wouldn't have to either DIE in the end, or end up in Azkaban? Hence the not 100% selfish, but certainly 'some' selfishness there.
Did he really think Severus would never make it out alive, or was he just a pawn to be used and 'if he ends up in prison, well it was for a good cause so there' kind of of attitude?
The more I read the books and the more I hear people talk, I do start to like DD less and less...it seemed very convenient that the vow and his being cursed all happened at the same time. I just always wondered how he thought Severus would possibly get out of it alive, and out of prison.
I don't think we can take that as an indicator, frankly. Malfoy was rich, handsome, charming, and had beautiful manners when he chose to display them. Severus was poor, ugly and decidedly socially awkward. He's the kind of soul people like to just ignore if they can, and whom they wish would just go away.
Frankly, I think Dumbledore expected Severus to die, and did not give a second thought to what might happen to him if he survived. And I also think that, given Dumbledore's question about how many people Severus had watched die and his oft-demonstrated distaste and disdain for Severus, Dumbledore probably thought that if he survived, Severus should end up in Azkaban for life.
We saw, with Slughorn's altered memory in HBP, that it's more or less impossible to tamper with Pensieve memories without making it obvious that they had been tampered with. So the memories of Dumbledore's conversations with Severus, coupled with Harry's influence, would, I think, be more than sufficient to clear Severus of guilt--and perhaps even win him the long-coveted Order of Merlin, First Class.
By that point, however, I see him being so jaded to both sides in the battle that it would no longer mean all that much to him, and he would just want to get the hell away from Britain's Wizarding World and build a nice quiet life somewhere in the pursuit of his own happiness. What a concept. ;-)
As to the soul-splitting thing, I just thought Dumbledore was pointing out that mercy killing and "strategic" killing in battle (especially given the consent of the one being killed) were not morally the same as committing first-degree murder. Unless I'm missing something (possible; keeping track of the magical minutiae is not my forte) there is only one "killing curse" available, and that's the AK. Did Molly Weasley damage her soul by killing Bellatrix? Did other "good" people damage their souls by killing Death Eaters, et al, in battle? I would think the usual moral weighting applied to the act of taking a life (self-defense, euthanasia, etc., vs. cold-blooded murder of the innocent) would also apply to the use of the AK.
In any case, the fact that Severus so clearly did NOT want to kill Dumbledore would, to me, be a mitigating factor in any sould-damage he would risk in performing the act. Also, I don't think Severus' reluctance was only out of concern for ripping his own soul, but rather reflects what many others have pointed out, that he was not a killer by nature (unless you count houseflies) and found the act reprehensible, as well as reflecting that, at some level, he still cared about Dumbledore as a friend and/or mentor enough to be loath to inflict death upon him, despite the fact that he was already dying.
I don't think that follows at all. Dumbledore calls it "very crudely done", which implies that it's at least theoretically possible to do it much better. Thus, either Slughorn could not do better, or for some reason chose not to try. It is possible that it is very difficult to do any better and that you are correct (although I bet if anyone could do it, Severus could -- how well known is it that he's an adept Occlumens, anyway?), but that one example doesn't prove such a theory.
he would just want to get the hell away from Britain's Wizarding World and build a nice quiet life somewhere in the pursuit of his own happiness. What a concept. ;-)
Mmm! Dead horse paté! *gets a cracker*
(Sorry hon, jes bustin' yer chops. I'm not serious. I like it too. :) )
Honestly, as I mention above, I think Dumbledore expected him to die. And that if Severus did not die, Dumbledore would expect and think it fitting that Severus end up in Azkaban for life. Consider how even towards the end, Dumbles asked Severus how many people he had let die. And he made it clear in the talk about Draco and killing him that he considered Severus already so damaged, that there was no point in Dumbledore considering Severus' soul.
It's been pointed out, here and in other posts, that the Aurors and Order members have also killed in combat, and we don't know whether their souls were harmed by the act of killing. Like the issue of Snape killing Dumbledore, it's a very good question with no easy or clear answers.
