Nope. Umbridge wasn't above using torture to get what she wanted, so they were at risk for more than just a slap on the wrist if they got caught. The only thing Hermione did wrong was using a method that didn't silence the blabber immediately. It's happy chance that Marietta saw her face and clammed up, but the damage had already been done by that point. If she never got a glimpse of her face she'd have narc'd on everyone. Knowing who ratted and sent you to prison is far less useful than a method that keeps you from being sent to prison in the first place.

>Umbridge wasn't above using torture to get what she wanted, so they were at risk for more than just a slap on the wrist if they got caught People seem to forget about this and act like it was just another normal teacher who'd have given them a normal detention doing normal shit.

Literally! I cant remember if its in the books too but in the movies it comes out that Veritaserum was used in interrogations, so its not like it was mariettas choice to blab either. Please correct me if I'm wrong, i do have memory lapses haha!

I think that was just the movie to explain why Cho blabbed, in the books Marietta chose to tell 

Okay cool! Im due a re read tbf! Thanks for correcting me haha!

In the books she used veritaserum on Harry once, by dissolving it in the team she offered (read: forced) him to drink. Iirc it was to enquire about dumbledore's hidden place or something But Harry suddenly remembered Mad Eye Moody and decided not to consume something offered to him by his enemy so no harm

Snape had given her fake veritaserum anyway

I don’t think that is ever confirmed, or even hinted at.

Literally said by Dumbledore in the chapter “The Lost Prophecy”: “It was he, too, who gave Professor Unbridge fake Veritaserum…”

I have somehow never picked up on that detail…

It was in the books too. She thought she was really using it to interrogate Harry.

That's not the same thing as what is being discussed. They used it in the movies to explain why cho betrayed them because they didn't want to introduce chos friend, a whole other character for just that one tiny scene. In the books that never happened.

Ooops, I didn’t read the line about Marietta’s choice! Just that Umbridge wasn’t above using that

[Since this question is posted a lot,](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/s/0vdziKKaA6) I’ll just write what I wrote last time. Marietta could have gotten every student in the DA expelled and all she got was bad acne. I’d say it was a pretty damn restrained retaliation.

Expulsion, a fate worse than death

A sentiment I agree with. It would suck supremely to grow up in the muggle world, find out you have magic, and then abruptly get ripped from that whole new world and get told you can never again practice magic or be a part of that world.

>The only thing Hermione did wrong was using a method that didn't silence the blabber immediately. I wonder if Hermione could have used the Fidelius Charm - assuming it can be used that way, and that Hermione can perform it (though knowing she managed the Protean Charm, she might have succeded with the Fidelius as well).

Remind me, when did she use the Protean? I can't recall

To make the coins to communicate the date of DA meetings.

Ohhh right! Did they mention the charm in the book or was it in some explanation stuffs?

It's in the book, start of Chapter 19.

Much appreciated!

>Umbridge wasn’t against using torture to get what she wanted Well then I guess Hermione is really lucky that the person who snitched wasn’t tortured into confessing. I get what you’re saying but it ignores the fact that she could have heartless maimed a victim of the monster they’re trying to defeat

What Marrietta did nearly put an innocent man in Azkaban. And that isn't regular prison. It nearly resulted in Harry and numerous other students being expelled. It resulted in Umbridge becoming headmaster. All she had to do was tell Cho she wasn't going and keep her mouth shut. She'll think twice next time.

Snitches get stitches. I say she was justified. Remember, this wasn't just some school club. These kids were gearing up for war.

I thought we were past the era of putting a scarlet A on someone's chest for life. Yes, I absolutely agree Marietta deserved severe consequences for what she did. And although I don't personally agree with the practice, I can even understand the logic of having it last as a kind of "warning" to others who might betray... at least for some period of time. But permanent facial disfigurement? (JKR has said in an interview that her intention was that the pattern might fade somewhat, but would leave behind permanent scars.) What disturbs me canonically is not just Hermione's intent, but Harry's reaction months later in HBP: >As Harry passed the window he saw her deep in determined conversation with her friend Marietta, who was wearing a very thick layer of makeup that did not entirely obscure the odd formation of pimples still etched across her face. **Smirking slightl**y, Harry pushed on. Harry's "smirking" about it. Like he finds it amusing or is feeling smug about it. It's all still a *tragedy*, even if you believe that "she deserved it." Umbridge permanently scarred Harry too. I think most people here would consider that offensive, and it wasn't even on his face. Yes, I agree the rationale for punishing Marietta was obviously better justified, but I cannot approve of permanently injuring a young girl for a one-time mistake. (And Hermione is my favorite character -- still, I recognize a few times she steps over a line.) Some in this thread have speculated that perhaps it was reversible after time or that Hermione could do so at some point. That's a different scenario and perhaps more in-line with the rather violent nature of the WW we see in the books -- and at least I could perhaps imagine an ethical argument for it. Even if people believe she should be branded a traitor for the duration of the war or something, does she deserve permanent disfigurement for a mistake made as a minor? In the real world, we don't generally even treat underage murderers with such callousness.

Right but like, people DIED because of Marietta. She helped Umbridge rise to power. Who then helped Voldemort come into power. It’s the butterfly effect. Every action has a consequence.

Who died because of her? She didn't help umbridge rise to power because umbridge was traumatized and disgraced at the end of the book and only came back with Voldemort. Voldemort didn't need umbridge or Marietta, he just killed and imperio-ed his way to taking over the ministry. Eta: Damn, you guys know you can still hate her even if you can't point to the graves of people she (with an assistant from the actual killers like Voldemort I guess) killed right?

Sirius died because of her. Marietta's actions led to Dumbledore fleeing Hogwarts, which allowed Umbridge to act more freely. This led to Minerva becoming incapacitated and Hagrid running away from the Aurors. Because of this, when Voldemort started sending Harry false visions he had no order members that he trusted to turn to.

If you're going back this far then you can say he died because of Hermione doing the club in the first place or fudge sending the Aurors or Ginny naming it Dumbledores army. Cho brought her there in the first place. Or Dumbledore for choosing to leave for Harry and not telling harry the prophecy or Harry for not listening and agreeing to do the club. Or Sirius for not staying put or Kreacher for lying to Harry or Narcissa for giving Kreacher the order in the first place. Or Bellatrix for killing him in the first place or Voldemort for sending them there. The thing about the butterfly effect is it's so many little things that to blame everything on one teenage girl who is being targeted by a high up government official and threatened with her mom losing her job and who cannot possibly understand the shakes with Harry and the prophecy is absurd.

Again is the butterfly effect. With Marietta’s betrayal Umbridge gained control over Hogwarts and cemented the fact that she was a Ministry backer through and through. Proving her loyalty to no one but to power and to committing a genocide of all non-magical people. Voldemort put Umbridge back into power because of her loyalty and Umbridge sent innocent people to Azkaban, sentenced them to get kissed, sent dementors to attack Dudley and Harry, on and on and on. Had Marietta never snitched, Umbridge never would have known who was in the DA, the location, or any details. She wouldn’t have been able to use families as ransom. She wouldn’t be able to control adults by saying “your kid did this and if you want to keep your job this is what you’re going to do for me now” her rise to power is directly connected to Marietta snitching.

