![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
I think that Dumbledore believed Snape's soul wouldn't be damaged by killing him, as it was a form of euthanasia, and Dumbledore was consenting to it. Whether this is actually true (meaning "true" within the context of the HP universe, of course) is another matter entirely. Dumbledore has been wrong before, and I find it a bit disturbing that he might be gambling with Snape's soul, even though I'm sure he doesn't see it that way.
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.
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.