Even if we give Dumbledore the benefit of the doubt and assume that Snape's soul wouldn't be torn by an act of assisted suicide, I still find it very disturbing that he apparently left no evidence to exonerate Snape after the war was over. Or if he did, he makes no mention of it to Harry in their posthumous chat in the King's Cross chapter. He hoped that Harry would survive, but he wasn't sure, and if Harry had died, there would have been no one left to speak for Snape. I've seen fanfic where Dumbledore left exonerating memory vials with Aberforth, or locked in a Gringotts vault to be released after Voldemort was defeated, but we have no indication that he made this kind of provision in canon.
Of course there was a high probability that Snape would not survive the war, but even so, I still think that someone with a sense of honor would want Snape to be be exonerated posthumously, so that people would know of his sacrifice and not revile his name for generations to come. On the other hand, leaving behind evidence raises the risk that it will be discovered and blow Snape's cover, so maybe Dumbledore felt that Snape being branded a traitor for eternity--and possibly being imprisoned or executed even if he managed to survive the war--was a sacrifice that had to be made for the "greater good". Or he just didn't give a damn about his Slytherin pawn.
(Bitter--who, me? Well, maybe just a tad...)
If Snape had survived in canon, I believe that Harry would have worked to make sure he was exonerated. The Ministry would be reluctant, but as the Savior of the Wizarding World, I think that Harry would have had enough clout to make them do it. However, I think that no matter what Harry said, many people would continue to view Snape with suspicion and think that like Malfoy after the first war, he managed to weasel his way out of a prison sentence with false protestations of innocence. Even if they did grudgingly accept that he'd been doing Dumbledore's bidding, I think that many of the Order members would never really forgive him for killing Dumbledore, or for the other actions he had to make when playing the role of Voldemort's servant. For example, I'm sure that Molly Weasley would never forgive him for maiming George, no matter what Harry said.
If Snape had survived, but Harry had died after defeating Voldemort, then I'm sure that the Ministry would not have exonerated Snape, even if Snape's or Dumbledore's memories had been presented to them as evidence. We were told in HBP that memories can be altered, and Snape's skill as Legilimens would be enough to raise suspicion--or at least provide the Ministry an excuse not to accept the memories as evidence. Slughorn's alterations were crude and obvious, but I think that a skilled wizard--like Snape--could do so in a less detectable manner. Even if someone like Hermione or Aberforth spoke up on Snape's behalf, I believe that their word would not have been enough. I believe that only Harry could have convinced, or rather forced, the Ministry to officially clear Snape's name.
Which would mean that any evidence that Dumbledore theoretically might have left behind would be useless unless Harry survived. But I still think that he should have made the effort to try to protect and exonerate the man who had served him so loyally and sacrificed so much.
I think Dumbledore would have thought it a fitting end for Severus---ending up in Azkaban if he survived. Looking back through the books, do we ever have any indication that Dumbledore thought Severus had "redeemed himself"? I think we have rather the opposite.
I do disagree with you about Harry, though. There is fanfic out there, that I find quite persuasive, positing that Harry was given evidence exonerating Severus and either hid or destroyed it. (See my comment below for why I find that believable).
I'd still call it a strategic decision, too, since by killing Dumbledore then and there himself, Severus could protect Draco and satisfy the vow. Dumbledore was doomed at that point anyway, if Draco hadn't killed him, one of the other DE would have. Only DE could get to the tower, after all, and no one knew that Dumbledore was there.
I also like to think that Severus saw the two brooms. He would have expected Harry to be there since he knew that Harry was up and about with Dumbledore, and he would have wanted to prevent Harry from doing something foolish. So yes, definitely a lot of deciding on Severus' part, and all very difficult decisions for himself, benefiting 'the greater good' in the end, and protecting the two boys he had promised to protect.
At that point, I don't think Severus cared much about a pardon from the Ministry. He didn't really expect to survive, I suppose.
And while I pointed out below that you can certainly kill with other spells than AK, Aurors did have permission to cast Unforgiveables, some of them do use Ak, and no one worries about their souls.