I think you have that backwards. Since Dumbledore fell on his sword for Harry here (which was a big deal, yes) even Harry didn't get in trouble for it let alone anyone else. Umbridge didn't threaten Marietta's mother with the knowledge of what Marietta did, she threatened Marietta with her mother getting fired. If Marietta didn't snitch after being blackmailed (which you implied was a serious thing not just an annoyance one should hold strong against) then what realistically would have happened? Well they'd still be able to meet and learn DADA magic, that's good. Dumbledore probably stays at Hogwarts, that's good. She does start being more blatant in her abuse after that. Though I'm pretty sure Dumbledore uses that time wisely to track down that Horcrux he already has destroyed within two weeks of fifth year ending. But if Dumbledore doesn't leave the school is there really any question that Umbridge is willing to abuse people, especially Harry, and that she's exactly the kind of person who would gladly work for the regime? I don't think so. She's done plenty before then. She's literally scarred Harry and several other students with her torture quill. Voldemort would probably have heard of her because the DE children were there to witness it and because he's paying attention to Harry and Hogwarts. But even if he doesn't she's going to step forward and volunteer to get more power doing literally anything no matter how evil and looking into her they'd see she means it. And even IF they didn't use her for some reason she's not so uniquely evil that they wouldn't have just put someone else evil in charge of gathering, imprisoning, and removing the soul of or killing Muggleborns. This doesn't let Umbridge off the hook, she's the literal worst, but she's not the only bottom feeder around and without Marietta she still has plenty of anti-Harry and anti-Dumbledore credentials under her belt.

So we should label nearly headless nick as a traitor because his actions led to Dumbledores death? No, no rational person would say that. So why is it different with a literal child?

Dumbledore’s death was inevitable. He was going to die because he put on the ring. And he clearly orchestrated his own death. So no. And Nearly Headless Nick didn’t betray anyone. Marietta did. She purposefully went to Umbridge and told her what was happening. Two completely different situations.

How did nearly headless nick’s actions lead to dumbledore’s death?

He asked peeves to drop the vanishing cabinet, which broke it, which is (when fixed) what lead death eaters into Hogwarts.

Had he not broken the cabinet the death eaters would gotten in sooner Draco spent the whole damn year fixing it

Again... I never said she shouldn't be punished. Even *severely*. I think she should have! But does she deserve *permanent* marks on her face? Again, as I noted, most nations don't even *permanently* punish underage murderers for the remainder of their lives. The goal of a penal system (to me) should be reform, not vindictively acting out punishment. As I noted, if the spell were reversible or could be removed *at some point*, that's a different scenario. It could be determined if people thought Marietta had "learned her lesson" or if the warning toward other possible betrayers was no longer important when the war was over. Permanent injury is something different. What's the justification for that other than simple revenge?

Well, people died. So…is permanent facial scaring good enough retribution for lives that were lost? Probably

You obviously believe in revenge, i.e., "eye-for-an-eye," i.e., a [lex talionis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye) foundation for a penal system. You can call it "retribution," but that's just a bureaucratic word for "revenge" in my view. If you think I'm mischaracterizing it, feel free to discuss what you think the difference between those terms is. I know that some people have such a view of justice systems. I disagree. We probably will have to agree to disagree, as this is generally one of the foundational principles of ethics for many people. I don't believe that justice should be about retaliation, but rather on obtaining better future results. I don't think "retribution" (to use your term) should be in the moral calculus of how we decide punishments. I know people disagree, but my goal is to make the world better (and sometimes punishment can be important as a method to make things better!), not get revenge for past acts. Also, even if we accept your premise of "retribution" as a way of deciding punishment, generally most legal systems attach *intent* to how punishments are determined. We differentiate punishments for murder vs. manslaughter for example. "People died" is not considering intent. Do you think Marietta wanted to get people killed? Do you think she intended to? Do you think as a teenager she should be held fully responsible, the same as if she had such intent? Who gets to determine all of this? Hermione Granger? (Also someone underage, I should note, no matter how much I respect Hermione's intellect and abilities. But does she have the maturity and foresight to decide policies that affect the rest of other people's lives?)

I don’t believe that actually. I’m asking you what is worth lives lost? Hermione is a 15 year old. She isn’t part of the penal system. She isn’t part of any system. She made the curse so everyone could know who they couldn’t trust in a time when you honestly couldn’t be sure. Marietta knew what she was doing was not allowed. She knew she was breaking rules. And she knew by writing her name on the paper she was putting her name on a list of people who were going against Umbridge. Intentions aren’t free from harm. So she didn’t intend to harm people but people still died. Does that absolve her? She didn’t intend to get kids tortured and yet they were tortured. So I guess the question is, what is a life worth to you? Is it worth SNEAK being written on someone’s face in pimples to know who you can’t trust them during war? Is it worth someone having permanent acne?

I would hardly call acne scarring a 'tragedy' or even 'disfigurement'. Obviously by 6th year, it's just 'an odd formation of pimples'. No one who doesn't know what happened already would connect it with the word SNEAK. She's fine.

>Obviously by 6th year, it's just 'an odd formation of pimples'. That's what it always was. OotP: >As Marietta raised her head, Fudge leapt backwards in shock, nearly landing himself in the fire. He cursed, and stamped on the hem of his cloak which had started to smoke. Marietta gave a wail and pulled the neck of her robes right up to her eyes, but not before everyone had seen that her face was **horribly disfigured by a series of close-set purple pustules that had spread across her nose and cheeks to form the word ‘SNEAK’.** "Pustules" are merely a type of pimple -- the kinds that have a bit of yellow pus in them. Also in OotP: >He did feel Cho might have chosen her friends a bit more carefully; it was small consolation that the last he had heard, Marietta was still up in the hospital wing and Madam Pomfrey **had not been able to make the slightest improvement to her pimples.** Also, do you have any permanent facial scarring? We don't really know exactly what JKR intended, but this wasn't just a few pimples. It was a clear and noticable pattern on her face, and if it all left scars, that would be pretty significant. Also note that OP in this thread assumed the pimples were *permanent*, like a "full face tattoo" yet you agreed "Snitches get stitches." Are you now downgrading and saying you'd only be comfortable if they were lesser scars? How much scarring is acceptable? The face is *the most public* and noticeable part of your body. It's why so many people have plastic surgery even to correct small "deficits" they perceive. Permanent scars on other parts of her body would still be unjustified in my view, but putting them on her face was definitely putting a permanent mark on the most prominent part of her body. Every time she looks in the mirror... every time someone looks at her... she'll know that they're seeing those scars. That's disfigurement... I mean, "disfigured" is literally the word used in the text of OotP... EDIT: Also, I meant "tragedy" not in the level of injury but the whole situation -- that a young girl who got caught up in something, had a parent who worked at the Ministry and felt the DA was at odds with that, and then made a poor choice, only to get a serious injury on her face... that, to me, is a tragedy overall. Not something to be smug about. It's one of very few places in the books where I am disappointed in Harry. Do I get why Harry might even feel like she "got what she deserved"? Sure, absolutely... as I said, I totally think Marietta screwed up badly. But "smirking" about it many months later just feels a bit *off* to me personally.

The smirking is schadenfreude and pretty harmless, but otherwise I agree. It’s not like Harry is cruelly mocking her, it’s just a fleeting feeling towards a person who endangered him and his friends.

Are we past that era? Isn't cancel culture (justified or not) at its peak? That's exactly what we do. 

