Legaliseing Duels: A long-term solution to violence

[Cronos Impera]

Greetings fellow Org. members. We're living in the age of street violence, terrorism and drug abuse.Yes, this is the righteous Modern Age.
In the past when two men had a problem to settle, they duelled themselves to death and great wounds, legally and without having to warry about police busting them for disturbing public harmony.
When two men hate eachothers guts to death it is their right to settle the dispute with violence. Duels would b faught to the death in a controled enviroment so none of the two uses guns or backstabs.They would have to sign a statement and prove they aren't drunk and are fully aware of the risks.
Benefits:
Long-Term:
Reduction of gang violence
Relieves the police of extra duties
Helps to implement the Code of Honour into our honourless society
Short-Term:
Reduces drug abuse and consumption

[Sir Moody]

in the past it was the upper classes that dueled (the old quickdraw in cowboy movies is a myth) and we dont have any problem with them these days they just tend to be prats. It would stop any of the things you mentioned in the slightest...

[Rodion Romanovich]

the traditional animalistic "duel" looks something like this:
1. look in the eyes until either side surrenders or goes to step 2
2. start taking turns hitting each others, then retreating, until either side surrenders or goes to step 3
3. start real fight, but no hits in groin or head, until either side surrenders or goes to step 4
4. fight to the death, unless one side surrenders
if one side surrenders the fight stops immediately, failing to obey the rules = chased away from the herd or claimed status position not tolerated or acknowledged by others, or punishment

Such duels can be good for settling conflicts about women etc., but not for settling justice and law related things, because law should already punish all crimes, and if you go to a duel over a by law unpunishable injustice someone committed against you, the duel gives little satisfaction if you win, but creates extreme mental suffering if you lose, in which case you gain nothing from duelling.

In any case I don't think duels with weapons should ever be allowed, because such duels would always be to the death. In a duel without weapons I doubt many would be able to kill their opponents, and very few would be foolish enough to not surrender if in danger of death.

Unfortunately legalizing bare-hands duels may also have the effect of creating a society where violence is more tolerated. Modern people are unable to properly distinguish isolated fights after which both parts make peace from total surrenderless war. And most of the time frustration in modern society isn't caused by conflicts with individual persons, but by the society systems, thing like shortage of jobs, horrible work hours etc. etc. for which no single person (but a herd mentality or a group with limited internal contact who want a quick solution to some other problem and haven't got time to oversee all consequences of their choice) could be blamed. A duel in modern society would then mostly end up being usage of all your built-up frustration against someone who doesn't deserve all of it. As long as society has a tendency to build up so much frustration and desire to kill and hurt, it's probably necessary to maintain a strict taboo on violence. So I think I'll say no to legalizing duels at this time, but in a better society form it might be a good idea.

[Divinus Arma]

A civil society, governed by rule of law, cannot tolerate the intentional murder of one of its citizens, even if the murdered citizen consents. The consequence is an allowance for the fullment of violent imagination against those who are artifically honor-bound to duel. We cannot allow for the perception of honor, which is subjective, to interfere with the freedom of choice.

[Hepcat]

But how do you decide between what was a consented fight to the death and what was just murder.

The idea that if the person surrenders then they get out of it won't work. How will people know if they have surrendered. Unless you make a kind of public event out of it which would hardly be popular. Where would you have it?

You can't just hold it in the local park in plain view of children and anyone else who happens to walk past.

Next will we have blood feuds between families, or organised battles between neighbourhoods. If one person kills someone in a duel, the dead persons friend could challenge the victor to a duel to avenge their pal's death. Then where does it end?

[SwordsMaster]

I think they should be legal. That way people would watch what they say and do. We'd avoid a whole lot of legal actions: "Oh my God! He insulted me!"

Well, go defend yourself.

[English assassin]

What a good idea. Obviously anyone who is stronger should be allowed to kill anyone weaker and take their wife and all their possessions. There's "honour" for you.

If one person kills someone in a duel, the dead persons friend could challenge the victor to a duel to avenge their pal's death. Then where does it end?

Read Njal's saga and find out.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Blood feud is also a deterrent. After a blood feud, only a handful of those who actually use blood feud in practise still live, while most of those who dislike blood feud still live. It's a good way of removing warmongering people from a population. If you read Njal's Saga and old chronicles, you'll see that it's very seldom any Aett's other than those who are throne pretender Aett's actually took part in blood feud.

