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

TheBrinch · 14-04-2014 05:23PM #1

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 · 14-04-2014 05:25PM

Nay, because stupid people will always have stupid ideas.

Chazz Michael Michaels · 14-04-2014 05:25PM

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

Littlehorny · 14-04-2014 05:25PM

Because it would be pre meditated murder for one.

Steodonn · 14-04-2014 05:28PM

To protect stupid people from killing each other

14-04-2014 05:28PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:28PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:29PM

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

iamanengine · 14-04-2014 05:32PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:35PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:37PM

What would be the point of this?

TheBrinch · 14-04-2014 05:37PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:38PM

why not?

Duels were legally accepted at one point after all

kiffer · 14-04-2014 05:38PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:41PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:41PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:41PM

Sir,i demand satisfaction.

Karl Stein · 14-04-2014 05:42PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:43PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:44PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:47PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:48PM

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

longhalloween · 14-04-2014 05:49PM

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 · 14-04-2014 05:51PM

wolfeye wrote: »

Sir,i demand satisfaction.

*Rubs glove print*
I accept!

Conall Cernach · 14-04-2014 05:59PM

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 · 14-04-2014 06:03PM

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 · 14-04-2014 06:04PM

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

RayM · 14-04-2014 06:05PM

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

biko · 14-04-2014 06:06PM

Sometimes a nanny state is needed..

Vito Corleone · 14-04-2014 06:06PM

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

Gniht · 14-04-2014 06:10PM

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.

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

Would you support this idea? (Anonymous) 93 votes

Comments