It's a pretty obvious retcon to get her own ass out of the fire. The only actual "workaround" is Occlumency, the rest are easily defeated by anybody with half a brain.

You know, by knocking a person unconscious and forcing the potion down their throat. Or by injecting it into their bloodstream. Or whatever.

 

Okay, here's a pet peeve, and one that continues to irk me as I work on my projects - namely, both in canon and in fanon, why the fuck don't the Death Eaters have lawyers?

Let's run through this - we have, from Scrimgeour in DH, some business/organization affiliated with Magical Law. Whether it's directly tied to the Wizengamot or something, I don't know, but the point is that it exists. In the case of the law, it would naturally follow that there be prosecuting bodies (which, if the Pensieve memories hold true, include the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement). And if even if we follow that wizarding society is a little backwards, there have been defence lawyers in some capacity since the inception of a court system. I can't possibly believe that the only people who are allowed to present a case for a defence are the defendant, as it seemed in the Death Eater trials.

Granted, Dumbledore stepped in to save Harry in OOTP, but most of the arguments that he made could have been made by a fully staffed and equipped legal professional, who probably would have called Fudge on his clear witness intimidation tactics - and while I get Rowling was trying to make a broader symbolic point, having Fudge on the jury and act as clearly biased as he was acts as something of a conflict of interests.

But coming back to the First War, while I can accept the 'jail without trial' thing that happened with Sirius (hell, in the States it looks like you're getting some variant of that already), you have to think that if the Lestranges were given a trial - even if it was something of a sham - Rodolphus and Bellatrix would have brought some of their not-inconsiderable money to bear on this case and hired a good lawyer, if only on Lucius' advice. Even if Crouch was going to toss them in prison anyway, if he was such a stiff on following rules, he should have ensured the defendants had appropriate representation, if only to lend greater weight to his verdict (analogous to the Allies providing lawyers for captured Nazis with the Nuremberg Trials).

I don't know, maybe this is just me wishing for some additional realism in a setting where Rowling primarily was telling a story with metaphor, but I just think the inclusion of lawyers and the keeping of the Wizengamot as a judiciary would have supported her overall themes much better. As it is, it makes every trial in the HPverse appear as either wholly corrupt or run by a lynch mob.

 

I'm guessing that the only reason Rowling would have denied Sirius a trial, would be to show the massive public outcry, and perhaps Bellatrix and Rodolphus weren't actually picked up at the scene of a crime, with witnesses to the crime itself, whereas Sirius was shown to have blown up the street, and killed Pettigrew.

I reckon the lack of a trial would just be because he was the person that betrayed The-Boy-Who-Lived, and his family.

 

Lawyers are something that I've seen a lot in fanfiction, usually when Hermione becomes one. However in canon it might be possible to put their absence down to the low population numbers. It would be difficult to get enough people qualified for such a specialised, yet non-vital job. Also with all the purebloods interrelated there'd be constant conflicts of interest.

 

Are we taking 'word of God' seriously now?

 

But the problem is that if someone was to take the potion and subvert is, their testimony would be much more likely to be accepted. Same with someone getting their memories altered and actually believing what they're saying. So I guess they don't want to take the risk. I guess it's like the lie detector thing, we trust things like that more, but they can be unreliable so we think it's better to not expose the jury to them at all.

 

Well yes, especially when it makes sense. JKR goes to a huge deal of trouble to show that no magic is infallible. The Killing Curse? Harry survives it. Harry's protection? Voldemort overcomes it. Voldemort's Horcruxes? They're destroyed. The Elder Wand? Harry (theoretically) undermines it's power. The Goblet of Fire? Crouch beats it.

Almost every piece of magic we're introduced to in the books has a counter and quite often that counter has a counter of its own.

 

The way I see it--and mind you this could be as terribly wrong as anything else--is that wizards have a distinctively medieval take on social issues, though there's an obvious Muggle influence that keeps them more civilized than their dragon slaying counterparts.

