Oxymandias wrote:However, let’s look at how it would play out in reality. I think that in reality, very few legitimate fuels would actually happen. I mean how many people really have an enemy who they genuinely want dead? And for those who do, 99% of the time it’s probably because the other guy broke the law so why not just send him to jail and not risk dying? I do agree that there would probably be a few instances but not very many at all.
I think you might be understating the amount of people who might be interested in it and it may not always necessarily be lethal. Obviously a large percentage of those that engage in homicides or manslaughter as result of gang related violence, or fights-gone-wrong would likely be solved through this. Cases of murder in response to adultery (which is also very common) would likewise be solved through duels, something that is (BTW) not illegal in the west.
This is not to mention the increasing culture of libel and shame; where reputations are ruined and people are shamed via social media. Much of this can be solved through duels as well. I think it would be more popular than you think.
Oxymandias wrote:1. You have to ensure that no one was coerced into the duel. This would likely require some sort of formal screening beforehand. This takes people, time, and money.
Why do you think so?
I see no reason to ensure such, if you sign on the dotted line, you are in a duel. If you were blackmailed through entrapment we already have laws for that and that could be appealed to law enforcement before the duel takes place like you would have you been coerced for any other activity.
Oxymandias wrote:2. You have to make sure that bystanders, structures, the environment, etc. are not harmed. This might be difficult if the person chose, for example, armored tanks as the weapon of choice. Even with a gun you have to make sure no one innocent
is hit by a stray bullet.
This is not true, each dueler would liable for damages to bystanders just like a circus would be liable if an elephant went on a rampage into the crowd. Fact is, ordinary liability would handle this.
Oxymandias wrote:3. You’d have to come up with a way to handle this sort of death legally. Is it considered a murder? An accident? A suicide? These things matter for insurance and legal purposes.
The OP covers this, it would be legal to kill a person under the dueling contract. You assume the risk when you agree to a duel via contract just like you would assume the risk in a contract to go skydiving or shark fishing.
Oxymandias wrote:4. Speaking of suicide, seems like a good way to kill yourself. Just challenge someone to a duel and lose on purpose. But we tend to try and prevent suicides so we’d need some sort of screening to make sure that the person isn’t suicidal. Come
to think of it, we’d probably have to screen for all kinds of mental disorders. This costs more time and more money.
Nah, if you want to kill yourself and go out with the glory of a duel, that is your prerogative. If our society can't realize that people who want to cut their penises off and call themselves women are mentally unstable, they sure as hell won't be able to determine if a dueler is off his rocker. I see no reason why screening should be necessary.
If someone is not of right mind to sign a contract, it would fall under the same laws we have that cover this for people who are not of right mind to sign-off on mortgage agreements etc. Someone would need to bring an appeal to the local magistrate who could call for the contract to be suspended until a investigation was made into someone's health.
Oxymandias wrote:5. Since we’re spending all this money managing this program now, who’s gonna pay for it? The taxpayers? I don’t really want my taxes to go up so that a couple of idiots with a violence fetish can fight each other. So should we make them pay
What money? All we are doing is decriminalizing a type of contract. Currently, we criminalize dueling in the west, I am merely suggesting we undue it. This is not a "program" this is the recognition of a contract which would like save the country money as a whole category of murder that costs the country millions of dollars in conviction rates, prison costs, law enforcement costs, and capital punishment costs would disappear.
Plus, this whole thing would likely generate revenue for local notaries, which would stamp the contracts prior to the duel so that they would be legally recognized.
Oxymandias wrote:6. How should injuries from the fights be handled, medically? Imagine that Bob challenges someone to a duel, then is stabbed in the gut and the duel is cancelled, then Bob needs medical treatment. Should insurance be required to cover that?
That is up to the insurance company. If Insurance companies don't cover duels, then that is something Bob ought to consider before he engages in dueling now isn't it?
Oxymandias wrote:How about if Bob is injured in a way that puts him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life? Should the government spend tax dollars sending him disability assistance? If so, why should taxpayers have to pay for his situation when it’s blatantly his own fault?
I don't think anything about this should be subsidized by the state, and I don't affirm state medical coverage anyway for anyone.
Oxymandias wrote:I could go on and on. Now, you may have a very good answer to each of these questions, but my point was to show you just how complicated and messy this would get in a legal sense. Every single one of these things and more would need to be decided. Setting up a program like this would end up costing a massive amount of time, effort, resources, and money.
Its only messy if you think of it as proactively establishing a program; rather, I am arguing it as a simple act of the state in decriminalizing a form of contract. Everything else will fall into place as the market demands.
Oxymandias wrote:And what do we get out of it? Is society really any better? I think it’s pretty clear that most people would never take part in this system. Many people will be disgusted by it.
I think the homicide rate (especially for crimes of passion) would drop in a manner that is statistically significant and I also believe our libel heavy society would change into one where unsubstantiated accusations and political correctness become a thing of the past. I also think the rate of adultery, road-rage incidents, slander, defamation, etc., will all drop off to almost nothing. Likewise the nation will see money saved on law enforcement, prisons, etc., and local notaries will actually make money and a whole new micro-economy will grow around the practice with outfitters, arms makers (specifically for dueling), trainers, solicitors, notaries, etc.
Oxymandias wrote:So I guess I just ask what’s the justification? Why go to all the trouble of creating a massive, unpopular system that 99.9% of people would never use anyway? It just seems like a complete waste of time to me.
Hopefully I have given satisfactory answers to the above.