Should Duels to the Death be Legal??

[Jay-qu]

I went with maybe.. Im taking up my spot on the fence because I find it hard to think of a situation where dueling to the death would be warrented.. (fighting over a female (or male??) perhaps) But at the same time I think, hell its their life and if they want to have a fight to the death with someone else that aggrees than who are we to stop them.

 

The main problem I see would be things like it becoming a spectator sport, gladiators anyone?

[Racoon]

I looked up some information through Google:

 

http://users.chariot.net.au/~amaranth/articles/7thSea/duelshonour.htm

 

Throughout Europe from the Renaissance through to the 1800's (and up to the 1920's in Italy), the Duel was considered a reasonable, appropriate and acceptable (although often technically illegal and harshly punished if discovered) way for people of import to settle their differences. The many techniques of fencing and swordsmanship grew originally from the Catholic Church practice of judicial dueling in the early middle ages. These were based on the premise that God, in his mercy and wisdom, would not allow an innocent man to be harmed and as such would win in combat against a well trained court-appointed fighter. This in turn led to the acceptance of the duel as a means of settling personal differences. Today, it most often takes the form of Olympic fencing, but this is a much constrained and watered down version of the original.

....

At one point in Spanish history, dueling was so common that less than 25% of male nobles survived to see their late 20's! They made it illegal simply so they'd have a ruling class left! It is somewhat ironic that the Church whose practices started the ball rolling later declared that all those who participate in duels would be excommunicated

....

Duels, in the main, were reserved for the upper classes. After all, you wouldn't risk your life to satisfy honour against a peasant who you could simply exert your noble status on to have whipped, jailed or killed, with little consequence. You only duel your peers, people with whom you have no other easy recourse for justice (or self-aggrandisement.)

 

Duels were fought over anything and everything, from revenge for violent crime against a friend, family member or lover, to philosophical, religious or scientific disagreement. It wasn't just stupid young thugs who engaged in dueling, either. In the 1700's, the famous mathematician Galois left the world puzzled when, at the age of 21, he wrote in his notes an incredibly useful formula, with a note attached saying "The Proof is obvious. I shall write it out later", went off to fight a duel, and was killed. Nobody has been able to work out his 'obvious' proof, but the formula works, and forms a key part of a branch of modern mathematics.

 

So, why would a brilliant scholar go off to a fight he may very well die in, when the worst he would suffer for it by refusing is social ostracism? That is, in fact, the answer. If a nobleman will not defend his honour, then what is his word worth? He obviously doesn't value his own principles, for he will not defend them! Why, then, would anyone take his verbal guarantee on anything?

[Qfwfq]

The history of duels is interesting. The very idea of duels is a question of mentality as well as of the animal instincts which still afflict us. The key mentality behind duelling is how much drive you have to uphold your cause and eliminate the opposing one; duel to the death is the maximal extent of this. The same of course goes for war, especially when in ancient times it was actually fought between the peoples and not decided only by the rulers. Down through history, military skill has usually been a key social factor.

 

To see the mentality behind it, one must cast aside the matter of reason which courts and legal systems are meant to sort out. The "rationale" is that either you are willing to "fight like a man" or you surrender your right to uphold your cause. If the contenders are within the jurisdiction of an authority that can, instead, sort out the right and wrong then, if one grants this, it makes little sense to hold that the same authority should allow duels.

 

Despite this, through history, duels have often been not only permitted but even regulated by law as well as by custom. This implies that law was not concerned with certain types of thing although they were able to cause a drive strong enough for death duel; personal offence, adultery, deceit or whatever. When such things, that cause humiliation or visceral resent, are not an offence by law or even grounds for civil litigation, there you have the loophole for admitting law should permit duels. This is certainly not a modern legal point of view, law is currently meant to maintain public order and guarantee civil solutions to dispute.

 

By the end of the middle ages, the customs (chivalry code), practices and even legalities of duel were quite elaborate and designed to ensure that nobody could claim fraud or coercion but of course the alternative could often be to accept defeat and submission or humiliation, which makes a challenge to duel a coercion in itself. Early chivalry code viewed the personal offence as a sort of grime or grease which justified being "washed" by humiliating the offender with a slap across the face. The offender could in turn wash this by exchanging it with a spit in the face, a worse humiliation, which could in turn be washed by challenging to duel. Of course in those days chivalry code was quite important in war too. Victory was seen as pointless when achieved in lack of honour. Legalities I've heard of are national laws that forbade duels between military officers if they weren't of the same rank, or during wartime because their nation's cause came above their personal one.

 

As for letting steam off, there's no law against boxing matches, is there? Not yet, at least...