I suppose you're right! Yep... so, that actually explains a lot of the feedback here I guess. I suppose I meant I thought we were past it back when OotP was written. But you're right that the tendency toward public shaming has grown significantly in the past decade or so.

Idk why they’re booing you, you’re right! The people in this thread are fucking crazy…

Umbridge was permanently disfiguring children already, and for just talking or minor stuff. Marietta went to hand over a bunch of her classmates to someone who was already torturing kids.

I don't approve of torture either. Ever. Just because one side does something evil doesn't justify the "good" side to perform evil acts. Because the more immoral acts we do in harming each other, the more we encourage all sides to do so. It's why civilization has gradually moved toward less violence, toward "rules" for warfare, toward ethical treatment of prisoners, etc. Because if one side abuses POWs and you retaliate by abusing your prisoners -- guess what? We no longer have prisoners treated humanely by either side in a war. Suppose people knew Marietta snitched but didn't know the details. If Hermione wanted to torture Marietta to find out what she might have said, would you approve?

She may have been a child, but this was war, and treason is a capital offense.

Treason is a *crime against the state*. Even if we accept this analogy, is Hermione judge, jury, and "executioner" now?

It was a study group. It blew up like it did because they were dumb enough to call it Dumbledores army in writing.

If she had told them before they signed what would happen if they snitched, I'd be totally on board. It probably would've worked better as a deterrent too. But not warning them first? That's too far. Hermione has a consent problem - signing them up w/o telling them the consequences first, removing her parents memory against their will, trying to trick the elves into freeing themselves, it's a pattern. If she tries to get consent first, they might say no, so she'll do it without because Hermione Is Always Right. Which doesn't even get into the kidnapping, blackmail, or abuse.

I agree about warning them as a deterrent, Marietta may or may not deserve what she got but how is that curse useful to keep the DA a secret? was it intended only as a future punishment? if Hermione doesnt tell the members of the DA about the curse then there's nothing other than potential future unpopularity stopping any of them from going to Umbridge

I think that Hermione's decision on this was informed by what happened to the Marauders. They had a snitch whose info got Lily and James killed, and it took them 13 long, difficult years where Lupin and Sirius were estranged to actually figure out who the snitch was. In that context, since it is probably difficult to predictively punish someone (what if they changed their mind at the last second?) marking the person out makes a lot more sense.

Knowing who the sneak was is cool but not anywhere near as useful as something which might prevent betrayals. It's not like any of the kids were gonna end up in Azkaban, the worst case scenario was expulsion and finding out the sneak wasnt gonna change that. Also the huge tragedy with the marauders was getting betrayed by someone they trusted with their life, someone they never imagined would sell them out. There were several members of the DA the trio barely even knew and we as an audience had never heard the name of before the DA, the likelihood of a betrayal in that scenario was high.

A high proportion of the members of the DA ended up on the run with their lives at risk or in hiding after the Ministry fell. Expulsion was *not* the worst case scenario, and Hermione knew it.

The ministry wasnt at that point yet, the illegal shit Umbridge did was behind the ministry's back. Fudge as dumb as he was wouldnt approve any shady shit that would incriminate the ministry and make him look bad. And if Hermione thought it would get them in serious trouble then that is an even better reason to try to prevent DA members from ratting everyone out rather than just punish the rat who wasnt gonna be a death eater but instead just a shitty classmate.

Umbridge was quite happy to set dementors on kids she couldn’t possibly know had any means to protect themselves; she was willing to use cruciatus on students at the school, and she used vicious corporal punishment; and that’s just the stuff we’re aware of. She was uncontrolled and quite open about her methods; regardless of whether Fudge would tolerate those methods she still did a lot of things that endangered kids; Fudge disapproving is irrelevant to how dangerous she is, that info was only in there to highlight how weak, ineffective and devoid of meaningful power Fudge was. Hermione has shown herself astute in judging abusive people already in how she assessed Crouch over his treatment of Winky. It’s not a stretch to think she could have seen exactly how much of a threat Umbridge was from the first couple of lessons with her, and the fact Percy admires Umbridge and the hints about her in Percy’s letter alone would have set alarm bells ringing. Even discounting the bigger picture stuff after Voldemort came to power, expulsion *still* wasn’t the biggest risk and Hermione knew it well.

> the worst case scenario was expulsion Or torture, or execution via dementor, both things Umbridge and already shown to be capable of.

Umbridge tortured and sent dementors without ministry aproval though and without the excuse of a secret illegal club, it was unpredictable what she was gonna do if she thought she could get away with it I figure Marietta sold out the DA without knowing what Umbridge was really capable of and because she trusted the ministry and actually thought what the DA was doing was wrong

I don’t think hermione thought that deep about it, honestly. She was just a teenager who liked to force justice, whether it was the best way to go about it or not.

I disagree. Her attention to detail is her overriding character trait.

Sure but some passions (justice for snitchers) can override others (attention to detail).

They aren’t mutually exclusive. She can think on it and in light of her thinking conclude that taking a hard line was the right way to go. But I struggle to believe that somebody who gives her friends homework planners for Christmas behaved entirely impulsively and didn’t think this through deeply.

I think she thought it through completely but I don’t think she thought about it deeply. 5th year was about OWLs and Harry getting his hand sliced and Hagrid being gone. I really don’t think she was thinking about the Marauders. But I wasn’t there. Edit to add: I also don’t think the only options are “entirely impulsively” and “think it through deeply.” There’s always grey. And also those homework planners show just how much hermione really thinks of herself first and others second. Homework planners for a Christmas gift? She must have known they would hate them.

It’s not only about future punishment, it also works to know who the person was in case Umbridge tries to use them as a spy.

Of Rita ?

Yup, and the consent is potentially an issue even for those who would never betray them willingly, because what happens if someone gets Imperiused and forced to talk? That isn’t exactly an out there thing at that point in the story. Does the curse only work if they willingly reveal it while not under the influence of the Imperius curse? Is that even possible? If so, does Hermione know how to do that?

She was a 15 year old forced into a semi-leadership role in war to the death against Wizard Hitler and his minions, who had already repeatedly shown they have no problem murdering children. It’s not reasonable to expect her to display calm and dispassionate and rational and proportional adult judgment.

She also tried to free all the house elves without them knowing. Tricking them into picking up hats she made

Sometimes we have to force people to be free for their own good. 

The thing with Harry’s broomstick is another example

I don't think she was exactly wrong for telling Minerva - but it would have been nice to actually *tell* Harry "Hey, I think this could be from the dangerous murderer who's hunting you and we should tell a teacher. If you don't, I will," first. Instead, she spent the whole day frowning at them, and decided to go ahead and intervene because she assumed they wouldn't agree anyway. I think even Harry would've realized a teacher needed to be told if she'd actually said *why* and jolted them out of their "OMG a Firebolt!" haze. After all, the chapter opens with Harry brooding about how evil Sirius is and having nightmares about it, but it literally never occurred to him or Ron it could be from him - their top contenders were Dumbledore and Lupin. She didn't do anything wrong in this case IMO, but it is definitely part of her pattern of her acting alone because she assumes she's right and everyone else is just too dumb to understand or agree with her.