Snape bullies all his students like a supervillain, but that wouldn't be accepted in today's society because of how seriously we take bullying now. Then again, we did accept that sort of bullying from teachers for years. So it's not too much of a stretch to assume that wizard culture just thinks that teachers like that are fine, even if they are jackasses.

In the same vein, I always assumed that canon followed a bizarre mixture of good old fashioned monarchy and a modern republic. Like, the government is somewhat democratic but it is just as absolute as the old monarchies from back then. If the people assigned by the monarchy-republic say you are a witch, and you weigh the same as a duck, to Azkaban with you.

So to sum up I just sort of figured it was a strange social mixture that resulted in people just not being keen on the idea of lawsuits. I just don't see lawyers as compatible with the culture presented in the books. Mind you, I never gave the issue any serious thought so I assume there must be a ridiculous amount of contradictions to what I just proposed.

 

Wizards have had female leaders for at least 300 years or so... so I don't think it's fair to say that wizarding society is stuck in the Muggle past. Rather, it has followed a completely separate path of development, which has led to some parts of society that seem conservative by modern standards (e.g. importance of family name/heritage) and some liberalities which massively predate modern Muggle society (e.g. gender equality).

 

Works for me.

It just seems incredibly convenient that JKR came up with with these counters for veritaserum after people started pointing out the stupidity of not using it to solve a number of issues.

 

As I've been doing a shit load of research for one of my fics, it has come to my notice that Wizard Society (canon wise) is largely comparable to the ancient Celts in their beliefs of family, heritage, and the role that a woman can take, if she wishes to claim a spot of power amongst the men (as well as many other things). So it isn't so much that wizards haven't developed over the last 300 years - since the Statute of Secrecy took effect. It is more that they have developed separately from thousands upon thousands of years ago. They've been pulling away from Muggle Society ever since the Romans first began invading the British Isles.

Taure has it right. While their development has led to some parts of a society that seem conservative by modern standards and whatnot, they have developed over time in their own right. They've progressed forward, but have retained their past, their true origins.

I'm not sure how Celtic trials commenced, but it could be argued that their trials were similar to the way the Wizengamot works. Perhaps, the defendant traditionally defended themselves.

 

Perhaps she simply assumed that the readers would understand that Veritaserum wasn't an infallible tool and didn't feel a need to mention that it could be countered.

 

She certainly could have pointed out the issues, in story. Preferably, before she got called on it.

 

Except she was writing a story, not an essay.

 

Yes, it is strange that so many fics turn chicks into nothing more than bullied brood mares. Being able to blast someone with a magic wand should be a great equalizer on top of cultural mores allowing for gender equality.

 

Anywho, back to peeves: unrealistic reactions to injuries. There are people who get hurt a lot, but even they still go 'ah fuck' when they get injured. Why the hell does someone think that if a piece of arm get shot through, or blown up, the person is just going to be like 'meh, i'll deal with it later'. The correct, and normal response would probably to start screaming at the huge fuck-off hole that has been created in the appendage.

Jesus, it's like they think that soldiers are just like 'fuck it, imma keep killing, even if there is a massive hole in my leg'. I mean, where does this idea even come from? Very few people still use shit like woad, and when there's been no explanation to why they have a huge pain threshold, it pisses me off greatly.

/rant

 

An example of a guy who had his arm blown off and went on a rampage. If you look for them you can probably find numerous examples of people fighting with massive, even fatal, wounds. I'd guess it's because of adrenaline.

 

Multiple factors contribute to this, actually. Adrenaline is the largest part, but the sharpness and velocity of whatever's creating the hole will also have an affect.

I hate to bring up personal experience, but my dad works in a steel factory. While working there, a piece of metal shot off the steel log he was working on and into his forearm. He didn't notice it until he looked down to check his watch and saw blood spreading over his uniform. This was in a work setting, with no adrenaline factoring in.

 

Fair enough, there are a few reasons, but even with adrenaline, you'd have to feel a bit woozy, and a bit like 'mother of god, I'm missing a vital part of my body'.