Just like a cop in our world might have to kill - that cop is unlikely to be unaffected by having to do so and is usually put into some kind of 'therapy' sessions regarding that shooting. And just like soldiers fighting in a war - it may be 'okay' and approved for them to shoot to kill, but having killed an actual human will change 'something' in them no matter how 'right' they believe they were in doing so. Think Post-Tramatic Stress after a war?
I think the key here is that the soul is said to be 'ripped' - not ripped apart. Part of the evil of the horcruxes is not JUST the killing, but the willingness to take that rip and enlarge it by ripping a piece of the soul off and taking it out of your body. Also, the idea that there is a way to heal the soul - fix the rip - suggests that another part of the evil lies in whether or not one fixes their soul.
Truthfully, I think one of the reasons Snape feels the need to bring up his soul's condition to Albus is because he has already suffered through years of a ripped soul over his part in the deaths of the Potters. I don't actually see Snape as having physically killed anyone before Albus, but the anguish of his own feelings seem to me to indicate a ripped soul.
One that we watch rip again as he tries to flee Hogwarts. In some ways I think that's why he was so enraged over the 'coward' comment. It had taken him years to come to terms with Lily's death (and his own part in it) and while his soul wasn't left whole and unscarred, he was 'functioning' with a 'mended' (not 'healed') soul - something that I see as having taken him a long time to accomplish - only to be asked to not only knowingly plan to rip it apart again, but to do so when he knows he might die relatively soon afterwards. The big question would then be whether a ripped soul might affect your afterlife.
Bad enough to be asked to be willing to die for the cause, but if one is worried that a damaged soul might affect what happens to you for eternity? -- Hwyla
If Harry had died, would Snape's memories be enough to exonerate him? Well, first you'd have to get his permission to use them as evidence. Good luck with that. I don't think their authenticity could be denied, though. Slughorn's fake wouldn't have fooled a child, and he's a skillful, experienced wizard. A really brilliant faker could maybe do better, but not a whole lot better. They'd still look like cheap F/X. Unfortunately, I suspect with Harry gone it'd be a kangaroo court. The public would be out for blood, half the WW wanting Snape punished for being a top-ranking DE and the other half for killing Dumbledore. The Ministry would make him a scapegoat, never mind what his memories said.
The killing of Dumbledore doesn't seem precisely like euthanasia to me. There's a war on, and he's a war leader ordering a subordinate to kill him for tactical reasons (the Elder Wand) which he's careful not to reveal. It was pretty much what I'd expected, only with an extra layer of heartless deviousness.
What about Snape's soul? "You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation," says Dumbledore. (I think he means literal magical harm, not psychological trauma. Psychology in the WW is so far behind the Muggle world that when they make a breakthrough in the field it'll be the four humors theory.) He seems to be implying that a killer's soul would remain whole provided their intent is good. But in that case, why not say simply "I don't believe your soul will be damaged by helping me"? Going on form, he actually has no idea what will happen to Snape's soul, but he's damn sure not going to admit any responsibility. Or maybe he means that only Snape can know to what extent his soul is already tainted and thus would be further harmed by using the Killing Curse. Note that he also says Draco's soul is "not yet so damaged" (my emphasis), suggesting it's been dented some by the murder attempts. Slytherins have to be careful. They don't get issued patented nonstick souls like the Gryffindors, who can cast Unforgivables like confetti.
-L
ROFL!
I don't think the Avada Kadavra takes anything more than true intent. Hatred isn't necessary. That said, I still think what Dumbledore asks of Snape is really highly unethical -- and I don't mean the euthanasia part. The way I read it, Dumbledore's primary reason in wanting Snape to kill him is to keep anyone else from gaining mastery of the Elder Wand. But (all questions of informing Snape about the wand aside), it is terrible to ask Snape to commit what will surely be seen as murder by the rest of the world, place himself at the same risk Dumbledore claims to want to avoid (a painful and humiliating death), and go against Snape's own personal desires and ethics, without Dumbledore being honest with Snape about the *real* reason for his request.