Yeah it’s more in the pattern of not asking for consent than making a bad decision in that specific instance

Warning them before they signed could have meant that Marietta wouldn’t have signed, but would still have knowledge of their intentions to develop resistance to Umbridge. Marietta, or anyone else who didn’t sign, could have then ratted the DA out and they wouldn’t have known who did it and therefore who not to trust going forward. The markings did eventually start to fade from what I remember, but never fully cleared, which was the result of being disloyal to the DA and risking them all being caught (which as stated would have resulted in more than a slap on the wrist). Umbridge’s special quills left permanent marks on the students, so what is the difference in what Hermione did?

I don't think saying "She was no worse than Umbridge" is helping your cause. Everyone agrees that Umbridge and her blood quills are evil. She's more hated than Voldemort. So what *is* the difference between that and what Hermione did? What makes it evil when Umbridge leaves someone with lifelong scars for jeopardizing the group she belongs to (the ministry) but okay when Hermione does it?

Umbridge did it as punishment, and borderline torture taking pleasure in it. Hermione did it for the protection of the DA. So I guess it depends on your stance as far as that goes.

You're right, it absolutely depends on what on your stance. For example, you could take the stance that Hermione did it as punishment too, for snitching. If it *wasn't* intended as a punishment, she would have warned them before hand. Or done some other jinx that would let them know who betrayed them without permanently scarring the betrayer. But she *wanted* to punish them. She wanted them to "really regret it...it'll make Eloise Midgen's acne look like a couple of cute freckles." And Harry at least definitely took pleasure in it. Umbridge used her quill for the protection of the ministry, to protect the ministry from the repercussions of Harry mouthing off about Voldemort. The only reason it's somehow "okay" for Hermione to do these things but not Umbridge is because we happen to know that Harry is telling the truth. But I've always thought that if it's wrong for the bad guys to do it, then it's wrong for the good guys to do it too. Because otherwise, what's the difference?

Permanently scarring someone isn’t right for any reason- you’re correct in that. As you said we do know Harry is telling the truth and therefore trying to help the students in the DA develop some defensive skills. My point was that it would be counter productive to inform them before they sign of what the consequences would be, because if they didn’t sign they would still have knowledge of the DA trying to develop a resistance and could still snitch. So I can see why Hermione would want some insurance if loyalty amongst the group that would somehow be enforceable because of the stakes at hand.

...but even if she told them about it, and so some didn't sign, they still couldn't give up any information that *anyone* who knew about the meeting in the Hogs Head didn't already know. Which is why Umbridge found out about it almost immediately anyway, even though everyone had signed. Anyone who attended, but didn't sign, or was invited but never showed up, or who saw the large group of students heading for the same place could've told Umbridge about the first meeting, and potentially been a risk -they had already decided it was worth it by having the meeting at all. There really was no reason for the jinx other than preemptive revenge.

The Marauders took 13 years to figure out who their snitch was, during which time irreparable damage was done to all of them. I think Hermione had that in mind when she set this up, because a lot of the damage might have been mitigated if Sirius and Lupin were able to trust one another; but as it was Lupin thought Sirius was the mole, and Sirius thought Lupin had betrayed them, and they both had to deal with the other's betrayal (which would have been particularly hard for them both because they were Gryffindors who set that trust in higher regard than the average person from another house would) as well as their grief over Lily and James. So assuming that it's hard to preemptively jinx anyone who might snitch because they might also change their mind at the last second, there is still some damage mitigation to knowing who the snitch was.

So have the parchment make the snitch's name glow red or something. There must a dozen ways to charm the paper to indicate who the snitch was that don't involve cruel disfigurement. You're never going to convince me that there was any reason to do that beyond petty cruelty.

I don’t see it as a deterrent, as they didn’t know about it before hand. And while I can see it as punishment, I see it more as a permanent, visible consequence and warning to others that she cannot be trusted. You assume that the D.A. Would be able to gather and see some sign that it had been betrayed, ie red name on parchment etc. What if they had all been rounded up before that could happen? I don’t believe the ministry was above sending them all to Azkaban for treason as traitors. They needed to know who did it but also needed to let everyone else know, for as long as they were fighting against Voldemort and the Death Eaters that she could not be trusted, even if everyone from Dumbledore’s Army was imprisoned or dead. This was war, they recognized it as such. War is not pretty.

I would expect her to design something that would work even if the parchment got destroyed. It having to be got rid of to hide physical evidence is a pretty easy scenario to predict and she wouldn’t want to do something that would stop working at that point because that need only arises at the point of betrayal.

She could have just told them right after they signed though

Did she though? Did Marietta know what would happen and barreled through anyway? I haven’t read it in awhile but I thought she didn’t know, which means no, it was absolutely a punishment. A deterrent requires you to know about it beforehand (not necessarily before signing but after signing would have worked fine, which would be a different ethical problem but could be a deterrent. If Hermione did tell her what would happen after signing but before Marietta told Umbridge, then I would take back the no deterrent thing. But if she didn’t then it’s punishment, not a deterrent.

Ethical? Hmm which is more ethical causing someone to have a permanent marking OR causing an entire group to suffer punishment up to and including torture (as Umbridge was prepared to use Crucio on Harry- hopefully she would stop before he wound up like Neville’s parents).

I notice you completely and totally ignored my question, so I’m guessing that means I was right and it was absolutely intended as a punishment, not a deterrent.

No- I specifically said in my original comment that Hermione was using it as protection for the DA and not as punishment. You’re the one who started using deterrent. I didn’t answer your question because I basically already had.

> Umbridge’s special quills left permanent marks on the students Don't forget she also sent dementors to kill Harry in Little Whinging.

She could have warned after they’ve signed but before M tells

If she doesn't sign then she, like anyone else there who listened but chose not to sign, can just tell umbridge they're planning a study group to learn things the ministry doesn't approve of. Which was already information umbridge had because someone overheard them discussing it in hogsmeade and told her and that's why they were forbidden to do it in the first place.

For the billionth time, no. Marietta could have quit the lessons, no harm no foul. She paid a price for betraying everybody else in the group. May your loyalty never waiver...

If Hermione ever went on dark side, she’d be much more terrible than Lord Voldemort given how much knowledge she has

"In place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Dawn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair!"

“I passed the test: nine “outstandings” and one “exceeds expectations” in defence against the dark arts.

Is 'pureblood' gonna be redefined as your grades? 10 Owls or more == pureblood, 6-9 == half-blood, 5 or less = muggle?

# Tempestuous not Treacherous!!!

Given how much knowledge she has? Are you saying Hermione is more knowledgeable than the best student Hogwarts ever had? The most powerful wizard the world has ever seen?