[Qfwfq]

So, why would a brilliant scholar go off to a fight he may very well die in, when the worst he would suffer for it by refusing is social ostracism? That is, in fact, the answer. If a nobleman will not defend his honour, then what is his word worth? He obviously doesn't value his own principles, for he will not defend them! Why, then, would anyone take his verbal guarantee on anything?

Yep, that's quite a summary of the mentality beind it and it shows that, for someone in this mentality, it becomes compulsory rather than something one consents to, a form of coercion.

[CraigD]

So, why would a brilliant scholar go off to a fight he may very well die in, when the worst he would suffer for it by refusing is social ostracism? That is, in fact, the answer. If a nobleman will not defend his honour, then what is his word worth? He obviously doesn't value his own principles, for he will not defend them! Why, then, would anyone take his verbal guarantee on anything?

Quite a lot has been written about Galois’s death, much of it distorted and incredible. When I was in school, the story I heard (and repeated to my own students :umno:) was usually of having been challenged by a professional duelist hired by an academic rival, with a doomed Galois writing frantically throughout the night to express all his mathematical ideas before facing certain death.

 

A more historically accurate story can only be pieced together from various incomplete and contradictory accounts. In addition to being a teenage math genius, Galois was into politics, getting kicked out of school, jailed, and various other trouble as a result of some passionately held political opinions – much like a bright teenager in nearly any time and culture. A month after his last release from prison, he was killed in a duel. It’s uncertain with whom or for what reason the duel was fought, but various letters suggest that Galois provoked it, for reasons having to do with a woman.

 

It’s important to understand Galois not just as a superb algebraist and set theorist, but also as a young man with trouble at home (his father committed suicide when Galois was 17), at school (due to “attitude problems”, Galois never succeeded in getting into the school he wanted), with girls/women (he’d apparently been dumped by the woman he may have been fighting over), and on the street.

[Freddy]

Andrew Jackson fought many duels, killed one man, and survived all, but carried a bullet in his chest from one encounter.

 

Alexander Hamilton died in his duel with Aaron Burr, who shot Hamilton in the hip to wound him while preserving his honor. Instead the bullet riccoched off the pelvus into Hamilton's abdomen eventually killing him.

[Boerseun]

I do support duels to the death, if only because someone stupid enough to participate in such a foolish enterprise is potentially harmful to our gene pool. They should be removed from the pool with whatever means it takes, and if they're willing to do it voluntarily, what a bonus! And we get some entertainment value out of it.

 

But in cases where the one participant is obviously bigger and stronger or a better shot or swordsman, we should tie their hands behind their backs and tie their feet together as well, so that they would have to gnaw each other to death. Yeah - that'll be funny. And you can sell ad space on their shirts to toothpaste companies.

[Chacmool]

But in cases where the one participant is obviously bigger and stronger or a better shot or swordsman, we should tie their hands behind their backs and tie their feet together as well, so that they would have to gnaw each other to death. Yeah - that'll be funny. And you can sell ad space on their shirts to toothpaste companies.

:ebomb: That is hysterical! I want to change my vote!

[CraigD]

Alexander Hamilton died in his duel with Aaron Burr, who shot Hamilton in the hip to wound him while preserving his honor. Instead the bullet riccoched off the pelvus into Hamilton's abdomen eventually killing him.

Point of trivial contention of historical accuracy: According to the wikipedia article “Hamilton-Burr duel”, the bullet “ricocheted off Hamilton's second or third false rib—fracturing it—and caused considerable damage to his internal organs, particularly his liver and diaphragm before becoming lodged in his first or second lumbar vertebra”.

 

Less trivially, Burr is quoted as saying afterwards that he was aiming for the heart, not to wound, and despite living near Hamilton's family for the last 25 years of his life, is reported to have never expressed remorse for the killing. He was considered by some of his contemporaries to be what we'd these days call a sociopath.

 

Details and motives aside, the duel ended Hamilton’s life, and then Vice President Burr’s political career. Opinions as to whether either or both events were good or bad for the country were and remain divided.

[CraigD]

But in cases where the one participant is obviously bigger and stronger or a better shot or swordsman, we should tie their hands behind their backs and tie their feet together as well, so that they would have to gnaw each other to death.

Ye gads, man, don’t you realize the consequences of such a proposal?! Natural selection would turn the human race into hideous creatures with atrophied bodies and huge, deadly, razor-toothed jaws! :surprise:

 

Think, man, before springing your dangerous ideas on the world! :kiss:

[Freddy]

Point of trivial contention of historical accuracy: According to the wikipedia article “Hamilton-Burr duel”, the bullet “ricocheted off Hamilton's second or third false rib—fracturing it—and caused considerable damage to his internal organs, particularly his liver and diaphragm before becoming lodged in his first or second lumbar vertebra”.