I agree with Dumbledore that Snape wouldn't be harming his soul to do this. I think Dumbledore's comment about Snape being the only one to really know if it would harm his soul, being in regards to Snape's *intent*. That is, if Snape agreed to kill Dumbledore, only Snape would know his own inner motivations and therefore the damage that such an act would or wouldn't do to his soul.
But Dumbledore plays on Snape's care for him, his being willing to put himself in jeopardy in order to help Dumbledore, and Dumbledore uses those admirable qualities and lies about the reasons to kill him in order to get Snape to agree.
If Snape had lived, what would have happened? I don't think he'd have gotten off without time in Azkaban. Too many people would have considered his year as Headmaster of Hogwarts as a time when he, everyone would assume, allowed the Carrows to torture students. Many family members would have strong feelings about that and wouldn't see the fact that some kids got lesser punishments because Snape tried to protect where he could as evidence that Snape was doing all he could.
So even though Harry's testimony, and perhaps pensieve memories could have got Snape off for the murder of Dumbledore, I think it would be unlikely that he'd be pardoned completely. I wouldn't think he'd go to Azkaban for life, but I do think he'd spend some time there.
Sure, Harry as Hero would give evidence about Snape the Spy, but that doesn't absolve Snape the Headmaster. Besides, Snape wasn't a spy for the Ministry, but for a secret, somewhat renegade group.
And we've already got examples, with Sirius and Hagrid, of the Ministry quite willing to throw someone in prison without trial. So Snape might never even make it to trial. Rita's supposed book that JKR speaks of, with the "saint or sinner" kind of title, suggests that public opinion of Snape would be quite divided, so I don't see some groundswell of public feeling to keep him out of prison, regardless what Harry might say.
At the least, I'd think he'd become a sort of pariah to many in the Wizarding World. I don't think he'd be able to stay on at Hogwarts, even if he wanted to. And I'd guess that finding employment would be difficult in the British Wizarding World.
And, speaking of damage, I, too, heard a plea from Severus in that cry of "My soul?" He was saying very clearly that he wanted Dumbledore to acknowledge HIS value and a human being (and foster son) , and that he most emphatically did not want to kill Dumbledore. I do not think the Killing Curse he had to perform would have damaged Severus's soul greatly, because he is in essence a loving person and never stopped loving Dumbledore, IMO, even while he hated him, too. But it would certainly have caused him psychological pain - and this is a young man who is already in constant torment. It was cruel of Dumbledore to require it of him, even without all that elder wand nonsense.
I do think it is nearly impossible to fake Pensieve evidence, and that Severus would have been exonerated had he gotten a fair trial. But would he have gotten a fair trial? That's the question.
I do agree with those who think that Dumbledore really did not care one way or another about Severus as a person, rather than a tool.
I am astounded that people would claim Severus' hesitation to actually kill Dumbledore is evidence that Severus is a coward. And probably the thing the bothers me the most in the end about these books is that they glorify death, suicide, and true cowardice as demonstrated by Rowling's Gryffindor heroes. We have Dumbledore begging for Severus to kill him, and I do think it was partly because he was afraid to suffer, in addition to gaining a strategic advantage.
Dumbledore made it very clear to Harry throughout the series that brave people should want to die with all that talk about death being the next great adventure. From the beginning, we see Dumbledore manipulating Harry into embracing an assisted suicide, and we have Harry marching off to die. Harry did not march off to defeat Voldy; he marched off to *die*, with the assurances from his family that death was good. Both of those are supposed to be brave? In my eyes, both of them took the easy way out. Because while it is foolish to fear death to extremes, it is also a grave insult to life (and in my world view, to the source of life) to devalue and throw it away.
My primary difference with most here, it seems, is that I don't think Harry would try very hard to exonerate Severus. Keep in mind Rowling's statements. It was not until she was pushed very hard that she finally said Harry would work on "getting him" a portrait, but she hastened to add that Harry would not go talk to it. And even in the epilogue, Harry did not seem to me to be all that enamoured of Severus. We've talked about this before, but my position is that he damned him with faint praise. The only good thing Harry could think to say was that Severus was really brave and even then, Harry had to add a "probably" qualifier to it. And of course, we have the fact that nobody bothered to look for the body.
