Should we legalise duels?

The legal agreement is often seen as one of the most civilised and formal procedures in everyday society. If two sons wanted to solve a dispute of inheritance (matters of private litigation in the status quo), they would most likely opt into legal and protected ways through which the assets in question could be distributed. As such, to the modern eye it may seem rather left-field to draw attention towards a possible alternative method of agreement, such as an old-fashioned duel.

A rather Darwinian concept, in which two individuals battle out until one triumphs and the other prevails, whether defeat comes in the form of death or not, and the victor receives certain spoils or prizes, the duel may come across as an activity in conflict with modern legal principles. For example, in any modern scenario, two people engaging in physical battle possibly to the death would by no means fall under the umbrella of legality. Moreover, concerns would most definitely be raised with regards to how much such procedures could actually be regulated by the state, and the rights of citizens be protected in the absence of the courtroom.

However, it could be contrastingly put forward that the judiciary's capacity of regulation doesn't really matter when it comes to duels as a mechanism of solving disputes, as they would most likely involve a mutual consensus between both parties. In other words, if both individuals agree to put their life on the line, there should not constitute any violation of the law. This understanding of such consequences is very similar to the concept of suicide in the sense that a person's right to life would be impeded by no-one but themself, and therefore the law has neither the responsibility nor the ability to address the matter.

Indeed, one could posit that, by reverting to such archaic techniques, we would also be exploring the possibility of removing current flaws within modern legal procedure. One of the most prominent of these contemporary flaws, is the hierarchy that exists with regards to representation. Creating another hypothetical scenario, suppose a small legal clinic files a lawsuit against a large corporation for impeding the basic human rights of their workers. In any traditional circumstance, the case would be litigated within the court and a verdict would be reached. However, it goes without saying that the larger corporation will have access to a counsel with much more skill and experience, therefore significantly increasing their chance of success in court and neglecting the importance of the case itself.

On the converse, by eradicating the influence of social and financial hierarchies when adjudicating legal disputes and adopting the process of a duel in order to solve the exact same lawsuit (presumably with one representative from each side), it would seem as though both sides would have a fairer shot at victory: instead of having legal representatives, they would be placed in a scenario which ignores any sort of status or background, and would therefore be the most equal legal landscape possible . As such, in the realm of the law, a field centred around the principles of objectivity and fairness, there certainly appears to be some merit in using duels as a substitute for private litigation, despite seeming somewhat far-fetched at first glance.

Nevertheless, despite any possible positive aspects of the legalisation of duels with regards to creating fairer legal procedures, it is quite possible that it would not be useful at all: assuming such a process is optional (traditional methods of litigation are still accessible), the question can be raised as to what kind of person would actually choose to engage in a duel, if anyone at all?