Why isn't fighting to the death legal if consented?

TheBrinch

Serious question.

If 2 people hated each other so much that they mutually agreed to a fight to the death, why shouldn't this be allowed? On the condition that no-one else is in any sort of danger from the event.

Now I'm proposing this on the grounds that it should not be turned into a sport or televised. Also it would be a non-gambling event. Its not the type of thing where winners are broadcasted or made look like mad gladiators or something. The competitors must be over 18 or 21 or something.

This shouldn't be the type of thing which people are coerced into and for the sake of it both people would need to sign a legal contract agreeing to the event while also having a witness present (or possibly a lawyer). They wouldn't face a murder charge or anything like that seen as it was completely agreed to.

Now I know some people may jump at the opportunity, I couldn't see this happening on a regular basis as not everyone would agree to such a thing.

Keep in mind this is obviously just a rough idea and I haven't gone over every scenario in my head but you should get the idea.

Some people will likely disagree because its too 'barbaric' or some crap but this is a genuinely interesting subject I would like peoples opinion on.

So yay or nay?

On a side note, this could be applied to other instances such as assisted suicide for example. Imagine a relative is paralyzed or something and they ask you to help them die. As long as they are in their right mind, you both sign a contract and its legal to do it...

I am pie

Nay, because stupid people will always have stupid ideas.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Right to life, I presume? I don't think you can opt out of statutory rights.

Littlehorny

Because it would be pre meditated murder for one.

Steodonn

To protect stupid people from killing each other

TheBrinch

TheBrinch wrote: »

Serious question.

If 2 people hated each other so much that they mutually agreed to a fight to the death, why shouldn't this be allowed? On the condition that no-one else is in any sort of danger from the event. .

It seems like they'd find a better way of dealing with things if it weren't legal
There would also be the repercussions of family feuds if one person killed the other

Or maybe they wouldn't and legality wouldn't stop them if they really wanted to

TheBrinch

Littlehorny wrote: »

Because it would be pre meditated murder for one.

But hypothetically, the wouldnt apply if both parties are agreeable. Any legal restraints would be waived.

TeddyTedson

Anyone who could take someones life in that manner is probably best to be locked away from the rest of us.

iamanengine

Nay because regardless of signing any contract you can't consent to your own death. Hell, you can't even legally consent to hardcore BDSM, pretty sure it's a breach to your right to bodily integrity...and also a person's right to life, which I'm pretty sure you can't opt out of.

So, a contract like that would simply be void.

The_Morrigan

You can't really give consent to allow another person harm you, this thread is giving me flashbacks to my criminal law lectures

The examples we were given revolved around sex - Browne v Crown and the other husband/wife branding case (the name escapes me right now) and sports - if boxers act outside the guidelines of their sport (biting for example) they are sanctioned for. I've even seen investigations into serious fouls in GAA that have had the Gardai arrive down to sort out the matter.

This is also why there are legal battles with euthanasia.

Maximus Alexander

What would be the point of this?

TheBrinch

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Anyone who could take someones life in that manner is probably best to be locked away from the rest of us.

Imagine an american gang for example who have a feud with some other gang. Instead of them killing each other in drive-by shootings and such, which endanger innocent people, that they decide to take a more 'legal' option if you will.

iamanengine wrote: »

Nay because regardless of signing any contract you can't consent to your own death. Hell, you can't even legally consent to hardcore BDSM, pretty sure it's a breach to your right to bodily integrity...and also a person's right to life, which I'm pretty sure you can't opt out of.

So, a contract like that would simply be void.

But as everyone has a right to life, if they really wanted to, why shouldnt they have a right to consent to their own death?

Riskymove

why not?

Duels were legally accepted at one point after all

kiffer

How would you stop gambling on it?
How would you ensure that the people were not under duress? "Sign the papers and fight to the death or we kill your child"
How would you stop blood feuds?
Violence breeds violence.
Duels used to be legal... they're not a great idea.

Karl Stein

Fighting someone is one thing - killing someone is quite another.

I enjoy watching MMA myself because it's very well refereed, the instant someone isn't fully conscious the fight is stopped. If a fighter was allowed to keep beating an unconscious man it would be nothing but murder.

TheBrinch

kiffer wrote: »

How would you stop gambling on it?
How would you ensure that the people were not under duress? "Sign the papers and fight to the death or we kill your child"
How would you stop blood feuds?
Violence breeds violence.
Duels used to be legal... they're not a great idea.

You've got a point. These were also the biggest repercussions that I could think of.

wolfeye

Sir,i demand satisfaction.

Karl Stein

Riskymove wrote: »

Duels were legally accepted at one point after all

So was slavery. We kinda got more civilised in many parts of the world.

iamanengine

TheBrinch wrote: »

Imagine an american gang for example who have a feud with some other gang. Instead of them killing each other in drive-by shootings and such, which endanger innocent people, that they decide to take a more 'legal' option if you will.



But as everyone has a right to life, if they really wanted to, why shouldnt they have a right to consent to their own death?