@Hepcat: yes, that's the problem of duels, you need a referee to check the fight. Now that leaves a lot of power in the hands of the referee, doesn't it? But if you think for a while it turns out that's exactly the same power the judge gets in a modern trial, so the ref argument isn't better opposition to duels than to law.

For the record I'm against duels, but for different reasons, see above.

[Husar]

Very good points, Hepcat.
I agree.

[doc_bean]

Duels certainly weren't always to the death. More often than not, they were 'first blood' kind of affairs which occasionally ended with someone dead.

I'm pro, I've thought on occasion that there is too little violence in this (western) world, and every so often all that held up violence explodes.

[Navaros]

I'm all for legalizing duels but I think it needs to be extended to "the war on terror".

USA soldiers should fight duels 1vs1 against Muslim insurgents.

May the better duelists win.

[drone]

Screw the whole long term benefits argument. If two consenting adults wish to fight to the death, they should be allowed to do so.

But only if they use these weapons and duel in an approved arena with the appropriate soundtrack.


Edit-> fight music should sound something like this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you were to legalise duels you'd have to do it properly, and fulls formalise it.

1. First a chalenge shouls be issued, generally this would be throwing down a fencing gauntlet or some such. This gives the offending person the chance to apologise and decline the duel or accept.

2. If accepted the one who issues the challenge decides the place and time.

3. The chanllenged chooses weapons, to which the challenger must agree.

4. Both parties have seconds to look out for them and an impartial judge.

5. The type of fight is determined beforehand, be it first blood, quarter or to the death.

6. Should there be any irregularities, such as someone firing early the duel would have to be declared illegal.

7. Once a duel has been fought honour must be considered satisfied.

As to blood feuds, they don't romove the violent and warlike, they remove the weaker, especially if they are conducted through formal duels. In such a situation the more aggressive and bellicose family is more likely to survive.

I'm of a devided opinion myself. I tend to think that if two people want to have at each other it might as well be in a legal and controlled environment, rather than on the street.

[Divinus Arma]

I'm all for legalizing duels but I think it needs to be extended to "the war on terror".

USA soldiers should fight duels 1vs1 against Muslim insurgents.

May the better duelists win.

Sounds like a great idea! Then those islamofacists would have to stop hiding behind women and children so we could kill them properly.

[scooter_the_shooter]

I am all for it, as long as both sides want to do so. As long as....

The two parties draw up a contract with witnesses...one from each side.

They are in an enviroment where no one else will get hit. IE a field with berm on each side.





Maybe the "gangstas" will hit each other instead of the 7 year old girl by the ice cream truck

[Rodion Romanovich]

As to blood feuds, they don't romove the violent and warlike, they remove the weaker, especially if they are conducted through formal duels. In such a situation the more aggressive and bellicose family is more likely to survive.

It all depends on in what system the blood feud takes place.

If the violent and aggressive are few in numbers, then the aggressive and violent will be removed by a blood feud system. They'll take a few innocents with them to hell, but the number of innocents that end up victims of their terror are only a fraction of the number of innocents that exist.

So for example in such a system as I suggest above, that would be the case because the more aggressive family will start all blood feuds, and even if they win some of the blood feuds they'll take losses, especially if the fights don't contain extremely lethal modern weapons. If they're aggressive they're likely to start fights with others over and over again until they've taken so many losses that only very few within that family are still alive. Those few who are still alive are likely to be injured, dishonored and hated, and will have difficulty finding wifes/husbands among any families except other violent families (but such families are few so they'll soon be inbred), and if the survivors against all odds do, they're so few that in the evolutionary long term perspective their seed is diluted so that they're soon gone (or they only got wives/husbands from other aggressive families, and people with such aggressiveness stand a greater chance of extinction according to the lower chance of getting wives/husbands and the inbreeding among the aggressive families, so the offspring's chance of survive is decreased by every generation). They take a few innocent and non-violent with them to hell, but there's no way they will survive for very long themselves. But because the violent families constitute such a low percentage, there's very low risk of ending up being attacked by one of them - thus ending up in blood fued - if you're non-violent, which means the average non-violent person wins in the end.

