[Debate] Federal legalization and regulation of consensual murder (dueling)?

I've had this thought in mind for quite a while and whenever I discuss it with fellow colleagues as soon as they hear the word "dueling" they immediately laugh and ignore the rest. So a more scholarly phrase would be federal legalization and regulation of consensual murder. I would like to debate a bit about this idea.

I want to hear people's thoughts on this topic and whether or not you think it should be allowed with government regulation. It was commonplace 200 years ago and it was never really "criminalized" per se but it seemed to have gone away in society. My argument is this simply put: Deterrence does not work.

There is a theory known as the deterrence theory in law enforcement. Proponents of deterrence believe that people choose to obey or violate the law after calculating the gains and consequences of their actions. Meaning, people will not kill others because there are laws and punishments in place that deter them from doing so. I argue that this is not true.

No matter what legislation the government makes, people will kill people.

Some evidence to back this up:
Brown University Journal of Philosophy states that the deterrence theory doesn’t hold any water in law enforcement because it assumes all humans are rational actors.

Michigan State University College of Law, the rational actor grounds that the deterrence theory is built upon does not reflect reality. People possessing strong commitments of physical harm against each other will do it by any means necessary.

BUT

Jay Katz in his research study entitled “Experimentation with human beings” explains that imposing strict government regulation for controlling violence will be the most successful thing to do for the criminal justice field

If people will kill people no matter what, we should at least make a regulated way for them to do so. What you must understand is that dueling shouldn't be thought of something of "cowboy" nature. I have not figured out the bits and pieces of it, but I'm asking for your opinion in general and you can build upon the idea, too.

Here are a few benefits of legalizing dueling:
Reduce unintended murders

We will be able to reduce deaths in two ways:

1. Less people trying to kill each other due to the certainty of death
According to Kevin Kennedy in his research “A Critical Appraisal of Criminal Deterrence”, certainty of harm is more important than severity of harm in deterring criminals. When it is certain that there is a harm, less people will try to unnecessarily harm each other. Many murders occur "in the heat of the moment", however when there is certainty that one party will be killed, there will be time to think it over. In the status quo, criminals are not deterred due to the fact that the laws and regulations set forth are not completely certain.

2. Less civilian casualties in gang battles
According to statistics from the FBI, there 1,900 gang related homicides annually, meaning 12% of all homicides in the U.S annually are a result of gang battles. Gov’t regulation of these battles will reduce homicides to only criminals seeing as it was already explained before that they will kill each other no matter what (no civilians).


Tell me what you think in a logical flow with good arguments and evidence to support your arguments.

 

I've never heard anyone argue over decriminalizing dueling before, interesting topic.

To me, it seems highly unlikely that the homicide rate will be affected at all by dueling being decriminalized (especially things like gang violence, which seems opportunistic to me). Also, the nature of weaponry has changed. When dueling was popular, many duelists purposely missed, and even those who tried to hit their opponent often couldn't because the weapons were too inaccurate.

A bullet doesn't prove one party right or wrong, if two people have an issue, they should resolve it at the court level.

 

Red: That's your opinion. I can't take anything of what you say into account unless you can provide me some sort of logical reasoning behind it supported by actual evidence. Furthermore, your gang violence argument makes no sense, in the status quo gangs take their fights on to the streets of populated areas which almost always result in civilian casualties. If there was a way to control this in which only gang members will be killed, there will be a) less civilian casualties and b) less gang members alive.

Green: What you're talking about is something known as "deloping". Deloping is a traditional way of simply put, "pussying out". In this form of dueling, someone will end up dead which is why it will deter people from actually trying to kill others because there is a sure chance of death. In traditional duels this was not true. That is why I stated in my original post that this isn't going to be cowboy stuff, this is more advanced.

Purple: What you don't seem to understand is that these people are going to kill each other anyways. I'm not advocating that people kill each other to settle arguments. I'm advocating for there to be a regulated way for people who WILL kill each other to do so. These people are criminals, misfits, and bloodthirsty. Let's at least keep it between them and not let innocent people get harmed.

 

Sounds good for rape and theft too. If people will rape people no matter what, we should atleast make a regulated way for them to do so. How would you go about regulating rape? Would people have a quota of one rape per year? Would pretty girls and guys be allowed to be the victims of rape only three times in a year?

I kid, this phrase is horrible, and for obvious reasons I would say, but see above.

