Check out this hilarious article from a back issue of Renaissance Magazine: :lol:

Trial By Combat Not a Thing of the Past? by Judith Kane

Appearing in court for failure to pay a fine of about $40 for a minor traffic offense, a sixty-year-old unemployed machanic from Suffolk, England refused to enter a plea and instead invoked the ancient right to Trial by Combat, which involves the accused fighting his accuser to the death.

Originally charged with failing to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) that he would no longer be operating his motorcylce on public roadways, former seaman Leon Humphreys claimed that under a Medieval law that has never been taken off the statute books, he is entitled to settle his dispute by fighting a champion of the licensing agency to the death. He said that although he is unsure about how weapons would be chosen or by whom, he would be quite happy to fight with Samurai swords, Ghurka knives, or even blacksmith's hammers.

Humphreys' attempt to invoke the archaic law was rejected by Bury St. Edmunds magistrates, who levied nearly $500 in additional fines and court costs for failure to pay the original fine and refusal to enter a plea.

The scary part is I think we all know a few people who would try this!

Interesting comment about honour and/or being a bit nuts and the fact that a law still on the books is not being honoured. :lol:
( Bad pun alert. )

If the law has any meaning, then all laws that are on the books are equally valid, or none are, if magistrates can pick and choose which ones count.

Now this is a theoretical argument that makes sense in the absolute but for practical reasons ( common sense ) most old laws still on the books are ignored: Actually there are so many of these old laws that I'm sure we should ALL be in jail by now if they were all to be applied. Oh, and one can't use ignorance of the law as an excuse. ( Never thought this made any sense except for the fact that not a single law would be immune from this defence if it was allowed. )

Legislators time might be better employed deleting bad laws rather than inventing new bad laws: Maybe a department of
De-legislation. :p

Probably still illegal to wear purple if not a King. :eek:

Hmmmmm ....... Bringing back duels might put a little honesty and courtesy back into politics though. ;) :lol:

Actually, Trial by Combat was abolished in England in 1819 so the magistrates were right to refuse him.

Taken from Wikipedia:
"Wager of battel remained in two forms of action dear to the honour-bound hearts of the aristocracy, however. The first was the writ of right, the most direct way at common law of challenging someone's right to a piece of real property. The second was the criminal appeal, a private criminal prosecution instituted by the accuser directly against the accused. It was not, like the contemporary appeal, a proceeding in a court of superior jurisdiction reviewing the proceedings of a lower court.

Such a private prosecution was last conducted in the case of Ashford v. Thornton in 1818, as recorded in The Newgate Calendar. [1] Pronouncing judgment in favour of the accused's plea claiming the wager of battel, Justice Bayley of the King's Bench said that:

One of the inconveniences of this procedure is, that the party who institutes it must be willing, if required, to stake his life in support of his accusation.

The accusation was quickly withdrawn after this judgment. Parliament abolished wager of battel the following year, in 1819, and at the same time they also abolished the writ of right and criminal appeals."

Click here for more information on the case of Ashford v. Thornton. It contains a detailed description of the procedure for Trial by combat in England about 80% of the way down the page, including a list of people who are not required to answer a challenge - "Where the appellant was under fourteen or above sixty years of age, or was a woman or a priest, or a peer, or, lastly, a citizen of London, because the peaceful habits of the citizens were supposed to unfit them for battle."

Kind of along the same lines, if I'm going to get in any trouble while in the military (and I don't intend to, this is just hypothetical), I want it to be under Article 114 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). That is the article that prohibits dueling. Why did they leave it in there when they reviewed the UCMJ about 20 years ago? I haven't the foggiest. Probably because of people like that mechanic and myself. :lol:

-Grey

if i'm not mistaken duelling is still legal in new orleans as long as you pay for a judge (to enter in a verdict of mutual self defence) and ither a medic or mortician depending on how far you intend to take it. i know its not trial by combat but still interesting.
i realy hope its true

ive been trying to find facts to back this up but cant find anything one way or the other.

I guess the key word or concept is proportionality and when rules reward the bullies and punish the ones defending themselves it is almost a guaranty that this will create a dysfunctional society: The perceived unfairness leads to more violence ( a sense of revolt ) rather than less, as trust in the basic justice of the law becomes close to nil.

Oh, I remember reading that fairness and a sense of justice is hardwired into primates and humans i.e. cheaters, liars and bullies are normally punished or shunned when a societie's official justice system is a good match to this instinctive sense of justice or fairness.

The kids who are bullied expect no help from the system and the great danger is that they end up either as passive victims or they grossly overreact resulting in exactly in the tragedies that the ZERO tolerance / ZERO common sense policies were supposed to prevent.

I think the problem is a mistaken belief and confusion that passivity and lack of courage to act is a sign of being a peaceful and non violent citizen as opposed to self control, courage plus a sense of justice, i.e. " good manners and respect for others ", are the real qualities of a peaceful person: Person that is not sheep ! :lol: