Devil's Advocate: Why should dueling be illegal?

[Vox_Imperatoris]

In this thread, I will argue for the position that consensual dueling, i.e. fights carried on to a specific, predetermined point, possibly to the death, should be legal under this proposal.

Of course, one wouldn’t be talking about just allowing people to randomly kill each other in the streets. It would be highly regulated, like so:
[ul]
[li]One person would contact another and propose the duel.[/li]
[li]The second person would then be able to accept or decline. If he accepts, he then chooses the weapons and circumstances under which it is to be fought, and the time and place of the duel itself. The time must be at least 24 hours in the future after the proposal is made to prevent hasty killings. This agreement would have to be written, signed, and made in the presence of a notary public to keep people from murdering each other and claiming it was a legitimate duel.[/li]
[li]It would not be permitted to choose weapons or circumstances that might pose a danger to parties not consenting to the duel, e.g. machine guns in a crowded mall. Weapons may include, but are not necessarily limited to: swords, pistols, rifles, or hand-to-hand combat.[/li]
[li]The circumstances for ending the duel must be definitively agreed-upon before the duel begins, and violating them, if intentional, would be a commission of murder, to a degree depending on the severity of the violation. They might include first blood drawn, first knocked to the floor (possibly in a way similar to boxing), incapacitation, or death.[/li]
[li]Either party would be able to withdraw at any time, even if he was the one who issued the challenge in the first place, and even if the fight about to proceed.[/li][/ul]

So, given that this is totally consensual, does not pose any danger to people not participating in the duel, and no more potentially damaging to one’s health than other activities which are routinely accepted, why should this be illegal just because the harm in this case is intentional? Especially since many people accept that we are free to do what we want with our own bodies as long as we don’t hurt people who don’t consent?

This is especially targeted at people who already support legalizing drugs and/or prostitution, but is not intended to be an attack on them by association (you know, “If you support this; you’re like <bad people>!”). Obviously, if you agree with outlawing things because they are sinful, you will not support this.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[The_Batman]

You really need us to explain why one person killing another one is a bad thing?

Who cares if it’s consensual? Most people don’t know what’s good for them, especially ones that want to settle scores to the death.

Let’s not forget the legal aspect: We would have to amend the constitution to allow people to be deprived of life without due process and to be punished in a cruel and unusual way, and all to allow groups of people to defend their honor.

[Freudian_Slit]

What if someone was intimidated into being part of a duel? That is, they enter into the agreement but it’s under duress?

[Kimstu]

It is already legal (or at least easy to get away with) to settle disputes by a non-fatal physical contest in a private place. Extending this leeway to include legal sanction of duels to the death would be a burden to government and society, and I don’t see what significant advantage would accrue to individuals that would justify that burden.

For one thing, requiring only a notarized signature and a 24-hour waiting period would be completely inadequate, IMO. People who are knowingly putting themselves in a situation that is bound to be fatal to one of them would probably be required to have a full psychiatric evaluation.

And how the hell would you certify that the person killed in the duel hadn’t actually changed his/her mind between the obtaining of the notarized signature and the start of the combat?

If you and a buddy want to have a fight, go have a fight. If you want to murder somebody, murder them and take the consequences. Don’t expect the government to lend its imprimatur to blood feuds.

[Oakminster]

I call dibs on the PPV production rights. I’ll even set aside a portion of the profits for the loser’s estate.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Tijuana_Golds

You really need us to explain why one person killing another one is a bad thing?

You think it’s bad. Some people think sex outside of marriage is bad. Some people think drinking and smoking are bad. Some people think gay sex will earn one eternal damnation, surely something that society should try to prevent happening to people under this line of thought.

Who cares if it’s consensual? Most people don’t know what’s good for them, especially ones that want to settle scores to the death.

Drinking is bad for you. Smoking is bad for you. Having unprotected sex is bad for you. These things are not illegal. Many people also support making dangerous drugs and prostitution legal, too. We allow all the time for people to do things that aren’t good for them. Even being certifiably insane without medication is legal, as long as you don’t commit crimes.

