Dueling has, historically, been legal in many places. In common-law jurisdictions, why was it not considered murder if someone dies and attempted murder or assault if not? Did the common-law or statutory definitions of these crimes specifically exempt dueling?
2
-
2My very amateurish comment, based only upon a little reading of history, is that sufficiently high-status people were always "above the (common) law", which was only meant to apply to the "common" people. Something of a mystical belief in this kind of exception still does seem to exist.– paul garrettCommented Mar 26 at 19:09
-
@paulgarrett In some places, there were traditions of dueling that weren't limited to particularly high-status people, and in general people of about the same social status were dueling with each other, and deliberate homicide outside the context of a duel or in breach of the terms or traditions of a duel would still be prosecuted.– ikraseCommented Mar 30 at 4:20
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
It wasn’t legal
At least, outside an official trial by combat.
Duelling arrived in England from Italy sometime in the 1570s and it was outlawed by Elizabeth I in 1571 - quite possibly before any duels were ever fought there.
If you want to know why they happened despite their illegality, the answer is economics - people will do all sorts of things if they believe the rewards outweigh the risks.
-
In cases where an aristocrat would be charged, there was also immunity from suit, except in cases where a death resulted (not all duels were to the death), Also, I'm not sure that this was true in all parts of the early United States, where dueling was common into the parts of the 19th century. Commented Mar 27 at 19:09
-
@ohwilleke more fundamentally, people of the duelling class were above the law in all but the most egregious cases. Imagine living in a society where the top doesn’t have to follow the same rules as the rest?– Dale M ♦Commented Mar 27 at 21:29