6 ms·

Reading the bit about a dispute over money reminded me of trial by combat, which this essentially is. That in turn got me to wondering how much gang violence i

by wtbob 11y ago

Reading the bit about a dispute over money reminded me of trial by combat, which this essentially is. That in turn got me to wondering how much gang violence is due to a lack of access to the conflict-resolution procedures common in the rest of society. If I believed that my employer has underpaid me, I'd send him a nice letter; if that failed, I'd send a less-nice letter; if that failed, I'd turn to a lawyer and eventually to the court system. But the courts don't take notice of illegal-drug-related debts (I believe), nor do they any longer enforce the laws against alienation of affection or adultery, leaving those who are such disputes to take matters into their own hands.

sandworm101 11y ago
Trial by combat, at least the modern understanding of it, is a myth. It was an extraordinarily rare event. People forget that it was meant to always end in death. Even if you survived combat, as the looser you were proven a liar before god and executed. Trial by combat was a threat used to prevent parties from swearing oaths casually, something useful only in extremely religious societies and totally out of place today. Letting people beat each other up over petty debts or teenage romances is never appropriate. There is a dispute resolution mechanism for criminals. It's called organized crime. The boss decides.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  I don't know about judicially sanctioned dueling, but many private duels were not actually lethal. The terms were often set to first blood, meaning first to strike a wound wins. I'm not entirely certain of whether lethal dueling should be permissible, but complete prohibition might not be in order, either.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    A dual isn't trial by combat. Dueling was about honor, not debts, and has never been recognized by the law as a means for settling disputes. Whether in the east or west, it was basically a game for rich kids wanting to play soldier in front of the girls.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      It was once recognized in Uruguay, ostensibly: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/235374/URUGUAY-RESCINDS-LAW-ALLOWING-DISPUTES-TO-BE-SETTLED-BY-DUEL.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/235374/URUGUAY-RESCINDS-L...
- chrisco255 11y ago
  We have on record examples of former US Presidents who solved their differences with duels: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-kills-charles-dickinson-in-duel http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-ki...
  - apo 11y ago
    Not to mention standing Vice President Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Those are really just honor disputes between rich kids, old kids but still kids. It's not like a court is going to dismiss a defamation action on the basis that it had already been settled during a previous duel, or award money to the winner. I don;t use the term 'rich' lightly. Worldwide, dualing has been a game for the wealthy. You had to have the right to carry the weapon, usually a sword. Lower classes were generally not allowed to duel.
- fsloth 11y ago
  I presume you mean duel as a state sanctioned part of the judicial proceedings? Lethal (sometimes illegal) dueling had very strong traditions in europe. Quite a few markable persons perished due to this culture, including: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Galois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Galois
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Trial by combat is a judicial proceeding to determine guilt or innocence. Even if the matter is one of property or contract, the issue at combat is which of the two parties has committed perjury. The concept is that God will step in to aid the righteous party, similar to the very different 'trial by ordeal'. Dueling is a means of resolving disputes between individuals, normally over matter of honour or defamation. Or women. There is some crossover in terms, with some courts referring to trial by combat as a dueling, but it isn't the same thing. Dueling traditions normally involve a great many steps to avoid legal repercussions The modern version of dueling is probably streetracing. Kids+honor+danger+girls+illegality+expensive toys = occasional deaths.
    - fsloth 11y ago
      "The modern version of dueling is probably streetracing." I never thought of that. Excitement, peer notoriety, girls. I agree it fits.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > People forget that it was meant to always end in death. Even if you survived combat, as the looser you were proven a liar before god and executed. From the historical resources I've reviewed, I don't know that was always the case, although in the case of capital crimes of course that would have held. At least it some situations, it looks like it was meant to be a formalised might-makes-right. > Letting people beat each other up over petty debts or teenage romances is never appropriate. Why not? If it formalises the process and becomes a mechanism through which both parties may be reintegrated to society at large, then it seems preferable to vendetta.
jonnathanson 11y ago
"But the courts don't take notice of illegal-drug-related debts (I believe), nor do they any longer enforce the laws against alienation of affection or adultery, leaving those who are such disputes to take matters into their own hands." IANAL, but to the best of my understanding: 1. An agreement regarding illegal activity is not held to be a legally binding contract. Hence, people professionally engaged in illegal activities usually rely on other means of coercion in order to enforce their agreements. Violence, threat of violence, reputation, retribution, extortion, etc. 2. Criminal courts don't enforce adultery laws. Divorce courts, however, seem pretty free to take these things into at least some consideration when determining the financial resolutions of a divorce. So there are some potentially serious ramifications for adultery, even if they are indirect.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  >> 2. Criminal courts don't enforce adultery laws. US Military courts do. They take a circuitous route to get to it, but they can punish a soldier for what the civilian world calls adultery. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adult...
  - jonnathanson 11y ago
    Fascinating. Thanks for sharing!
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      Now go back and read the news reports about he ashley-madison leak. Those with .mil or .forces.gc.ca email addresses probably had some sleepless nights, and a few long talks with commanding officers. The likelihood of promotion after that leak is slim.
klenwell 11y ago
That in turn got me to wondering how much gang violence is due to a lack of access to the conflict-resolution procedures common in the rest of society. This scene from Goodfellas has always stuck with me and you have just reiterated its key point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNW-HMonRoU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNW-HMonRoU What was Paulie all about? "A police department for wiseguys." It resonates with a lot of what goes on in The Wire, especially with a character like Prop Joe.
delinka 11y ago
I sense a [dangerous] business opportunity in underground law enforcement with courts and everything ...

