You cannot legally consent to an illegal act.
Only in Iowa and Oregon.
In Canada, one cannot consent to one’s own death, as per Criminal Code, s. 14:
I imagine other countries would have similar prohibitions.
What if one, or both, were straight? Would that change anything?
Don’t feel bad, the Green River Star in Green River, WY had a headline in the early 90s about a homocide.
In Montana, it would likely be mitigated deliberate homicide, with the mitigation being “he was trying to kill me”:
That said, if the person was willingly engaged in bloodsport or dueling, I can only imagine the highest sentence would be returned, so forty years in Deer Lodge.
IF a person fights to the death, then the state of mind is clear to me, there was an INTENT to kill them, ergo Murder.
OR in the legal alternative, if death did not result from the actual fight, and the other person left them to die, which they did not, then some type of higher degree of ASSAULT/MAYHEM.
Italics added.
Ca-Ching! Into the register that goes! Thanks.
John and Adam each needs cash. They decide to "fight to the death"in front of spectators who each pay $100 for a ticket to watch. John dies, making Adam the winner, however Adam dies six hours later due to injuries sustained in the fight.
Adam’s wife Edna takes the proceeds of the fight, per the agreement.
Is anyone prosecuted? Was there a crime?
Illegal gambling for one. Proceeds are subject to forfieture. Criminal charges can be brought also, accessory before or after the fact.
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield;16652385
But yes, I believe deloping (deliberately missing) when duelling with handguns had become The Done Thing by the 19th Century, for obvious reasons. Also, it was considered a terribly caddish thing to have rifling - even “scratch rifling” - in the barrels of one’s duelling pistols, too (on account of how that would make the guns somewhat accurate enough to reliably kill or maim).[/QUOTE]
I do not understand the reasoning here. If the pistols were accurate, then one could reliably intentionally miss, even when aiming near the opponent. If we take the limit of inaccuracy as it goes to infinity, then the duelists would have to aim far away from their opponents so that the bullet could not possibly hit their opponents, barring ricochets.
Indeed. I find it very distasteful.
Murder, assault, homicide and homocide are offenses against the state (or in Canada, against the crown). The victim just happens to be the victim. Whether they consent or not only matters in situations where the actions are not unreasonable.
For example, unlike real sports, hockey does not have serious consequences for fighting. (“2 minutes. Bad boy!”) Similarly, boxing allows punching each other in regulated fashion. However, where the action deviates beyond the implied consent of normal-for-the-sport body checks, punches, minor stick slashes, or collisions, then charges have been laid if the actions were excessive. The implication is that there is a limit to how much damage a person can consent to, and beyond that, if it was deliberately wanton, rather than accidental, you will be charged.
Tackling a guy in football and he breaks his leg - accident. Whacking a guy over the head with a hockey stick from behind, and causing serious injury - charges. I’m not up on my professional sports, but has there ever been a case in pro football where the tack was so vicious and outside the obvious rules of the game that the perp was charged?
I guess the roblem in any such situation is proving the deliberate and wanton nature of the act - so it has to be pretty obvious…
Didn’t I see this in a movie? Johnny Cash was a gunfighter just passing through and maybe Kirk Douglas was a retired gunfighter who was married and struggling with a farm?
Yeah, this would be the principle that would make it a homicide regardless of any extenuating circumstances involving any agreement between them.
First off, I think you need various licenses and permits to stage any kind of amateur fighting match, so if you didn’t do that you’re already breaking the law (again, regardless of whether all parties agreed). If it was held as a legal boxing or whatever match, I don’t think that merely agreeing to it being a ‘deathmatch’ would be in and of itself illegal. If however either party succeeded in killing the other they would simply still be guilty of premeditated murder (and various other people who aided and/or allowed it to happen would most likely be charged with various things as well). Any contract that involves illegal activities has absolutely no legal bearing. Be like if your drug dealer signed a contract and then ripped you off. You’re both engaging in a criminal activity, there would be no civil issues or recourse involved.
The thing is, firearms up until the early-mid 19th century were generally not very accurate at all (There’s a reason contemporary military doctrine focussed on volley fire so strongly).
Having a gun that would reliably hit (and likely kill or severely wound) one’s opponent in a duel was seen as not really being cricket, basically.