Should Duels to the Death be Legal??

[Racoon]

Someone posed a question to me recently that made me stop and ponder? ;)

 

Should it be Legal, for two consenting adults to challenge each other to a duel/fight to the death??

 

:hihi:

 

Can anyone expound on the history of this? Wasn't it a perfectly acceptable way to solve serious personal issues with somebody back in the day?

 

This method of conflict resolution killed the budding Math genius of Evartiste Galois in 1832.

 

??

[arkain101]

I think there could be special scenarios for it.

 

But the person that survived would be living with the fact they killed someone in a society where that is ileagal. They might live in regret. It may change their life in todays society. People may look at you differently.

 

Thats why I think it would need to be a very special case. Most likely private aswell.

 

Apparently politicians are allowed to order thousands of people to duel to the death in war, so why not people on their own terms eh..

[HydrogenBond]

One of the problems with that is that being right in arguments would be a function of how well one shoots. The final result would be a miltary state since soilders get the best shooting training.

[pgrmdave]

And who would make sure that people didn't cheat? Who would define cheating? How would we know that the person was consenting (they are, after all, dead, so we can't ask them)? There are too many questions to allow it, so it should be outlawed.

[InfiniteNow]

This thread needs clarification. Just because something is outlawed does not mean it will never occur. That's why I voted the way I did. The law has little to do with it... It's more primal to kill those who disagree with you.

 

The issue seems to be murder, and if it's still murder if the other agrees to the terms...

 

Watching too much National Geographic,

[TheFaithfulStone]

I'm all for duels to the death, as long as the other guy is the one that dies, right?

 

The issue seems to be murder, and if it's still murder if the other agrees to the terms...

 

Or whether or not it sometimes okay to kill people, and if there should be system so that when someone really does deserve it you get a chance to do them in yourself.

 

Maybe instead of turning it into "Justice System - Red in Tooth and Claw" - which leads to exactly the situation HydrogenBond described - people who are good shots, or handy with a sword or whatever could get away with pretty much anything - we should let the wronged party throw the switch in certain cases.

 

TFS

[CraigD]

Should it be Legal, for two consenting adults to challenge each other to a duel/fight to the death??

A heavily qualified yes, say I.

 

The rationale for dueling being a just means for settling disputes has several origins.

1. In the form of “decision by champions” it allows evenly-matched armies to decide a battle without both sides suffering severe losses. A champion may be an individual, or a small team. The logic of this is that the champions are representative of the combat quality of the armies, so the outcome will be the same as if the full armies fought.
   
2. According to the theory of divine intervention, God has an active interest and desire to intercede in human affairs, and will only permit the duelist who is in the right (carrying out the will of God) to win. According to this theory, a weak, unskilled person can beat a strong, skilled one, as long as they are in the right. This rationale is the basis for the legal and semi-legal personal combat between individuals that persisted until around the 1900 in many countries, and, in isolated instances, to this day.
   
3. Although not really a rationale at all, two or more foolish people may each be convinced that they cannot fail to win a duel with, and chose to based on this irrational belief. Most impromptu fight, non-lethal and lethal, appear to be based on this irrational mindset.
   
4. Based of the principle of the right of the individual to self defense, you have the right to kill someone who attacks you with lethal intent. If it’s legally impossible to determine who of two duelists is the attacker and who the defender, then by the principle of presumed innocence in the presence of reasonable doubt of guilt, the winner of a duel can’t be held criminally responsible for murder. There’s historic evidence that this had legal validity in the 19th century American western frontier, though not nearly as often or widely as depicted in many western movies and TV shows.
   

IMHO, the first of these rationales is valid and sensible, the second is not, the third not worthy of consideration, and the fourth an abuse of the intent of the law.

 

If dueling, lethal or non-lethal, is to be sanctioned, it’s important that it follow a heavily safeguarded legal process. Historically, duels in states that permitted them were often either simple murders, covered-up by the claim of a duel, possibly after planting a weapon on the victim, or involved coercion of a victim into accepting a duel under the threat of murder without the chance to defend themselves, or threats to their friends, family, or livelihood. A validly sanctioned duel should be free of such abuse or coercion, and should prohibit duels involving children and mentally ill people. For a legal process to assure this, I think it would have to be ordered by a judge, reviewed by a distant appeals court, and possibly by a state supreme court.