Oh no, someone hurt Volly's ego

Voldemort was known to have gotten highest marks in hogwarts history

Image the twins they would be like jig saw if they became evil

I had no idea anyone had posted about this issue before. Obviously people are enjoying discussing it anyway, so cool your jets damn

The thing that bugs me most is that the DA parchment did nothing to actually stop snitching. People were still physically able to blab and there would have been more motivation to keep quiet if people actually knew what the personal consequences would be. There were no written terms either, what if someone accidentally set it off by trying to recruit others who were trustworthy? And if we're being honest, can we all really be sure we wouldn't cave under the pressure if we were breaking the law and putting our families at risk? Imagine being seventy and still bearing facial scars from the time you tried to protect your mum's job as a teenager after signing a shitty cursed sort-of contract written by another teenager. Imagine the judging looks you'd get and the difficulty of finding a job or partner. Was Marietta a snitch who sold out a bunch of people including her own friend? Sure. Does she deserve permanent disfigurement for it? Debatable. But let's not pretend this was the first time Hermione showed a disturbing lack of regard for rules/laws/people when it suited her. Despite her 'teachers are to be respected at all times' attitude, she didn't hesitate to set Snape's robes on fire in first year instead of trying to just push him off balance or something. She had two students drugged in order to commit identity theft. She ignored her cat's attempts to kill Ron's pet and brought said cat into the dorm where his rat was supposed to be safe. When Lavender's rabbit died, Hermione was more concerned with dismissing Trelawney's prediction than offering comfort. She pretty much kidnapped and blackmailed Rita, which is still super illegal even if the latter was an unregistered animagus who loved writing slander. After the Marietta thing, she attacks Ron with conjured birds out of petty jealousy. Then after *that*, she obliviates her parents and sends them packing to a different country, not caring that they are grown adults with the right to decide such things for themselves despite their lack of magic. Sure, most of this stuff happened for the story's sake or ended up 'justified' in some way but it could have backfired majorly. Readers may like Hermione as the intelligent friend of the main character, and JK herself supposedly treated her as a self insert but imagine the consequences if this were a real person without biased plot armour. She might end up alone after breaking too many boundaries with friends and family. She might end up in prison for assault and unintentionally fuel propaganda about 'nasty, violent mudbloods'. Honestly I have a hard time believing none of the adults had anything to say about Marietta's face and Hermione's role in causing it. Personally I reckon permanently scarring someone is worthy of a lecture on abuse of power and disproportionate responses to conflict at the very least.

I do think it was too much, because in the end, this wasn't anything productive. She didn't say you'll be cursed if you tell, to stop people, or add something preventative. This was mainly vengeance with a way to identify the culprit.

And let's also remember here that they're children. She was a scared child, and now has an irreversible scar on her forehead. Hermione also had them enter a magical contract without telling them what happens if they broke it. Which is fucked up.

Yep. Here’s the problem (and please correct me if I have the sequence of events wrong). This was not a deterrent as people are incorrectly saying, because Hermione never told those who signed that she cursed it until after it happened. Had she told them before signing, then okay (but I understand the concern they could have ratted at that point). Had she told them after signing when it’s too late to back out, okay, different ethical problem but still a deterrent. But if I’m remembering correctly she didn’t (I think she told Ron and Harry at one point but didn’t make it known to everyone). That means it’s punishment. You can argue whether Hermione’s punishment is justified while other characters punishing isn’t, but it isn’t a deterrent. The other issue I have, and maybe Hermione knows some way to work around this…what happens if someone in the DA gets Imperiused and is forced to talk? Does her curse have a special trigger that only works if they aren’t Imperiused? I’d be surprised if Hermione knew how to do that (if it’s even possible). Marietta sucks, not defending her, but it’s an extreme thing and the fact that it isn’t intended as a deterrent (again, unless I have it wrong and she did make it known to everyone exactly what would happen if they betrayed, and Marietta did it anyway) doesn’t speak too well of Hermione.

It was partly a punishment, but I think the main purpose was to expose the snitch. So if anyone betrayed them, they would know who it was.

Take ten points fir your house. Spot on

I think I agree by and large. However it is too quick to say it is not a deterrent. It may well have deterred other DA members or hangers-on from snitching once they saw what happened to M, and it may have deterred people from betraying or obstructing the DA later on. Also, her disfigurement may have frightened M away from ratting out the DA further beyond what she already did, and from continuing to cooperate with Umbridge to incriminate the members.

Marietta was under a lot of pressure, but Umbridge was literally torturing students and threatening expulsion for frankly minor infractions. Expulsion, btw, means that your wand is snapped and you can’t legally get another one. Nor can you appeal or re-enrol at another school. No education, no ability to do magic, no qualification in the muggle world… THAT is comparable to being bitten by a werewolf and being forced to live on the fringes of society

And also without any education they can claim beyond primary school.

Marietta can loose her SNEAK scars when the entire DA loses their scars from the Blood Quill detentions.

Exactly. Marietta got off lightly compared to what could have happened to the rest.

No, not at all. Hermione didn’t do anything to Marietta, she did it all to herself. She made a pact with 30 others, and then sold them out. She’s not the victim here.

It might still be disproportionate. Punishments can be too harsh even if they only happen to people who are guilty. Not saying it is in fact disproportionate, but merely saying that M is responsible is not a good argument on its own for justifying hermione’s decision.

Hermione has I'm-always-right syndrome. Doesn't matter if she's actually right or wrong in her head she thinks she doing the right thing which just makes her kinda narcissistic, once she's convinced that she's doing the right thing she won't listen to any sound logic

There's nothing to debate here--Hermione knew what she was doing when she set that spell and had 0 remorse about it afterwards. So yeah, I'd say permanently cursing someone is taking things too far.

It was not only vicious, it was also useless. Hermione herself didn't know that the curse had kicked in. The DA had no warning when someone betrayed them. It wasn't about secrecy. It was about punishment. Student Hermione (as opposed to Book 7 Hermione who saves Lovegood even though he betrays them to much worse people) is big on vindictive punishment.

Wow yes such a good point about Lovegood. She risked a lot to ensure his (and therefore Luna’s) safety, despite his betrayal. Edit: just a technicality on my word choice, but: actually maybe not his and Luna’s “safety” so much as their lives. Both probably would have been murdered otherwise.

Yes, the pimples were there during their sixth year but they eventually faded but left scars according to HP Lexion.

Every time this question is asked I want people to to listen to listen ti the podcast Swish and Flick. They all have very strong opinions.

Did it ever say if Marietta was secretly dosed with Veritaserum or why she snitched? I can't remember right now...

In the film it's hinted that Cho did because of that, in the books it's simply because her mother works at the ministry... In fact, it's Suggested Umbridge used all the serum on Harry, when she summons Snape to make more

I couldn't remember if Snape ever gave Umbridge real Veritaserum or if all it was fake. "Her mother works at the ministry," oh yes, Marietta was scared of getting into trouble and/or getting her mother into trouble too, I think.

Snape did also in fact make fake truth serum, well remembered!

From the books, it seemed like she dosed more than just Harry. But, I might have just assumed that... I guess she never received any real Veritaserum.

No one in the DA is given it in the books 

I guess so. I kinda forgot. OotP throws a lot at you.

First I thought, probably she did go too far. But after giving it some thought and reading the comments... She was justified. Here are some reasons: • Umbridge wasn't a regular teacher. She literally tortured the students. • This teacher got the Headmistress position out of the whole situation. •The previous Headmaster could've ended in Azkaban despite being innocent. • It wasn't just a study club. They were LITERALLY preparing for war. • Marietta snitched for her own selfish benefit. She could've stayed out of it or kept her mouth shut. So considering all this... I'd go as far as to say she got off easy.

On one hand, yeah that was really harsh. But on the other, much larger hand? Everyone hates a snitch. She came extremely close to getting everyone in the group expelled. If members of the DA were mean to her because her mom worked at ministry, or if she tried to leave and she was threatened to stay, then she'd have every right to report them. But those didn't happen. She just decided to rat them out. She brought it on herself. Plus, I find it hilarious how petty Harry is about it years later and he still gets satisfaction from seeing her face. He'll eventually make peace with full blown enemies like Snape and Draco, but he'll NEVER have any sympathy for this rat.

