iTaliAN_ICe

No, dueling should not be legalized. We have a place for those who are unable to solve their problems without resorting to violence... we call it prison. Consensual or not, we cannot have a person kill another person in a duel and walk away free. Legally allowing people to indulge in such violence would lead to the further degradation of our society, and would accomplish absolutely nothing positive.

Libertarians follow a noble philosophy, but some of you all really don't know where to draw the line.

__________________


"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen… it is declared… The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

-Treaty of Tripoli, 1794.

FRYandBENDER

I say we build a spectacle the likes of which no one has seen before. A giant coliseum where begrudged individuals enter into combat, not with guns, but with swords and shields. We'll gather not only those who wish to duel over skanky women, but all Americans who battle each other everyday. Hippies vs. yuppies. Pro life vs. pro choice. Gays vs. religious nuts. Republicans vs. Democrats. White supremacists vs. the members of the Assata Shakur forum. Ticket sales will replace the income tax and social security and medicare will be fully funded. Also, there will be trap doors with hungry tigers.

nerv14

true that


anyway... i have always followed the rule that people should be allowed to do basically anything they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people and dueling could hurt people... fairly badly

choclosteve

You know, it was not so long ago in our history that such behavior was ok and common. Are those times coming back?

Caltex

It still is considered ok. we just do our fighting under the banners of nations instead of tribes now. Locally With money instead of swords.

__________________

Matthew.lincoln

Um I said NO! I think maybe if they where going to duel in a boxing match or some sort of event where they don't kill each other it would be ok. But allowing to people to kill each other because words where exchanged or because one cheated on the other is stupid. The government would have to interfere, say if 2 mental challenged people wanted to duel would that be justified as being ok?

__________________
"At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love." ~ Martin Luther King Jr

"Salute the smiling faces of the 21st Century." ~ Daisaku Ikeda

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." ~ Mohandas Gandhi

Martin

I'd like to see a duel between Cheney and a real US citizen. As what I learned till now, the vice only shoots at sitting friendly ducks?
[Joke is allowed?]
edit: why did I think about the vice when you said mentally challenged? Think I made an error about status and rank.

emptypepsi

Hmm, reality shows about dueling. I can see it now...

Your Fall 2008 NBC Lineup:

Dueling with the Stars!
Ten Paces Island!
American Quick Draw!
and
Trigger Finger Factor!

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

iTaliAN_ICe

Heheheh... I'll admit, those would be more interesting to watch than most current reality TV shows.

__________________


"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen… it is declared… The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

-Treaty of Tripoli, 1794.

Doctor Webley

No, dueling should not legal. Technically, depending if there is malice or lack there of. The person who "wins" the duel would be guilty of Murder in the First Degree, or Manslaughter in the First Degree.
The definitions are below: MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Murder in the first degree is the wilful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing of a human being. Malice, wilfulness, premeditation and deliberation, these four things, must co-exist before a defendant can be convicted of murder in the first degree. And the burden is upon the State of Alabama in this case to convince you gentlemen of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, that these four elements did co-exist before the defendant can be convicted of murder in the first degree, the highest degree of unlawful homicide.

Wilfulness, as an ingredient of murder in the first degree, means governed by the will without yielding to reason it means intention. Malice, in law, does not necessarily mean hate or ill-will, but it is defined as any unlawful act wilfully done without just cause or legal excuse. It is that mental state or condition which prompts the doing of an unlawful act without legal justification or extenuation.

The law presumes malice from the use of a deadly weapon, and casts on the defendant the burden of repelling the presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing shows also that it was perpetrated without malice, and whenever malice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, and is unrebutted by the circumstances of the killing, there can be no conviction for a less degree of homicide than murder. For instance, if a killing is done with a deadly weapon, such as a pistol, the law authorizes the jury to presume malice from the killing, unless the evidence which proves the killing shows that it was done without malice. But to sustain a conviction of murder in either degree there must be malice in the killing as I have defined malice to you.

Premeditation and deliberation, as elements of murder in the first degree, mean simply that the defendant before he fired the fatal show intended that he would shoot at the time he did so and that death would be the result of the shooting. It may have been entertained only for an instant of time before the shooting; it may exist for only a moment before. It is for you to say whether or not it was entertained before the shooting, and whether or not it did exist at the time of the firing of the fatal shot. Premeditation and deliberation as here used do not mean that the man-slayer must ponder over the killing for a long time. It does not mean that he must sit down and reflect over it, or think over it for any appreciable length of time; but it may exist and may be entertained while the man-slayer is pressing the trigger that fired the fatal shot, even if it be only for an instant of time, it is the premeditation and deliberation constituting an element of murder in the first degree. So, remember, gentlemen, that to constitute murder in the first degree in Alabama, the killing must be wilful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated, as I have defined these terms.


MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Manslaughter is the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being, but without malice, and whenever one person unlawfully and intentionally, but without malice kills another person, the homicide is manslaughter in the first degree. Now malice is not an ingredient or essential of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree. In manslaughter in the first degree, there must be either a positive intention to kill, or an act of violence from which ordinarily, in the course of events, death or great bodily harm may ensue. In order for a homicide to be reduced from murder to manslaughter, there must be no malice in the killing. In other words, it must not be malicious killing. If the killing is malicious even if it is done in the heat of passion, it is murder. Even if a killing is done in a sudden heat, excited by sufficient provocation if there is malice in it, it is murder, and if deliberation and premeditation are present, then it is murder in the first degree. Anger and rage do not reduce an unlawful killing from murder to manslaughter, if it has the other elements which are necessary to constitute murder, but if a killing is done in a sudden heat of passion, and the reason of the man- slayer is distributed or swayed by that passion, and this passion is excited by sufficient provocation, such as a blow or a threatened blow, and the killing is without malice, then it is manslaughter in the first degree, because such passion under such circumstances has disturbed the sway of reason.