 

Weeding out all the corrupt and abusive instances of personal dueling, and with a lengthy legal process providing for an emotional “cooling down” period, I doubt that many legitimate death-duels would occur. Also, the legal framework for such duels would not necessarily require that duels be to the death, or even be physical. A barehanded duel to submission, or a “duel to defeat at a game of chess” is as valid a contest as to the death with swords or pistols.

[TheFaithfulStone]

a contest as to the death with swords or pistols.

 

Or other gentlemanly accouterments.

 

Now I have "Froggy Went a'Courting" stuck in my head.

 

TFS

[Turtle]

Someone posed a question to me recently that made me stop and ponder? :Guns:

 

Should it be Legal, for two consenting adults to challenge each other to a duel/fight to the death??

 

:estrange:

 

I voted no as it seems under the current law it is possible to have a duel to the death and have the winner either not charged or acquited of murder.

I am not privy to Racoon's conversation, but as we live in the same village I realised what may have prompted the discussion. Just last week here, two CB radio freaks got in an argument on the air about a powered microphone, arranged a meeting place, both showed up with guns, and the not-dead guy emptied his clip into the now-dead guy. Both were in their vehicles. The not-dead participant is now out on bail and pleading self-defense to a 2nd degree murder charge. He says the other guy (now-dead guy) pointed his gun at him and made a strange face, so he opened up. He initially fled the scene but later called police & turned himself in. I'll see if I can find a news page link. (big buddies 10-4 :hyper: )

 

Got ya....er it...got it...got the link.:shrug:

http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8KFLS5O0.html

er....got them....yeah, that's the ticket...

http://www.kgw.com/neighborhood/vancouver/stories/kgw_093006_news_vancouver_shooting.2fc1ed9b.html

[Racoon]

And who would make sure that people didn't cheat? Who would define cheating? How would we know that the person was consenting (they are, after all, dead, so we can't ask them)? There are too many questions to allow it, so it should be outlawed.

 

In todays day and age, as compared to the handshake contracts of yesteryore, you would/will sign a legally binding agreement with representatives from both sides at the engagement.

 

This wouldn't be anything new in the history of man.. It would expedite a lot of personal conflict concerning mass engagements of troops/soldiers as CraigD articulated.

[arkain101]

What about the idea of duels/brawls/ under the court of law.

 

For example. If two people just want to beat the daylights out of eachother, have it leagal where they could do so.

 

I imagine this would solve alot more problems than you would expect. Sometimes a good fight will raise your moral so high that you realise so many of your issues were related to bordom and stresss.

 

And a good couple of punches or a broken bone can make you feel alive, and its one less court battle.

[Turtle]

What about the idea of duels/brawls/ under the court of law.

 

For example. If two people just want to beat the daylights out of eachother, have it leagal where they could do so.

 

We have this already with these organized bare-fisted fights among amateurs we see on TV. It just doesn't quite come up to the snuff of 'to the death'.

Touche!....:Guns:

[infamous]

The not-dead participant is now out on bail and pleading self-defense to a 2nd degree murder charge. He says the other guy (now-dead guy) pointed his gun at him and made a strange face, so he opened up.

Moral of this story; Be careful to control facial expressions when confronted by strangers. And on second thought, also around relatives........................Infy

[Freddy]

I voted "Maybe". In special cases,i.e., Bush versus Saddam, Bush versus Kim, Bush versus Chavez, and Bush versus Ahmadinejad. Eventually, I will be happy with the outcome.

[TheFaithfulStone]

:shrug:

 

I don't know you.

[Kriminal99]

I vote no for the (already voiced I believe) reason that duels to the death measure dueling ability not the strength of ones arguments or beliefs. Additionally I believe resorting to violence where better communication could suffice is poor practice.

[C1ay]

How many would be coerced into a duel by an unknown threat against a loved one if bad people had this tool available to them? Me thinks this practice is best left in history for our kids to read about instead of living it.