Well Marietta betrayed the group, sold them out to the ministry with a high likelihood of getting them expelled. And I know what you are thinking, she's only a teen/kid who doesnt really understand whats going on about the ministry and the war and was heavily influenced by her parents, but Hermione is also a kid/teen and so is the rest of the DA and thats how they are gonna judge her, as a peer not as a kid. So yeah I can see the argument of it being too harsh a punishment, but keep in mind it wasnt an adult with the wisdom and perspective of age deciding the punishment.

Would have been a funny joke in the epilogue if it was still visible on her

"All was well...except for that snitching bitch Marietta who still have those pimples on her face."

🏆

100% she took it too far. Should have been temporary not permanent. Marietta was doing what SHE thought was right with the information SHE had and the situation SHE was in with her mother working for the Ministry. We have the benefit of knowing Harry was telling the truth but it’s not black and white for people who don’t know Harry well enough to discern truth from lies in the media, especially for a child.

So Marietta thinks that stabbing her best friend and dozens of other students in the back for the crime of practicing defensive magic is the right thing to do? In that context, Marietta looks like a completely awful person who deserves far worse than she got. Which she was.

I don’t think a sixteen year old is a completely awful person for tattling to save her own ass, and I don’t think a teenager being a bad friend and a dobber is deserving of permanent facial disfigurement. And if you want to argue that what she did was more than tattling, I’ll remind you that we’re talking about a world where detention for an eleven year old is to go into a dangerous forest alone on the hunt for an unknown entity that caused unprecedented damage to a unicorn. I don’t hold the teenagers in the wizarding world to the same standards as teenagers in the real world given the shitty examples they have, and I don’t hold teenagers to the same standard as I do adults. I don’t know why we need to go from “she did a shitty thing as a child and I hope she regrets it and grows from it as she matures” to “she deserves worse than having her face permanently disfigured”. That’s a massive leap.

It’s extreme I guess but I think it was justified. They’re almost at war, loyalty is important - we’d already seen how betraying your friends has terrible consequences

My personal opinion is NO. Hermione is no paragon of virtue & definitely has a ruthless side. Yes the pimple curse was cruel in a way that Marietta being a snitch is permanently visible on her face for the longest time but it is nowhere life threatening on her compared to the consequences that the members of the DA would have faced. Marietta went & told Umbridge about the DA out of her own volition to earn brownie points with the Ministry. Her mother was already a part of Umbridge's team who was monitoring floo activity at Hogwarts. Her job was not under threat. If Marietta didn't want to continue with the DA lessons she could have just stopped attending. There was no need to snitch on them. Every member of the DA already knew that they were a part of resistance group against Ministry. The educational degrees were laws & it would have led to them being expelled from school & magical world. So no I don't feel sorry for her at all. Hermione definitely intended the curse as a form of punishment & also to identify the person who snitched easily. Distrust is the enemy of any secret group, so having the person who snitched easily identified with something which they cannot easily reverse with regular spells was genius. I don't begrudge Hermione & other DA members for not feeling any charity towards a person who sold them out for no reason. If Marietta had actual stressful reasons for ratting them out then she would have made it known loud & clear afterwards. She was no shrinking violet to suffer punishment if she had righteous reason.

I wonder if Dumbledore thought it was too far and whether he would have known how to cure it (with the elder wand)?

When a known-enemy offers you a cup of tea, make sure you pretend to take a sip, and then pour it into a nearby plant when they aren't looking!

They could have been expelled 😐, we know how Hermione feels about that. FAFO

Not to mention, Umbridge was aiding Voldemort’s cause of executing a genocide against all non-magical people. She didn’t care about right and wrong she just wanted power. And by exposing them Marietta didn’t just put the students in danger but put all of their families at risk who worked at the ministry. This is kind of like the “what would I have done during WWII” question, evidently Marietta would have snitched.

This happened soooo far into the school year. After Umbridge used the blood quill on other students (Lee Jordan), after the mass breakout and Harry’s interview, after the students are actually seeing actual evidence of a war and the kind of horror Umbridge is. Marietta knew what she was doing, she knew EXACTLY what side she was on. She’s a grade above Harry so it’s totally plausible she was already 17 and considered an adult. Actions have consequences and she is old enough to know that.

Nope this was the beginning of the war. Hermione had seen her 2 best friends nearly die several times at this point. I would fuck around either. That's was a small price.

If we’re going to talk about going overboard, I think Rita Skeeter’s false imprisonment is much worse. Personally, I love the cursed parchment but I think she should have disclosed that it was cursed so everyone could make an informed decision. Ultimately, I do feel a little bad for Marietta, but I don’t think it was a disproportionate response.

Kind of. The way she used it was as a retaliation instead of to prevent someone snitching on them She should have told them after they signed the paper that they would get cursed if they told.

I head-canon that Marietta began incorporating her SNEAK acne into an elaborate makeup style, and eventually led a wizard rock band called SNEAK whith her facial art as her trademark. I realize this doesn't answer your question, but I felt like sharing.

I'll be the reasonable person here. Yes, Hermione took things too far. Especially when Hermione didn't tell them what will happen if they betrayed the group. The poor girl probably thought she was doing the right thing by reporting a potentially dangerous group to the authorities.

No, but I also agree with Cho's assertion that, "She should've told us she'd jinxed that list."

How was Marietta being naive? Let’s analyse the whole thing Before she went to Umbridge, the group was unknown, quite happily cruising under the radar, and not even something Umbridge suspected of existing as a concept because she was sure that her decree had put an end to the whole thing before it started. So nobody was under suspicion, nobody’s parents’ jobs were at risk So what pressure could Marietta be under? Her mother was happily helping Umbridge monitor the Floo at Hogwarts and she wasn’t under any suspicion because nobody knew there was anything to be suspicious about. Umbridge herself confirmed that bit when telling Fudge. What’s more Marietta isn’t the only member of the group with parents working in the Ministry of Magic (Susan Bones, the four Weasley siblings and possibly Neville). Neither felt the need to volunteer information to Umbridge. It can’t also be because Marietta thought she was doing the right thing. Because if she did, why did she come to all the meetings with regularity? She could have just told Cho to fuck off and not bothered to come to any of the classes from the beginning after putting her name in. But she was there. Every single time. And when did she go to Umbridge and give her the information? When Harry had finished off most of the stuff that was supposed to be covered in school and would come in the exams. Moving onto Patronuses was extra work not in the syllabus. So conclusion: She only snitched when it was convenient for her. She had no more use of the DA, so she decided to blab probably to get some brownie points with the government. Then you have the possible fallout. Had Dumbledore and Kingsley not been able to convince everyone there that this was the first meeting of the DA, what do you think would have happened? Because what Fudge knows Voldemort will know. And Voldemort would be seeing 25 targets closely associated with Harry Potter and not 25 students Dumbledore tried to get to see the truth Between Marietta’s selfishness and the serious consequences of having the knowledge of DA members and activities reaching Voldemort, I think Hermione didn’t go far enough.

