Legal duels. Your thoughts?

[awisler]

Well I have actually heard some talk on this recently, so what are your thoughts on legal duels?

I mean that two people could agree to fight to the death, not something done on the brim, but something that you must be sober to sign on and that your are given time incase it was something done due to emotions. But I mean I really dont see a problem with it, if two people want to kill each other why not go ahead and do it only where they will die rather than risk going at it in a public place where others could be endangered?

And it would not be something that you can do all the time, perhaps once every X years and no one could go to it except for family friends if both fighters wanted it. I don't know I guess it sounds kind of crazy but to me it makes sense that if both people are sober and have time to rationalize it and are still willing to do it, why not?

[Thanatos]

I've nothing wrong with a duel, as long as it's not done in the streets. It's got to be professionally done.

.... and then you arrest the winner for being a murderer.

[El Brujo]

If two consenting adults want to kill each other in a legal and respectable fashion, then why shouldn't they be allowed to? It ought to be one of our unalienable rights as Americans.

[Burnum]

If two consenting adults want to kill each other in a legal and respectable fashion, then why shouldn't they be allowed to? It ought to be one of our unalienable rights as Americans.

I thought the American founding fathers were largely against Dueling.

[awisler]

I thought the American founding fathers were largely against Dueling.

Well, Burr and Hamilton dueled...Hamilton was a big player in the founding of America.

[El Brujo]

I thought the American founding fathers were largely against Dueling.

That's because Hamilton went and got shot and the rest got skeert.

[Yorkshireman]

If two consenting adults want to kill each other in a legal and respectable fashion, then why shouldn't they be allowed to? It ought to be one of our unalienable rights as Americans.

Would'nt work very well here in the UK. Most if not all weapons are banned, so we'd have to use catapults. I should imagine it could take hours, if not days, to kill an opponent with one of those.

Come to think of it, I think catapults might be banned too.

[awisler]

I've nothing wrong with a duel, as long as it's not done in the streets. It's got to be professionally done.

.... and then you arrest the winner for being a murderer.

Why?

Dictionary.com

1.Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

According to the primary definition, in the U.S. murder is the killing of another human being UNDER CONDITIONS SPECIFICALLY COVERED IN LAW. If duels are legalized, then the conditions of the winner of the duel are not legally considered murder and therefore nothing illegal was done, and the winner could not be prosecuted.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Retarded. Utterly irresponsible.

[Exarch]

i say go for it.
do it for 'honour'
plus i'll get a chance to kill people who annoy me; or who slight my 'honour'

[awisler]

Yup, if your not angry enough to fight to the death over an issue you shouldn't be too mad over it in the first place.

[Cluny the Scourge]

The abandonment of the legally-tolerated duel is one sign of moral degeneration in Western society - it permits people to behave dishonourably and insultingly toward one another with impunity, without the threat of a fair contest of force to encourage them to be polite and decent. It is a mandate for jerks.

It's also evidence of governmental paternalism and interference - the law has no business involving itself with matters that can only do injury to those who choose to participate in them, e.g. drug-taking, duels.

[awisler]

The abandonment of the legally-tolerated duel is one sign of moral degeneration in Western society - it permits people to behave dishonourably and insultingly toward one another with impunity, without the threat of a fair contest of force to encourage them to be polite and decent. It is a mandate for jerks.

It's also evidence of governmental paternalism and interference - the law has no business involving itself with matters that can only do injury to those who choose to participate in them, e.g. drug-taking, duels.

:hmmm: Well drugs can hurt those who do not participate in drug taking themselves....If someone wants to lock themselves in their house for the entire time they are under the effect then I suppose it would be just them being harmed, but the fact that the money they use to pay for drugs is used to carry out violence against innocent people. So that I am not so sure about, but duels would be a simple fight that two people agreed to that would not harm anyone else.

[Dunecat]

What if a stray shot hits a bystander? What would be the rules for dueling weapons? Would there have to be special places for duels? What if one doesn't duel in that area? What if one murders another and claims it was a duel? What happens if one dies? Are they left alone? Would the other call the police? Would they believe him? Wouldn't this be giving a death-sentence to those with quick-tempers?

etc, etc...