[Silver Rusher]

Judge: Why did you murder Mr Connolly?
Man: I didn't murder him! It was a duel!
Judge: Do you have evidence?
Man: How can I have evidence for something like that?
Judge: Good point. You are cleared of all charges.

Duels in society? I don't think so. Unless of course it had to by done officially, with documents signed by both participants. In which case I am all in favour of it.

[Brenus]

What weapons will be allowed: usually, the weapons for duels were axes, swords and guns…
Duels will be better to kill opponents, people you don’t like or want their jobs. You will just have to hire good killers who will “offend” or be “offended” to do the job.
If dues were forbidden in the past, it was for good reasons…

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sounds like a great idea! Then those islamofacists would have to stop hiding behind women and children so we could kill them properly.

I don't see many terrorists willing to go toe-to-toe with US Marines.

Crazed Rabit

[Rodion Romanovich]

Duels will be better to kill opponents, people you don’t like or want their jobs. You will just have to hire good killers who will “offend” or be “offended” to do the job.

Very good point

[doc_bean]

I don't see many terrorists willing to go toe-to-toe with US Marines.

Why not ? Certainly if it's a sword fight. The US could no longer use their technological advantage, and since they should be willing to die for their cause, killing/hurting the other guy with a sword shouldn't be that hard.

Now, the real beauty of dueling should be in politics though. Imagine instead of that nasty Iraq war we could have just had Bush vs Sadam : the Duel. Live on CNN. Wouldn't that have been a lot nicer ?

[GoreBag]

Next will we have blood feuds between families, or organised battles between neighbourhoods. If one person kills someone in a duel, the dead persons friend could challenge the victor to a duel to avenge their pal's death. Then where does it end?

I'm not sure I see a problem.

[Moros]

I'm not sure I see a problem.

Yeah, see it as a solution to the overpopulation.

[Mithras]

Non-fatal Ritualized combat might be agood idea to get out some of that aggression but lethal combat is dangerous and counter productive.

although I think that condemmed criminal gladiator fights would be awsome!

[Kralizec]

Why not ? Certainly if it's a sword fight. The US could no longer use their technological advantage, and since they should be willing to die for their cause, killing/hurting the other guy with a sword shouldn't be that hard.

Now, the real beauty of dueling should be in politics though. Imagine instead of that nasty Iraq war we could have just had Bush vs Sadam : the Duel. Live on CNN. Wouldn't that have been a lot nicer ?

Saddam actually challenged Bush for a personal duel.

I voted no.

[Navaros]

Sounds like a great idea! Then those islamofacists would have to stop hiding behind women and children so we could kill them properly.

I don't think they'd be hiding so much if they knew it was a fair 1vs1 fight with equal tech weapons on both sides. So indeed it would be a win/win situation.

Maybe they could even broadcast it on Pay Per View and the revenue goes to the countrys' governments where it airs. An added benefit to an already ideal situation.

Seems like a truly great idea; wonder what's stopping the USA and Allies from doing it. Couldn't be that they are afraid to, could it?

[Hepcat]

Now, the real beauty of dueling should be in politics though. Imagine instead of that nasty Iraq war we could have just had Bush vs Sadam : the Duel. Live on CNN. Wouldn't that have been a lot nicer ?

This would be the only dueling I would advocate, rather than waste the lives of their own people leaders can sort out their little issues personally, though I doubt Bush would win.

The idea of signing a document saying that you consent to being shot at or stabbed has one major flaw in it. IT CAN BE FORGED!

Unless there was some kind of organisation for registering participants in a duel but that is a waste of time and resources setting such a thing up.

[Moros]

This would be the only dueling I would advocate, rather than waste the lives of their own people leaders can sort out their little issues personally, though I doubt Bush would win.

He can let Cheney fight for him. He's good with a shotgun...

[Hepcat]

Where would they duel? Somewhere neutral like Switzerland maybe?

[Papewaio]

No, absolutely not in a democratic society.

Rule of the jungle is for an uncivilised society. All it would do is mean that thugs could murder doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, teachers, priests in one to one combat based on the perception of some insult.

All this does is pander to bullies not the rule of law. So I say it should be treated as murder and all their wealth divided up amongst the likes of women's refugees and foundations for the cure of cancer.