If someone is in a frame of mind where they are willing to consent to there own death they would probably be declared insane (the legal definition or whatever) and would have their right to consent removed, kind of like how someone under 18 can't legally give consent. Kind of like statutory rape.

I think so anyways, what do I know, I'm not a lawyer. :P

Adamantium

TheBrinch wrote: »

Serious question.

If 2 people hated each other so much that they mutually agreed to a fight to the death, why shouldn't this be allowed? On the condition that no-one else is in any sort of danger from the event.

Now I'm proposing this on the grounds that it should not be turned into a sport or televised. Also it would be a non-gambling event. Its not the type of thing where winners are broadcasted or made look like mad gladiators or something. The competitors must be over 18 or 21 or something.

This shouldn't be the type of thing which people are coerced into and for the sake of it both people would need to sign a legal contract agreeing to the event while also having a witness present (or possibly a lawyer). They wouldn't face a murder charge or anything like that seen as it was completely agreed to.

Now I know some people may jump at the opportunity, I couldn't see this happening on a regular basis as not everyone would agree to such a thing.

Keep in mind this is obviously just a rough idea and I haven't gone over every scenario in my head but you should get the idea.

Some people will likely disagree because its too 'barbaric' or some crap but this is a genuinely interesting subject I would like peoples opinion on.

So yay or nay?

On a side note, this could be applied to other instances such as assisted suicide for example. Imagine a relative is paralyzed or something and they ask you to help them die. As long as they are in their right mind, you both sign a contract and its legal to do it...

It would certainly solidify in people's minds of full (true) responsibility, the respect you hold your own life too and the (brave)idiots who would be will to throw it away.

Oaths like this were common all the way through human history in all societies, It might avoid "great leaders" from mincing their words.

I'm thinking of the Japanese Emperors who would commit suicide if they failed in war, or brought shame to the country

You'd have a wholly different (possibly mad) individual running for public office, and it weed the chaff out.

TheBrinch

Some of you are saying that only stupid people would agree. Surely in a sense, that could be considered natural selection. Potentially less stupid people to contend with.

kiffer

I'd insist that the contract stipulated that I get to make a few practice stabs into the other guy first..

longhalloween

Technically this would fall under an assisted suicide, so the survivor of the bout would be guilty of murder.

(2) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Renegade Mechanic

wolfeye wrote: »

Sir,i demand satisfaction.

*Rubs glove print*
I accept!

Conall Cernach

TheBrinch wrote: »

But hypothetically, the wouldnt apply if both parties are agreeable. Any legal restraints would be waived.

Presumably when you're lying there bleeding to death you would revoke your consent if you were able to talk.

kiffer

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Presumably when you're lying there bleeding to death you would revoke your consent if you were able to talk.

I believe the legal term is "no take backs"

FudgeBrownie

Because it is still murder/manslaughter and they don't want to encourage fighting to the death or murder in general.

RayM

I voted 'no', but I'd be happy to make an exception if, for example, the fight involved Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson.

biko

Sometimes a nanny state is needed..

Vito Corleone

Should be televised and gambling should be allowed. I'd watch.

Gniht

Fights or duels to death are actually very much a comic book / fantasy thing. With the exceptions of weapons such as in gladiatorial fights they are very much an oddity in modern and ancient history.

In most cultures, feuds between males are settled by physical means but they are almost always settled with one man giving in / knocked unconcious and the other winning.

Killing someone with your bare fists without use of rocks/metal etc. is difficult (between that die from one punch knockouts usally smack their head off something like a curb or a wall).

This theme is actually maintained in most animal species, lions / bears/ dogs/ whales etc. they fight and then the loser gives up territory/status and retreats and is rarely killed.

There is very few situations where killing someone in a feud outweighs the risk of dying yourself.

However, with weapons, eg. swords or in the last 150 years guns, it is easy for impulsive people who may or may not be physically superior to kill someone.

My second argument is the winner would almost always also require medical attention and should be cautioned on whether he is willing to forfeit 1000s of euro for medical bills.

wolfeye

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

*Rubs glove print*
I accept!

Very good Sir.
A duel with pistols at first dawn tomorrow.

Cantremember

So the local Manny Pacquaio dislikes you. He challenges you to a fight to the death, no weapons. Well now Ted.

The Diabolical Monocle

This is actually where we get the term 'touché'.

Back in the day when I was growing up in gaie Paris there were duels a plenty.

And they were perfectly acceptable to the local préfecture

Duels took place initially for serious raisons.
But soon they were taking place for all the raisons one may care to imagine.

A slight on your quality of wig, refusing an aperitif, the whole Strasbourg vs Biarritz rivalry.

Anyway, this left many a madamoiselle without her husband and many an enfant without a pere.

Alors, Laws came into effect whereby the first to cause a wound was the victor.
Soon after that it was the first to draw blood, and so the mere touch of an epee was enough to win.

Even a tiny wound you could barely notice - and so the loser would own up - touched - touché - you win this time Prudence. A la prochaine.... a la prochaine.