Let’s not forget the legal aspect: We would have to amend the constitution to allow people to be deprived of life without due process and to be punished in a cruel and unusual way, and all to allow groups of people to defend their honor.

It’s not a punishment; it’s a consensual activity. Is BDSM a cruel and unusual punishment? I certainly wouldn’t want that kind of stuff inflicted on me without my consent.

@Freudian_Slit

What if someone was intimidated into being part of a duel? That is, they enter into the agreement but it’s under duress?

Hence the notary and the waiting period, although there is perhaps a good point that it is not long enough. Maybe a trip to a psychiatrist should also be allowed.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

ETA: Kimstu, why would you have to certify that he changed his mind? All he would have to do is not go to the predetermined spot, or make a clear indication of withdrawal once at the spot. Perhaps the notary should also be required to be at the location of the duel, though, to prevent foul play.

[Freudian_Slit]

@Vox_Imperatoris

Hence the notary and the waiting period, although there is perhaps a good point that it is not long enough. Maybe a trip to a psychiatrist should also be allowed.

Well, I mean, what if they were intimidated into going to the notary and waiting 24 hours?

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Freudian_Slit

Well, I mean, what if they were intimidated into going to the notary and waiting 24 hours?

Hence the psychiatrist suggestion I added. Or if not a psychiatrist, some expert who you think would be able to detect intimidation. The duel would not be allowed to go on if intimidation was reasonably suspected, just as you can’t force people into signing away their house.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Alessan]

The problem is that if you allow dueling, sooner or later you develop a “dueling culture”, where societal pressures *demand *that people use violence to resolve their differences. By and large, this is not good for society - and it’s the reason dueling was outlawed in the first place.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Alessan

The problem is that if you allow dueling, sooner or later you develop a “dueling culture”, where societal pressures *demand *that people use violence to resolve their differences. By and large, this is not good for society - and it’s the reason dueling was outlawed in the first place.

“When you allow drugs, you create a ‘drug culture’, where societal pressures demand that people partake in harmful recreational drug use in order to gain acceptance. By and large, this is not good for society, and it is one reason why drugs were outlawed in the first place.” I’m not meaning to be especially snarky, just pointing out that this argument can apply to a very large number of things.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Kimstu]

@Vox Imperatoris

ETA: Kimstu, why would you have to certify that he changed his mind? All he would have to do is not go to the predetermined spot, or make a clear indication of withdrawal once at the spot. Perhaps the notary should also be required to be at the location of the duel, though, to prevent foul play.

Foul play is exactly what I’m talking about. In your system, a person who signs up for a duel to the death has just handed the other party a get-out-of-jail-free card for murder. Show up at the secluded safe spot, tell your opponent you’ve changed your mind, he shoots you anyway, you’re dead, he has your signature on the duelling agreement, how can anybody tell that what actually happened was murder?

And where do you imagine you’re going to find this population of notaries who are willing to accompany two armed duellists to a secluded safe spot to guard against foul play? Are they all going to have to be trained as duelling referees, in order to spot violations of the agreed-upon duelling rules? If they fail to notice a violation or a recantation by one of the participants, would they be open to legal liability for a death? And who’s going to pay for their time? Notaries may charge a few bucks to witness a signature, but you surely don’t imagine that they’d agree to act as professional duel supervisors for that kind of money.

All in all, about the stupidest idea to come down the pike in quite a while. Fresh and original, though.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Kimstu

And where do you imagine you’re going to find this population of notaries who are willing to accompany two armed duellists to a secluded safe spot to guard against foul play? Are they all going to have to be trained as duelling referees, in order to spot violations of the agreed-upon duelling rules? If they fail to notice a violation or a recantation by one of the participants, would they be open to legal liability for a death? And who’s going to pay for their time? Notaries may charge a few bucks to witness a signature, but you surely don’t imagine that they’d agree to act as professional duel supervisors for that kind of money.