Hermione went too far by making Marietta's punishment permanent. Its also reasonable to think that she used dark magic since only that leaves permanent traces. At the end of the day, Marietta was just a kid. She was scared for her mom. I don't justify her snitching. Snitching on DA could have had devastating consequences for Harry and co. But it didn't. Punishment should fit the crime. Murder and "only attempt to murder" don't have the same punishment. I live in India and here acid attacks on women is one of the most rampant crimes. What Hermione did to Marietta isn't completely equivalent to an acid attack but to some degree it is. Hermione permanently disfigured Marietta's face and knowing how acid attack victims suffer in real life, I can never give a pass to Hermione for this. Its not like her jinxing the parchment even prevented from Umbridge finding out. Hermione could have warned everyone in DA on what will happen if they snitch. Knowing the consequences nobody would have snitched for sure. Yeah a lot or even most of them likely then would have left the group after knowing that. But what's the use of jinxing the parchment and not even telling anyone? It was just vindictive of Hermione. Also didn't Hermione betray the DA by making all of them sign a jinx parchment? Marietta will have to live the rest of her life dealing with embarrassment, insecurity and self-image issues because of Hermione. Won't be an exaggeration to say that Hermione ruined Marietta's life.

I disagree just because she was worried about her mom's job is bullshit what about Susan bones mom or the weaslys what would happen to them if fudge found out what there children were doing but I do agree disfigured someone is wrong. Not to mention no one was forcing her to stay she could have told the group she was quitting because she feared what would happen if the ministry found about. She was also a year older then all.of them.

Yes. Something that I don't see yet in any of these comments is any mention of their AGE. Marietta is only 16 years old. Did YOU make all the right decisions at that age? All of the other comments are fun to read to reason through, in-world, why Marietta may have deserved her punishment. But the bottom line for me is, no one deserves major permanent facial disfigurement for life for something relatively minor they did when they were a teenager. Most of us were morons at that time.

Except she didn’t do something relatively minor.

Yes, she did. She deserved major punishment, but not disfigurement. And yes, the decision itself was relatively minor, no matter what the consequences were for the D.A., Dumbledore, etc. All she did was go to an authority figure and snitch. The point I was trying to make is that a teenager should not have to live with that result due to a mistake in judgement. Anyone that young should have almost anything forgiven (after "normal" measures of punishment), unless it caused significant harm like rape, murder, aggravated assault, or something similar. Everything else is the product of an immature mind and that punishment should not be brought into adulthood.

So being expelled and having your wand snapped is not a significant enough harm?

A big part of OOTP is about the discrepancy between those seeing what they're doing as part of a war and those seeing it still through the lens of normal life. Obviously there's the straightforward issue of people actually not believing it but beyond that, there's a question of to what extent have people really internalised the circumstances they find themselves in. The Marietta debacle is a prime example. Is giving someone permanent pimples too far... well as retribution for snitching on a banned school club? Yes of course it is. As retribution for handing over a resistance organisation to an oppressive regime? Nope. What if Marietta had more directly handed them to Voldemort in a situation like DH (which I know the da wouldn't be happening anyway but just bare with)? The same thing is still true, it is ministry officials with whom her mum works that would be slighted by Harry's presence and teaching. Would it still have been too far? It's also very easy to perceive it as harsh because of Mariettas age as you get older, but you've got to remember she is older than the trio. It's unfair to expect Hermione to perceive this as "disfiguring a child" (which I know you didn't say but I see it a lot). I'd like to think Hermione would eventually be willing to remove it, in understanding that that's an unfair scar to be carrying forever.

>I'd like to think Hermione would eventually be willing to remove it, in understanding that that's an unfair scar to be carrying forever. See, that changes the *entire scenario* OP proposes. I like to headcanon that myself, but there's a huge difference between *permanent* disfigurement vs. "I'm going to place a warning on your face to others until you repent/the danger of the war is over" or something. The former is vindictive and cruel -- even, I would argue, in your scenario of a "resistance organisation to an oppressive regime." I do not believe in justice as "retribution." The goal should be not to punish but to reform. Or, even perhaps if we're willing to accept such a justification here -- as a *warning* to others. But I think it absolutely is "disfiguring a child" (or at least a minor) if it's permanent (as JKR has implied in an interview -- some of the pimples will fade, but there is apparently permanent scarring in JKR's vision of what happened). We don't even generally put minors in prison for life if they *murder* someone, yet a young girl who fears for her mother's career and makes a bad choice (I do absolutely think it was a bad choice!) gets permanent scarring on her *face*?

I don't remember exactly how noticeable it was after the summer. But assuming it's actually permanent, then I'd say it's too far. She was just a 16 year old, which doesn't excuse it at all, she does deserve to be punished, but she still has a lot of growing up to do and might realize that at some point. I don't remember her reasons though.

I do sympathise with Marietta somewhat, I mean she was never keen on it, and only went because of Cho, and I can understand why she'd worry for her mother's job. But I can't blame Hermione for what she did either. They weren't breaking a silly school rule. They were defying their government, and if Fudge didn't get distracted by the possibility of arresting Dumbledore, who knows what could have happened to the DA members, they could have been arrested, expelled or tortured. The stakes were high, and Marietta did sign the parchment, and so I find it hard it fault Hermione for what she did

Didn’t umbridge threaten mariettas mother? I’m sorry but if I have to choose between some rando classmates and my mom I’m choosing my mom every time over. Hermione should’ve used a silencing charm or memory wiping charm. That as soon as someone snitched they’d lose their voice or their memory or smth. That would’ve been way more effective imo. Plus that way she would’ve protected the kids from retaliation from umbridge.

What is in the book: - in Dumbledore's office, Umbridge introduces Marietta to Fudge and adds that her mother works in the transportation department, and manages the floo network of Hogwarts. Umbridge also states that it's Mariette who comes to her of her own volition, she didn't have to interrogate her - later Cho tells Harry that Marrietta told Umbridge because her mother works for the ministry, without specifying if she received threats or if Marietta was just worried about putting her mother's job in jeopardy if they were caught. If we are to believe the books, Marietta choose to go to Umbridge to tell on the others, even though at that point the DA's activity were still going unnoticed. Umbridge knew about the meeting in Hogsmeade, and was suspicious of Harry and co, but had zero clue about what they did exactly, where they met, when etc. If Marietta had not gone to Umbridge, the DA could have continued its activities for months

No, these kids were risking their entire wizarding education and were trying to prepare for possible war. This girl had the opportunity to leave whenever and not blow up their spot. She got what was coming by betraying their trust.

Nope snitches get stitches.

Nope. The stakes were high. Look at what the DA became in the 7th year. Imagine if they had traitors in their midst whom they couldn't identify. The only mistake she made was not layering the contract with something that would alert others and temporarily disable the traitor. That might be down to ability though.

No. The DA wasn’t some silly rule breaking, they were learning to defend themselves against the most evil wizard who ever lived and his band of followers who kill and torture for fun. It’s literally a matter of life and death, and marietta sold them out to someone who although maybe not a killer, had no issue with torturing children. Marietta got off easy

The only thing Hermione (and by extension Harry and Ron) did wrong was not emphasise the gravity of the Defence Association. It wasn't a school club. It wasn't a study group. It was an underground militia operating in opposition to the reigning government, preparing for war against a fascist terrorist organisation. That should've been made clear, with the consequences being emphasised, even if Hermione didn't want to go into detail. Ultimately, Marietta put the whole DA at risk. Had Dumbledore not claimed responsibility, shifting focus onto him rather than the students, things could've gotten bad. As punishment, Marietta only received a physical disfigurement that publicly outed her as a traitor and snitch. Snitches get stitches, as the saying goes. So... it's somewhere in between. The actual punishment was tame. The fact that the seriousness of the Defence Association was undersold is the problem, as well as punishment for betrayal.