Riskymove

Karl Stein wrote: »

So was slavery. We kinda got more civilised in many parts of the world.

It was tongue in cheek

Capt'n Midnight

In Paraguay duelling is legal as long as both parties are registered blood donors.

Conall Cernach

It would be cool if men could walk around with swords though.

johnnyskeleton

The origin was with the Plantagenet kings who wanted to stop people killing each other so that they could go off and kill Frenchmen.

Also the bible I suppose!

Stavros Murphy

I too would consent to a duel. Pistols at 1000 paces. No aiming for the head..

Wacker The Attacker

But you could be like dead and sh1t

The Diabolical Monocle

Conall Cernach wrote: »

It would be cool if men could walk around with swords though.

We do.


with pork swords.

Vision of Disorder

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

I too would consent to a duel. Pistols at 1000 paces. No aiming for the head..

Or balls.

Stavros Murphy

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

But you could be like dead and sh1t

kinda doubtful at 1000 paces. The winner could be the person who raises dust nearest to the other.

robertpatterson

Best duel ever
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Virchow#The_Sausage_Duel

Drakares

TheBrinch wrote: »

Serious question.

If 2 people hated each other so much that they mutually agreed to a fight to the death, why shouldn't this be allowed? On the condition that no-one else is in any sort of danger from the event.

Now I'm proposing this on the grounds that it should not be turned into a sport or televised. Also it would be a non-gambling event. Its not the type of thing where winners are broadcasted or made look like mad gladiators or something. The competitors must be over 18 or 21 or something.

This shouldn't be the type of thing which people are coerced into and for the sake of it both people would need to sign a legal contract agreeing to the event while also having a witness present (or possibly a lawyer). They wouldn't face a murder charge or anything like that seen as it was completely agreed to.

Now I know some people may jump at the opportunity, I couldn't see this happening on a regular basis as not everyone would agree to such a thing.

Keep in mind this is obviously just a rough idea and I haven't gone over every scenario in my head but you should get the idea.

Some people will likely disagree because its too 'barbaric' or some crap but this is a genuinely interesting subject I would like peoples opinion on.

So yay or nay?

On a side note, this could be applied to other instances such as assisted suicide for example. Imagine a relative is paralyzed or something and they ask you to help them die. As long as they are in their right mind, you both sign a contract and its legal to do it...

Please do not pro-create.

pablo128

The chance of legally beating Joey Barton to death is quite tempting......

Richard Hillman

I was watching Gladiator this morning and thinking the exact same thing. I'm sure if you set up an arena in some proper ****hole country with vast amounts of open land, you could pay off the local police to turn a blind eye. In terms of gladiators, i'm sure there would be people out there in the world that would be open to doing it for a large fee. The PPV money can pay for that.

You could do themed matches too. Old School Gladiator fights, Mexican stand offs or even fights with humans against crocodiles and stuff.

Stavros Murphy

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I was watching Gladiator this morning and thinking the exact same thing. I'm sure if you set up an arena in some proper ****hole country with vast amounts of open land, you could pay off the local police to turn a blind eye. In terms of gladiators, i'm sure there would be people out there in the world that would be open to doing it for a large fee. The PPV money can pay for that.

You could do themed matches too. Old School Gladiator fights, Mexican stand offs or even fights with humans against crocodiles and stuff.

This sounds new and exciting. The venue could be called somthing groovy, like "The Colosseum" or whatever. If we ran out of willing participants, religious minorities could be roped in to fight lions and the like. The crowd could be like the X-Factor judges and give the thumbs up or down for who lives or dies. This would be a huge leap forward in entertainment, previously unseen. Good idea. Maybe.

Cantremember

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

This is actually where we get the term 'touché'.

Back in the day when I was growing up in gaie Paris there were duels a plenty.

And they were perfectly acceptable to the local préfecture

Duels took place initially for serious raisons.
But soon they were taking place for all the raisons one may care to imagine.

A slight on your quality of wig, refusing an aperitif, the whole Strasbourg vs Biarritz rivalry.

Anyway, this left many a madamoiselle without her husband and many an enfant without a pere.

Alors, Laws came into effect whereby the first to cause a wound was the victor.
Soon after that it was the first to draw blood, and so the mere touch of an epee was enough to win.

Even a tiny wound you could barely notice - and so the loser would own up - touched - touché - you win this time Prudence. A la prochaine.... a la prochaine.

You Sir, are masquerading as Le Monocle Diabolique. Any red blooded Frenchman knows that when a madamoiselle marries she loses her oiselle and becomes Madame. I will see you behind Les Jardins Luxembourg at Le Premier Coq.

Stavros Murphy

Cantremember wrote: »

You Sir, are masquerading as Le Monocle Diabolique. Any red blooded Frenchman knows that when a madamoiselle marries she loses her oiselle and becomes Madame. I will see you behind Les Jardins Luxembourg at Le Premier Coq.

They closed Le Premier Coq last year for breaches of the Health regulations. It has re-opened, under new management, as Le Coq Nouvelle.

Degag

The OP is watching too much Game of Thrones methinks.