I don't quite understand what you're proposing. Are you saying dueling should be a criminal punishment? Or are you proposing that it should be it be like a contract, like boxing, except to the death? If you mean it to be like dueling between gangs, what on earth makes you think that criminals, who ignore government regulation as is, would somehow voluntarily partake in this form of regulation?

I don't really care if two people who want to voluntarily partake in a duel to the death do so. But as a matter of practical public policy or w/e you want to call it, of the situations I've contemplated its application in, I can't see any worthwhile benefits.

 

Red: You joke but don't seem to realize that what you are saying is already true in some parts of the world. In Australia for example brothels were allowed in certain areas which significantly reduced rape. According to the Psychological and Sociological Research and the Decriminalization or Legalization of Prostitution, when there were brothels in Queensland, rape rates were stable and were no different than other places. However when prostitution was made illegal, the rape rate increased 149%! You took the sarcastic approach to the "1 rape quota" but it's nothing like that. There are factors however to purchase sex that is regulated by the government.


Green: The latter.

Pink: You are 100% correct in saying that not all criminals will abide by this law. However we must go by the "1 life saved is better than no lives saved" theory which works in for example, background checks for guns. While background checks are highly ineffective and criminals end up getting guns either way, there is always that handful of people that ARE deterred from getting it. While we may not be stopping ALL criminals from committing civilian casualties, we will be able to stop some.

Orange: Refer to my first post in which I list the benefits, and if you disagree provide evidence that counters my own.




I'd highly encourage that people do some research on the topic and bring evidence and data to the table before making assumptions and using hypotheticals.

 

I think you are missing the motive behind most homicides. I don't know two people who hate each other so much that they would consent to fight to the death. There's a reason there are different 'degrees' for murder, etc, because the court makes exceptions.

You seem to be asserting that duels must result in one of the parties dying. What happens when both parties don't consent to the duel? What about when the person who challenged kills the other person who didn't consent later? What happens when one opponent refuses to kill the other? What happens when one opponent was presumed dead, and later is resuscitated?

Almost all homicides are accidental, self defence, and heat of passion crimes. Having dueling legal applies to such an insignificant amount of cases, and would cause so many more issues than it solves. 99+% percent of people don't kill another human during their life, and a huge majority of those are not premeditated.

 

As Xiero said here most homicides aren't consensual affairs. First let's look at the anatomy of gangland violence. Why do gangs fight? Money, turf, and drugs. Personal vendettas and retribution style killings make little difference to modern gangs. They're run like corporations that want to maintain high profit margins and muscle out their competition. It isn't the most profitable affair to continually maintain grudges and vendettas. Now non-gang related violence falls under a very broad category that covers every thing from serial murder to crimes of passion. These share a single strong similarity in the fact that they're both predatory violent acts and aren't, again, consensual.

If we look at the history of dueling it shows several things, and the most important idea that history provides about dueling is that of power and honor. A duel was a show of power and very few duels ended with the death of another, but instead showed which of the two was more powerful or skilled than the other. Which one was more 'manly' if you will. It wasn't a way to settle debates.

 

Voluntary trade is not rape. You are conflating two entirely different things.

You mean making it more difficult for innocent unarmed citizens to protect themselves from criminal armed citizens in anyway helpful? The idea sounds absurd on the face of it, it truly does. Funnily enough, the statistics seem to correlate violent crimes and strict gun laws. Hmmm...

1. Less people trying to kill each other due to the certainty of death

This presupposes that criminals will actually want to voluntarily engage in dueling. If anything it's a disadvantage to your proposal as since certainty of harm is more important, then clearly avoiding dueling would be the most preferable option, and since a duel is done on a voluntarily basis, avoidance of it is not difficult.

2. Less civilian casualties in gang battles

Again, it presupposes that the gangs will voluntarily agree to duel. Though with the 'fuck the police' attitude, I highly doubt that any form of government regulation would be attractive especially considering it is on a voluntary basis.

All your advantages presuppose a voluntarily willingness by criminals to partake in such duels. You have provided no data to support this claim; in fact the data you've provided actually operates to defeat your claim rather than promote it.

You bring research to the table yet you do not logically link them to your thesis. In otherwords, you bring no useful/relevant evidence/data to the table.

 

Murder isn't really that big. I mean if you go back dates before leots say. 3000 bc. Their was consensual dueling all over areas around the world. Rome for example had consensual murder.