Maybe they would be required to be trained and licensed dueling referees, and you could easily require the participants to pay them whatever they charge in order to cover the costs. There’s no shortage of referees for other activities, although admittedly, certifying them as notaries would be quite a bit more difficult. That just means that they would make a lot of money, though, and people will do a whole lot of things for good money.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Alessan]

@Vox_Imperatoris

“When you allow drugs, you create a ‘drug culture’, where societal pressures demand that people partake in harmful recreational drug use in order to gain acceptance. By and large, this is not good for society, and it is one reason why drugs were outlawed in the first place.” I’m not meaning to be especially snarky, just pointing out that this argument can apply to a very large number of things.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

And yet,even though drugs are illegal, drug culture is still alive and well. Duelling cuture, not so much.

It just goes to show you that you can’t always generalize. What’s good for one issue isn’t neccessarily good for another.

[Kimstu]

@Vox Imperatoris

Maybe they would be required to be trained and licensed dueling referees, and you could easily require the participants to pay them whatever they charge in order to cover the costs. There’s no shortage of referees for other activities, although admittedly, certifying them as notaries would be quite a bit more difficult. That just means that they would make a lot of money, though, and people will do a whole lot of things for good money.

Uh-huh. You think that the costs of training, licensing, and the actual work of supervising are going to be covered by duellists’ fees? Ogalmighty, you’d be talking hundreds or thousands of dollars charged per encounter.

There’s a seductive advertisement for you: “Pick RichelieuRefs for Your Next Fatal Duel! Only About a 50% Chance of Death! Only 500 Dollars! (Winner responsible for all legal damages/fees awarded to loser’s heirs.)”

[Czarcasm]

Why do you admire manipulative bastards who are rich enough to afford good fencing instructors? They’ve already got the money, and you want to give them the right to kill their enemies?

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Kimstu

Uh-huh. You think that the costs of training, licensing, and the actual work of supervising are going to be covered by duellists’ fees? Ogalmighty, you’d be talking hundreds or thousands of dollars charged per encounter.

So? Maybe only eccentric rich guys who hate each other or have a bloodlust would be able to do it, practically. Just like only eccentric people with money behind them are practically able to ride motorcycles across the Grand Canyon through rings of fire.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

ETA: Alessan, so who’s to say dueling culture necessarily would develop again if it were made legal? If bestiality were made legal, which we had a thread about, I don’t foresee many people “screwing the pooch”, so to speak.

[Czarcasm]

@Vox_Imperatoris

So? Maybe only eccentric rich guys who hate each other or have a bloodlust would be able to do it, practically. Just like only eccentric people with money behind them are practically able to ride motorcycles across the Grand Canyon through rings of fire.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

You are absolute right, of course-both of these events should be treated equally by law enforcement.

Sometimes it’s just too easy, folks.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Czarcasm

You are absolute right, of course-both of these events should be treated equally by law enforcement.

Sometimes it’s just too easy, folks.

Why not? In both events, people are doing amazingly stupid things that are likely to bring them personal harm. It’s just that in the case of dueling, there are two people doing the activity.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Czarcasm]

@Vox_Imperatoris

Why not? In both events, people are doing amazingly stupid things that are likely to bring them personal harm. It’s just that in the case of dueling, there are two people doing the activity.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

It’s like taking candy from a baby, folks.

Vox Imperatoris, I said that because if some rich jackass tried to jump across the Grand Canyon, he would automatically be arrested and either put in jail or in a mental institution for observation.

[Alessan]

@Vox_Imperatoris

ETA: Alessan, so who’s to say dueling culture necessarily would develop again if it were made legal? If bestiality were made legal, which we had a thread about, I don’t foresee many people “screwing the pooch”, so to speak.

History. Dueling cultures have been widespead in the past; sheepfucking cultures haven’t.