On Trial by Combat, and other things...

OK, this is something that I found out only the other day. I was doing some research about the history of “trial by combat” and “trial by ordeal”… And then I found this delicious piece of news, dating to 2002:

British man requests trial by combat.

Court refuses the trial by combat requested by the man above (spoilsports!)

Anyway, several things went through my mind:

(1) I love the British. I know of no other country that produces such a lovely, lovely crop of true and usually harmless eccentrics. I once read (I think it was in “Cracked”) a list of 5 gloriously nutty rich people. Almost all of them were British.

(2) It obviously was not the case here, but I wonder how many verifiable “crazy old laws” are still technically valid because they are still in the books and nobody bothered to take them out (I know, I know – even if a law is not specifically annulled, it may still be made invalid because of later laws that indirectly apply to the same situation or have higher “authority”).

(3) Honestly, I think that re-introducing trial by (non-lethal) combat in certain situations would be awesome.

The right not to be prosecuted when the prosecutions case is obviously hopeless.

On the books, but of course they prosecute many hopeless cases

You might be interested in The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance, a book by the author of the (hilarious) Lowering the Bar legal blog. It’s a historical retrospective of weird laws, from ancient times to the present, and (unlike many other such collections), it’s actually been researched and all the laws mentioned actually exist(ed).

What a lovely post & sig-line combination!
“Cardinal, to prove I’m not a heretic, I’d like to go one-on-one against you. No seconds, no surrogates. I’m sure God will absolve me.”

–G!

Judicial duels are fascinating, and have a long history as alternatives to the court system. There are a number of medieval/Renaissance manuscripts with information on them, including what to do if you were challenged to one. As I understand it, there would typically be a waiting period to allow both parties to prepare (including, after the “OH CRAP OH CRAP OH CRAP” reaction subsided, getting your affairs in order, and picking up a book or otherwise getting a crash course on how to hold your own enough to not die).

One of the most interesting such manuscripts is a 1467 Fechtbuch (“fight-book”, or manual) by Talhoffer, which has detailed illustrations on how to set up and conduct a judicial duel between a man and a woman – not an unheard-of event. The guy is standing in a waist-deep pit to negate his natural advantage, and he’s armed with a club, while she has a rock in a sling. The Medieval European Martial Arts Guild recently posted a video of a scene-by-scene reenactment they did (with a lot of extra giggling).

Hmm…sounds like the Renaissance roots of Cricket and Baseball…:smiley:

–G!

Isn’t our whole US legal system basically trial by combat? A defendent chooses a hero to fight for him/her, and the state has paid professional combatants. There’s a jury to decide who won the most hits (since we are far too civilized nowadays to require the death of one party or the other.) The only diff is that, instead of traditional weapons like swords or quarter-staves, the weapon of choice is MONEY. And the side that spends the most money can usually win.

I kept reading that as “judicidal” duels. That’s probably not a word, but certainly describes the concept!