 

The premise of people consensually killing each other no matter what is false, homicide is the exception, not the rule in modern society, else we would all be extinct by our own hands.

 

1) I don't see how having a duel guarantees death of one party. Even if it did, people wouldn't duel because of this very reason; they'll just murder instead.
2) Criminals being deterred has nothing to do with the advent of a new dueling law.
3) Murderers generally kill, as you said, in the heat of the moment. There are very, very few cases I can think of where the advent of a dueling law would convince a murderer to give his target a fair fight. The point is to kill someone, not to work things out (in most cases).

1) The government isn't going to start regulating gang warfare.
2) Gang battles and the associated homicides aren't going to be resolved by a change in government regulation.
3) The number of civilians killed in gang battles is insignificant. I would wager that our own police force has killed more civilians than gang warfare has.


So, while your idea might have merit (still waiting for this...), these aren't the best examples for demonstrating its validity. I personally think it's a massive waste of time.

 

I think it would be great if televised. I have often thought of this and how it would play out. Would there be lawsuits from the family claiming mental illness of the deceased? Is it worth "okaying" murder in our society and culture? Would they get to use weapons? If so, how would they choose which ones?

If anything I think there should be a 30 day wait period. I don't think anyone should be able to go up to city hall and jump in a box with someone they got into a fender bender with that morning.

Although, I would be more on the side of a "non-death-duel". When the other person says "uncle" you have to stop or face punishment.

 

My only worry is people being forced to do it both by threat of violence or other pressures like money or safety of family.

 

i feel like this would somehow solve absolutely nothing.

 

Buying gladiator 20k

 

I've heard about this somewhere before. The way they had it set-up was one person was being confronted by two others(all adults), they were trying to provoke him into fighting by talking trash and calling names and whatnot. So he called the police. But when they got there, he didn't ask to have the others arrested or detained or anything, he asked to set-up a legal duel. He basically said "these guys are really trying to fight me and they won't leave me alone, so I'm just gonna kick their asses real quick and be on my way." The cop obliged and watched over the duel to make sure there was no foul play like knives, guns, what have you. So he beat this one guy's ass, then his friend jumped in and he beat that guy's ass too. Then everyone just left and went on with their lives. So it's not technically legalized and regulated murder, but it was a physical altercation overseen by an authority figure to PREVENT the outcome of murder. I think something like this would be a bit more feasible. I'll try to find a source on the story.

 

Most inefficient use of a policeman's time possible.

 

How do you figure that? Assume the police were not called, the fight occurred anyway, and there was a stabbing. Now the police officer has to go tot he scene where he would have been anyway to handle the murder, the paperwork, the stress, the victim's family, finding and incarcerating the perpetrator, etc. Protecting lives comes in many forms.

EDIT: Besides, most police offers in my town are too busy busting teenage stoners and underage drinkers to pay attention to the very obvious drug smuggling syndicate that poses an immensely larger threat. THAT is an example of inefficient time use by a policeman.

 

No way would this even come close to solving the crime-related problems that run rampant in the world, just because tons of people will think, why duel someone and risk my own life being taken when I can just kill them when they least expect it and stay alive?

It isn't as if people are going to opt for 'dueling' in favor of out-right killing because one is legal and the other isn't; the latter keeps the killer from dying.

Perhaps the most important factor into why this wouldn't be a good idea: It's very nature (murder) and it's effect on the composition and furthermore, the structure of the brain's synapses is extremely detrimental and down-right maladaptive to the avoidance and curing of mental illness.

Our world is already majorly psychopathic, due to what I believe is caused by exposure to other mental illness, whether in plain sight, on the television, or in the news paper. Bad things breed cold people. I wouldn't even want to live in a world where consensual murder is televised. Like most televised things that invoke feeling, the viewer-count will continue to rise, and more people will be exposed (and biologically altered) by seeing this. Surprise, that change won't (has rarely been observed to) result in the betterment of society.

We can assume that this situation will have justified the presence of a law-enforcement officer, just as we can assume that same officer will be better off on 29th street, where we will then assume that there is going to be a crime occurring at the same time as this duel, and conclude that in any situation that is assumed, we can then assume a more detailed hypothetical situation to combat the original stream of logic and effectively start a chain of hypothetical situations that can continue on forever.

You can't argue against where an officer is better suited and then hypothetically pose a situation that concludes, "See? The officer should have been here. Not a waste of time."

Don't mind the run-on.

 

Exactly what I would be worried about.