 

Less trivially, Burr is quoted as saying afterwards that he was aiming for the heart, not to wound, and despite living near Hamilton's family for the last 25 years of his life, is reported to have never expressed remorse for the killing. He was considered by some of his contemporaries to be what we'd these days call a sociopath.

 

Details and motives aside, the duel ended Hamilton’s life, and then Vice President Burr’s political career. Opinions as to whether either or both events were good or bad for the country were and remain divided.

 

 

I believe I read the information concerning Burr's intention to wound Hamilton to regain his honor, in the book Founding Brothers. The author, Joseph J. Ellis claimed this was a common tactic in duels, that the duelist would aim low for the hip to only wound his adversary and keep his honor without killing anyone. I do not remember if he gave evidence supporting this view of Burr's motive.

[CraigD]

I believe I read the information concerning Burr's intention to wound Hamilton to regain his honor, in the book A Fatal Friendship.

One of the joys and frustrations of studying history is that contemporary commentators and modern historians can come to nearly totally opposite conclusions about details such as Burr’s character and intentions in the Burr-Hamilton duel. In looking for excerpts and reviews of Rogow’s “A Fatal Friendship”, I came across Kennedy’s “Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character” which, according to reviews, paints Burr as a hero “two hundred years ahead of his time”, brought to ruined by an envy-crazed, suicidal Hamilton. The wiki article I linked to, and another history I read but can’t recall the name or author of now, painted Burr as a barely-contained psychopathic killer.

 

Which account is most accurate? Sounds like a job for a historian… but wait – the conflicting conclusions are the result of painstaking research and analysis by well-trained, respected historians… ah, the joy and frustration!

[Freddy]

One of the joys and frustrations of studying history is that contemporary commentators and modern historians can come to nearly totally opposite conclusions about details such as Burr’s character and intentions in the Burr-Hamilton duel. In looking for excerpts and reviews of Rogow’s “A Fatal Friendship”, I came across Kennedy’s “Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character” which, according to reviews, paints Burr as a hero “two hundred years ahead of his time”, brought to ruined by an envy-crazed, suicidal Hamilton. The wiki article I linked to, and another history I read but can’t recall the name or author of now, painted Burr as a barely-contained psychopathic killer.

 

Which account is most accurate? Sounds like a job for a historian… but wait – the conflicting conclusions are the result of painstaking research and analysis by well-trained, respected historians… ah, the joy and frustration!

 

The book I mistakenly thought was A Fatal Friendship was instead Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis 2000. On pages 30-31 Ellis discusses the theory that Burr may have not intended to kill Hamilton and that some duelists aimed to wound only. Ellis writes on page 31:

 

"...,when duelists wished to graze or wound their antagonists superficially, the most popular targets were the hips and the legs; Burr's ball missed being a mere flesh wound on the hip by only two or three inches, the damage to the vital organs resulting by the ricochet off Hamilton's rib."

[Aireal]

I voted yes for two main reasons

 

First, I am a crack shot, and real good with a sword. So I would have less to worry about than the average person.

 

Second, If someone raped, killed, ect. someone close to me, I would like the chance to exact retibution myself rather than leaving it in the hands of the court. Besides, it would save the state the cost of a trial and costs of imprisoning the person. Not to mention reducing overcrowding in prisons. There might be other benifits I have not considered.

 

However dueling has drawbacks, and should be regulated by law. In lieu of a trial, the victim, or a champion for the victim, could file for a duel to determine the outcome. I personally would not care if it was T.V. event or not. That might even be used to provide income for the state by selling commercial space during the broadcast.

[Boerseun]

That might even be used to provide income for the state by selling commercial space during the broadcast.

State-sponsored snuff, in other words?

[Aireal]

Boerseun

 

I was influenced in my youth on this subject by a book written by Robert Hienlien in which dueling was commonplace in the future, and most people carried guns. Those people who did not like such danger could opt out of it by wearing a special badge. This badge sent out a signal that disabled any gun pointed at the person, and prevented them from using a gun themsleves. Thus only those who agreed to such things could target each other. There was a number of benifits to socity from this practice.

 

P.S. I love the Kegway.

[CraigD]

[televison coverage of duels] might even be used to provide income for the state by selling commercial space during the broadcast.

I suspect that, once the novelty of seeing actual killing was exhausted, the popularity of such entertainment would wane. Like fencing and combat small arms competition, I expect that duels would be of interest only to a small number of special aficionados and fellow “practitioners of the art”.

 

Incredible as it seems to many people who enjoy combat sports, most people seem to find watching them boring, compared to theatrical simulations, semi-combat sports such as boxing, and non-combat sports such as American football, basketball, and football (soccer). I suspect that real combat-to-the-death would be even less interesting to most audiences than non-lethal combat sports. Fighting for your life, you’d have little incentive to make it interesting for an audience.