Finally, consider how much Harry blamed Severus for Sirius' death, Remus losing his job, etc. Harry is not the kind of person who could just put that aside. And to think that Harry was going to sit down and reevaluate everything that Severus did, honestly, I think gives him way too much credit for reflection and independent, critical thought. Just look at the author and number of fans out there who insist that Severus was not a good person because he did not "like" Harry and/or was not "nice" to him.
So yes, I think Severus would have ended up in Azkaban after Harry gave a lukewarm presentation of the pensieve evidence. My indecision is on how long the sentence would be. I expect the original sentence would be for life, and then at some point down the road, there would be an application for clemency. Perhaps. If any of the Gryffindors could bother putting aside the hatred they were still clinging to in the epilogue. Who, bitter....me? ;-)
Yes, and I think Harry would have made the effort to present as powerful evidence and testimony as he could, because I think he's essentially a good person *ducks rotten tomatoes, :)*. Good, not perfect. He's full of flaws, but he tries to do the right thing by his own lights.
I like the kid but, like many people, don't like seeing him use Unforgivable Curses. But that's more a divergence of my opinion from the author's as to what Unforgivables should have been. I always viewed them as, well, unforgivable. But JKR seems to have looked upon them more situationally. The context and the caster's intent counted for a lot, it would appear.
Would Snape go to Azkaban? I hope the Wizengamot would treat him leniently--maybe a short term, a suspended sentence, probation, something like that. I don't know that they'd let him off scot-free. He did allow the torture of children under his tenure at Hogwarts, after all. But I can certainly see the authorities allowing for some obviously extenuating circumstances.
What are we to make of Dumbledore telling Snape it was he that would determine whether killing Dumbledore would split his soul? Does this endorse Euthanasia or is that not the point?
I think that this is Dumbledore telling Snape that his soul and life (like everyone's) is in his own hands, that neither Dumbledore, nor the Killing Curse, nor any other outside person or influence can either save or damn Snape.
Euthanasia isn't the point. Dumbledore's comment about saving an old man pain and humiliation, though it certainly has an element of truth and might contain an element of pleading, is another one of Dumbledore's ironic, self-deprecating comments. These comments don't always come across as JKR might have wished them to, I'd be the first to admit. But Dumbledore is another favorite of mine *ducks again*, another who is complex, incredibly flawed but doing what he thinks is right as far as he can see what's right. I don't think he's looking for an easy way out. He can endure suffering. He's taken a lot already by this point in the story. He's trying to secure the Elder Wand with his death, save Draco's soul and establish Snape firmly in Voldemort's favor.
That doesn't mean that he's being particularly kind to Snape or making things easy for him. But by the end of HBP and through DH, Snape's tough enough--courageous enough--not to need people to be nice to him.
No reason to duck; most people agree with you. ;-) And I agree, he tries to do the right thing by his own lights. It's the last phrase that is the stinker, though. Rowling repeatedly praises courage, but it appears from the text (and comments) that the courage she values is physical courage. Thus, we see Harry, Ron and Hermione all being exceptionally physically brave.
When it comes to the earlier generations showing courage, we see all the Gryffindors (except the Marauders), and most of the other characters, demonstrate physical courage. We see James Potter and Sirius Black show remarkable physical cowardice, needing each other and two backups (or one backup and one lookout, if you prefer) to torment a scrawny kid their own age.
The thing is, though, that there is also moral courage. We see Hermione make the effort, only to give up as she is shouted down, both literally and figuratively. We see Neville and Luna display moral courage in spades. McGonagall and Lupin each demonstrate moral cowardice (or bankruptcy, take your pick). Sirius Black appears completely amoral in his self-centeredness.
Finally, we don't see either Harry or Ron demonstrate moral courage, which is Harry would need to put aside his hatred of Severus and take on the Wizangamot, etc., to support Severus. And Rowling simply does not show Harry ever demonstrate any moral courage. Even in the epilogue, when it would have been a fairly simple thing, Harry demonstrates either moral courage or bankruptcy, again take your pick.