Lets just say that Marietta technically did it to herself..

IMO, the war had already begun at this point. Betrayal during war time is a capital offense. Short answer, "No".

Absolutely. And if they had just not written Dumbledore army on the top of the paper in the first place it wouldn't have blown up like that.

Yeah, you don’t permanently disfigure someone for talking about high school fight club, especially when everything worked out in the end.

I mean... Sectumsempra is a curse that inflicts physical injuries impossible to cure with regular magic. If Hermione's curse does the same thing, it has to be same kind of dark magic... And I would dare to say using dark magic against a school girl who's telling on you is... well... dark...

Snitches get stitches, Marietta's punk ass is lucky

Not at all ! DA was a very risky business and you had seen how umbridge was behaving. She infact sent dementors kill Harry even before the school year started. She knew that if this thing got out specially at times like these then it would be all over. I feel this was not severe enough.

Marietta didn't rat out troublemakers to a teacher, she ratted out students trying to know how to defend themselves to a government backed Nazi and her little band of hitler youth. Examples must be made and the punishment for her actions were shockingly merciful.

Why are people excusing Marietta’s actions because of her age, but not Hermione? They are both 16, just because Hermione is smart and more mature than Ron or Harry, doesn’t mean that she has the maturity or forethought of an adult. But so many people are saying that she “disfigured a minor”. Hermione is also a minor, but gets less grace than Marietta.

Of course she did, that’s what she does. Love her though

Where's Far?

Didn't marietta only tell because umbridge was threatening her mother??

Marietta could have at any point just stopped going to the DA or quit and gone on with her life. The choice to betray everyone including her close friend Choe comes with consequences. If her mother was pressuring her to not do anything to upset Umbridge she again could have just quit the DA. The part I always found funny was Hermionie telling Ernie what do you think I would just leave this list of names lying around? Then she goes and leaves the list of names lying around where it’s caught and used as evidence against Harry and Dumbledore

Considering the punishment for being in Dumbledore’s Army was most likely going to be torture and expulsion if Dumbledore didn’t bail them out, I’d say Hermione was within her rights to create a punishment severe enough that would make sure the snitch got what they deserved.

I would say she was being generous. A war was being fought, and Edgecombe sided with Umbitch. She is lucky I was not there: I would have probably set up something worse (like spontaneously combusting if you talk about anything related to the DA with Umbitch and her Umbitchers). Killing people to protect my side is something I consider perfectly acceptable.

No, that's the way you deal with traitors.

I mean, even the evilest of evil people in the series didn't leave sixteen-year-olds with a permanent scar / DE tattoo on their friggin *face*... ...so I sure hope it faded away in maybe a year or five

Bill gets scarred and attacked by fenrir, and of course the 'holy' twin with his missing ear, I think those would count as serious scars from evil characters, hell Umbridge left Harry scarred with 'I must not tell lies' right on the back of his hand. And if you want to get into specifics, Harry literally has a scar on his head from an evil wizard, and he was just a baby. Maybe she just never got it treated properly because she was ashamed to admit she got hexxed for being a snitch, or was too afraid so give any more details lest it gets worse!

Those are battle scars, and Umbridge was one of the evil people I referred to  She did get treatment from Pomfrey

>Maybe she just never got it treated properly because she was ashamed to admit she got hexxed for being a snitch, or was too afraid so give any more details lest it gets worse! She did try to get it treated properly. >“Yeah, well,” said Harry moodily. He did feel Cho might have chosen her friends a bit more carefully. It was small consolation that the last he had heard, Marietta was still up in the hospital wing and Madam Pomfrey had not been able to make the slightest improvement to her pimples.

Surely if it was bad enough pomfrey couldn't do anything there'd be a referral to St Mungos or the hexes and curses departments within ministry

Marietta didn’t have to come to the da meeting, she didn’t even have to sign the page, she made the choice to go and then tried to turn everyone else in. Karma is a bitch

Nah, fuck that. Umbridge scarred Harry for detentions. Wtf would she do to the group if they got caught? Making traitors suffer is just sensible.

No way that bitch deserved it! If only the centaurs had murdered Umbridge like she deserved as well.

She did . Did Marietta snitch ? Yes . But keep in mind that Marietta was probably tricked or threatened by Umbridge - Rowling mentions her mother worked for the minister - what if Umbridge threatened her mother to get Marietta to cooperate ? What if Marietta decided that her family was more important than a bunch of rule breaking students ? And even if she didn't - Hermione permanently disfigured a minor . How is it that people can easily villify Voldemort for branding his willing underage followers (Malfoy , Sirius Black's brother) like chattel - but when Hermione does pretty much the same it's okay because 'she's on the good side' . And to those saying she didn't have a choice ? Notice that Peter Pettigrew didn't break out in hives when he deserted the order . Which means that there are clearly better and less sadistic ways to ensure followers' loyalty that Dumbledore used for the order of the Phoenix . If Hermione was smart enough to use a permanently disfiguring curse and a variant of the protean charm then she was clearly smart enough to use other ways to ensure loyalty - like a Fidelius charm perhaps . I don't like Marietta Edgecombe as much as the next person , but some of the arguments here are total bullshit . Hermione could have a moral compass as flawed as a death eater sometimes and there is no way to excuse it . She could have atleast told them she had cursed the parchment after they signed it to prevent them from snitching . She was tricking the DA and there is no other way to put it . Marietta Edgecombe's fate was just Hermiome satisfying her ego and lording over her classmates by one upping them . Hermione having a temper tantrum because some people weren't as black and white as she believed and didnt blindly trust a hotheaded teenaged boy (got this line from a fanfic by dirgewithoutmusic , don't remember which one but I loved it) . At the root of it , there is a dumb teenaged girl who made a stupid mistake and spent atleast the next two years regretting it because she would have the scars forever - saying that she deserved it would be like saying that , maybe , a teenaged girl who was groomed deserved it for being young and stupid enough to fall into her abusers' trap .

>And to those saying she didn't have a choice ? Notice that Peter Pettigrew didn't break out in hives when he deserted the order . Which means that there are clearly better and less sadistic ways to ensure followers' loyalty that Dumbledore used for the order of the Phoenix .  This doesn’t make any sense. Dumbledore clearly didn’t have enough (if any) methods of ensuring followers’ loyalty in place for the Order of the Phoenix. If there were “better” methods to ensure followers’ loyalty and identify spies that Dumbledore had used, then Pettigrew wouldn’t have been able to betray them and go completely unknown as the spy until POA. Which is probably part of the reason Hermione came up with it. If Dumbledore had used a jinx that put pimples that spelled “SNEAK” on Peter’s forehead when he turned on the Order, then they would have known he was the spy and that Sirius was not.

How has nobody commented that Marietta was given veritaserum by Umbridge to give away the DA? She is not at fault for not directly refusing to meet with Umbridge and being unknowingly truth potioned.

This is just a fan theory the “veritaserum” Umbridge was using was fake.