by wtbob 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

Trial by combat, at least the modern understanding of it, is a myth. It was an extraordinarily rare event. People forget that it was meant to always end in death. Even if you survived combat, as the looser you were proven a liar before god and executed. Trial by combat was a threat used to prevent parties from swearing oaths casually, something useful only in extremely religious societies and totally out of place today. Letting people beat each other up over petty debts or teenage romances is never appropriate. There is a dispute resolution mechanism for criminals. It's called organized crime. The boss decides.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I don't know about judicially sanctioned dueling, but many private duels were not actually lethal. The terms were often set to first blood, meaning first to strike a wound wins. I'm not entirely certain of whether lethal dueling should be permissible, but complete prohibition might not be in order, either.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  A dual isn't trial by combat. Dueling was about honor, not debts, and has never been recognized by the law as a means for settling disputes. Whether in the east or west, it was basically a game for rich kids wanting to play soldier in front of the girls.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    It was once recognized in Uruguay, ostensibly: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/235374/URUGUAY-RESCINDS-LAW-ALLOWING-DISPUTES-TO-BE-SETTLED-BY-DUEL.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/235374/URUGUAY-RESCINDS-L...
chrisco255 11y ago
We have on record examples of former US Presidents who solved their differences with duels: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-kills-charles-dickinson-in-duel http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-ki...
- apo 11y ago
  Not to mention standing Vice President Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Those are really just honor disputes between rich kids, old kids but still kids. It's not like a court is going to dismiss a defamation action on the basis that it had already been settled during a previous duel, or award money to the winner. I don;t use the term 'rich' lightly. Worldwide, dualing has been a game for the wealthy. You had to have the right to carry the weapon, usually a sword. Lower classes were generally not allowed to duel.
fsloth 11y ago
I presume you mean duel as a state sanctioned part of the judicial proceedings? Lethal (sometimes illegal) dueling had very strong traditions in europe. Quite a few markable persons perished due to this culture, including: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Galois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Galois
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Trial by combat is a judicial proceeding to determine guilt or innocence. Even if the matter is one of property or contract, the issue at combat is which of the two parties has committed perjury. The concept is that God will step in to aid the righteous party, similar to the very different 'trial by ordeal'. Dueling is a means of resolving disputes between individuals, normally over matter of honour or defamation. Or women. There is some crossover in terms, with some courts referring to trial by combat as a dueling, but it isn't the same thing. Dueling traditions normally involve a great many steps to avoid legal repercussions The modern version of dueling is probably streetracing. Kids+honor+danger+girls+illegality+expensive toys = occasional deaths.
  - fsloth 11y ago
    "The modern version of dueling is probably streetracing." I never thought of that. Excitement, peer notoriety, girls. I agree it fits.
wtbob 11y ago
> People forget that it was meant to always end in death. Even if you survived combat, as the looser you were proven a liar before god and executed. From the historical resources I've reviewed, I don't know that was always the case, although in the case of capital crimes of course that would have held. At least it some situations, it looks like it was meant to be a formalised might-makes-right. > Letting people beat each other up over petty debts or teenage romances is never appropriate. Why not? If it formalises the process and becomes a mechanism through which both parties may be reintegrated to society at large, then it seems preferable to vendetta.

jonnathanson 11y ago

"But the courts don't take notice of illegal-drug-related debts (I believe), nor do they any longer enforce the laws against alienation of affection or adultery, leaving those who are such disputes to take matters into their own hands." IANAL, but to the best of my understanding: 1. An agreement regarding illegal activity is not held to be a legally binding contract. Hence, people professionally engaged in illegal activities usually rely on other means of coercion in order to enforce their agreements. Violence, threat of violence, reputation, retribution, extortion, etc. 2. Criminal courts don't enforce adultery laws. Divorce courts, however, seem pretty free to take these things into at least some consideration when determining the financial resolutions of a divorce. So there are some potentially serious ramifications for adultery, even if they are indirect.

sandworm101 11y ago
>> 2. Criminal courts don't enforce adultery laws. US Military courts do. They take a circuitous route to get to it, but they can punish a soldier for what the civilian world calls adultery. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adult...
- jonnathanson 11y ago
  Fascinating. Thanks for sharing!
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Now go back and read the news reports about he ashley-madison leak. Those with .mil or .forces.gc.ca email addresses probably had some sleepless nights, and a few long talks with commanding officers. The likelihood of promotion after that leak is slim.

klenwell 11y ago

That in turn got me to wondering how much gang violence is due to a lack of access to the conflict-resolution procedures common in the rest of society. This scene from Goodfellas has always stuck with me and you have just reiterated its key point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNW-HMonRoU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNW-HMonRoU What was Paulie all about? "A police department for wiseguys." It resonates with a lot of what goes on in The Wire, especially with a character like Prop Joe.

delinka 11y ago

I sense a [dangerous] business opportunity in underground law enforcement with courts and everything ...