Is that Harry's "fault"? No, not entirely. To some extent, it lies directly at the feet of Dumbledore and McGonagall. Severus and Hermione appear to be the only people who ever even tried to make Harry aware of the need for moral courage. And both of them went about it in very poor ways---Hermione, because she was just a child herself; and Severus, because he was so emotionally immature and psychologically damaged. And the result was the buildup of such emnity that it is simply not realistic to expect fighting the Wizarding World for Severus from the Harry who clung to his hatreds (and was encouraged to do so---remember Dumbledore's teaching him that his ability to love was proven by his intention to kill?).
by the end of HBP and through DH, Snape's tough enough--courageous enough--not to need people to be nice to him.
Yes, certainly. But is it not the ultimate indictment of Dumbledore and his sycophants that Severus is in that position? And that he *never* received a welcome from the "light" side, even as an 11-year old student?
Personally I find Dumbledore’ explanation in DH highly unsatisfying.
I don’t think that Dumbledore’ request may be seen as euthanasia. Because euthanasia could be done as simple and quick private death but not in such horrible circumstances. Merciful killing do not harm the one who does the act – as Dumbledore’ lack of explanation harmed Severus. Merciful killing must be free given, not forced onto the person by stirring old guilt and adding new, it must not ruined reputation just because Albus Dumbledore doesn’t want to become a toy for Bella and Fenrir. Albus’ reluctance to suffer the consequences of his own arrogance and stupidity must not cost Severus Snape his reputation and life. Albus asked absolutely innocent in this matter man to take a guilt for his, Albus’ crime.
I completely agree with smallpotato that Albus acted as selfish coward in that regard.
But of course, there were also other aspects of plan.
And just as bohemianspirit indicated - the fact that Severus so clearly did NOT want to kill Dumbledore and found the act repulsive, to me, is a most important mitigating factor in any soul-damage he would risk in performing the act. And Albus really manipulated unwilling person into this horror – and did not gave a damn about Severus’ reluctance and repulse and clear indication that Severus himself is trying not to inflict damage on anybody if he can help it.
And if we try to see this as strategic decision we must remember that strategic decision must consider the long-term plans. Severus was not only to kill Albus right before Draco’ eyes, but in some way he himself must ensure that he will live long enough to complete all tasks that manipulative headmaster piled onto him. But there were so many and with no help whatsoever – and that makes me believe that Dumbledore cared very little about Severus’ life, safety or reputation. I think Albus’ actions are disgusting and absolutely unethical.
Aside from this horrible task Severus had several others – to somehow find Potter and had him know that he, Harry, must die – and on his free will too; to keep Hogwarts and students as safe as possible – not to mention that pretty everybody at that moment would hate him with passion; see to that that Voldy would not got Elder wand and then somehow give it to Potter.
In the end his completing the task was the sign of real heroism and selflessness that stayed very much unnoticed.
But thus Albus once again proved that he does not give a damn about anybody but himself.
I also completely agree with wynnleaf that Albus understood Voldy’ longing for Elder wand and that he included Severus’ owning it in his plan. And thus Albus Dumbledor committed cold-blooded murder. That’s why he didn’t consider Severus feelings about his horrible demand. That’s why he didn’t bother to prove Severus’ innocence – and he had the means, even after his death – and left it to Harry.
Considering the possibility of Harry giving evidence about Snape’ spying, I don’t think that that would absolve Snape’ action whatsoever. Because of Harry’s actions during entire saga I didn’t see Harry as free-minded, constructive-thinking person. Being manipulated all his life the poor lad just doesn’t know how to think independently. And it shows in his rigid attitude towards slytherins and toward Snape’s memory. And Albus Dumbledore, who destroyed Harry’ own childhood and pretty much destroyed Severus, is still honored and loved. No, I think should Snape live, it would be sentence for life for him.
But all this only proves that Severus really is the true hero of this saga. And I find it especially significant that so-called “evil Death Eather” Snape shows far more true human emotions about Harry’ sacrifice, about killing and about justice than oh so mighty Albus Dumbledore.