[awisler]

What if a stray shot hits a bystander? What would be the rules for dueling weapons? Would there have to be special places for duels? What if one doesn't duel in that area? What if one murders another and claims it was a duel? What happens if one dies? Are they left alone? Would the other call the police? Would they believe him? Wouldn't this be giving a death-sentence to those with quick-tempers?

etc, etc...

Duels would be in completely open arenas, cement with a thick layer of padding and some artificial grass to make it just a flat environment, nothing to throw like sand or rocks etc. The duel would consist of no spectators, absolutely none unless both duelists agree to have their family there to watch.

The duels arent just I killed him but we were dueling so its OK Mr. Policeman. They are kept on record and must be signed and registered for etc. You could not just duel every day, the weapons would be hand to hand usually, or the duelists could agree to swords or if they want it brutal, maces or axes whatever.

And as I said, it is not going to occur due to tempers, it is something that you would both have to say to the office that keeps track of them, we are considering dueling. In a few months or a year if you are still both upset over it and are willing to fight, then you do. This lets emotions settle down and rational thinking to occur as to whether or not they truly want to fight.

And if there is a fear that political careers could be ruined, outlaw the dueling of politicians.

[Ragabash]

This could be abused so easily in modern world; people being forced to duel by criminal organizations and other people, increased violence rates, making society less equal, oh and how could I continue this list just about forever. This might work in smaller villages and tribal enviorement but not in modern societies.

I doubt it would take longer than five years for duels to become world wide entertainment and thus change the socities in a very harsh way; to even worse than what they are now.

[Chlodwig I.]

This could be abused so easily in modern world; people being forced to duel by criminal organizations and other people, increased violence rates, making society less equal, oh and how could I continue this list just about forever. This might work in smaller villages and tribal enviorement but not in modern societies.

I doubt it would take longer than five years for duels to become world wide entertainment and thus change the socities in a very harsh way; to even worse than what they are now.

signed
+rep

[Cluny the Scourge]

This could be abused so easily in modern world; people being forced to duel by criminal organizations and other people, increased violence rates, making society less equal, oh and how could I continue this list just about forever. This might work in smaller villages and tribal enviorement but not in modern societies.

I doubt it would take longer than five years for duels to become world wide entertainment and thus change the socities in a very harsh way; to even worse than what they are now.

Reducing the surplus population and preserving all of the resources they deplete.

I once saw this old man fall down and smack his head on the pavement, he had a huge hole in his head and blood was pouring out of it. I don’t want to see that again. It might be nice to think about getting revenge or something like that on people, but in the end could you really kill them?

If you don't want to see it then don't - no-one is suggesting that private duels should be open to the public anyway. Just don't watch. And yes, I could kill my enemies in a duel. I would savour that.

[Ragabash]

Reducing the surplus population and preserving all of the resources they deplete.

Reducing the population? I have tell you that even few thousands of duels now and then are not going to affect population birth in a world of over 6 billion people.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Reducing the population? I have tell you that even few thousands of duels now and then are not going to affect population birth in a world of over 6 billion people.

Then it is no serious problem and that is all the more reason to allow it.

So you can have some 6'8" military trained killing machine challenge some otherwise competent but bookish politician, who obviously has to refuse - but then has a destroyed career due to some perceived cowardice.
Or can you only challenge those in a similar weight bracket? That would unequalise the concept of an 'honour' duel - poke fun at the fat guy and he can never gain his 'satisfaction'.
Or can you make use of 'champions' to fight for you? Here I see something similar to the US court system of 'He with the most expensive lawyer shall win'.

No, sorry. This is such a barbaric concept we can only be glad we have civilised ourselves beyond it

No professional 'champions' - and the challenged party has the right to choose weapons, which can be one-shot duelling pistols which negates the advantage of strength and hand-to-hand combat skills. If the bookish-type will not duel even then, then it is not 'perceived' cowardice but the real thing.