The debate "Trial by combat is as awesome as it is unreasonable" was started by
July 22, 2015, 10:06 am.
31 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
I_Voyager posted 2 arguments, DerpedLocke posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
I_Voyager, wmd, skyfrancois_97, spellbeechamp, DerpedLocke, Skeetc15, benrpollak, nicalow, aceofhearts, Tristanzee, Your_dad and 20 visitors agree.
thelogos, nonliberalllama, PsychDave, musejay1, graples and 4 visitors disagree.
I thought that's what he meant by "unreasonable"...
The problem is that any trial by combat would require the possibility of Champions as not everyone is physically capable of combat. Elderly corporate board members and the wealthy would have access to highly paid, skilled champions, while the rest of us would have to fight ourselves.
I should add I mean to include the idea of an honor duel as part of what "trial by combat" must entail.
Trial by combat is wholly unreasonable. It seems to have no place in a rational code of laws which serves to better society by rational means, since combat is not a rational means. It would give a person who is powerful the ability to subvert aspects of law in their favor. But modern law already enables this. Corporate control over many lawyers can allow you to crush individual citizens with ease (even if at a cost), and similarly rich people can buy themselves out of harm, which seems little more reasonable than trial by combat.
This leads me to think trial by combat is awesome, powerful and fine law if and when the law itself is unreasonable. If law itself is a mechanism for assault or strategic maneuvering for powerful groups of people led by leaders rather than what it ought to be - regulating fairness and defending those who need it - then trial by combat is a necessary counter-attack to such mechanisms.
But generally, it is as unreasonable as those elements I propose it is useful for in the counter-attack. It has no place in a peaceful, rational society.