[lautokbj] trial by combat

trial by combat might become agreed to be an acceptable method of justice in certain situations if it is agreed that other available "more civilized" methods of justice are horribly unfair, and improving them seems impossible.

inspired by Game of Thrones.

was this ever historically the case?  on one hand, it would be a bit surprising for upper and lower classes to agree on such an issue.  on the other hand, it's not too difficult to imagine everyone agreeing that, in certain situations, all other existing non-combat systems of justice cannot administer justice fairly.  such a situation can happen when one party in the legal conflict has a huge amount of control and power over the non-combat justice systems.

people also have to agree that fairness is a desirable goal of a justice system.

sometimes it might look like a combat justice system is just letting the poor fight along themselves, unwilling to devote resources to either party.  but this could fit within this framework.  determining the truth might be extremely difficult (expensive), and society, or the litigants, do not have the resources to do it, or changing society to allocate resources to determine the truth regarding conflicts among the poor is extremely difficult.  attempting to administer justice in a non-combat way when there aren't resources to discover truth would result in whoever can bullshit better winning, which could be universally regarded as unfair.

are we in such a situation now?  it's getting close to universally agreed that the American justice system is horribly unfair to (certain) African-Americans, and improving things seems very difficult.  imagine the astronomically minuscule legal chances of a lower-class African-American man accused of a sex crime against a Pretty White Woman (cf. Missing White Woman syndrome): law enforcement violently coercing confessions, fabricating evidence, losing exonerating evidence, character witnesses willing to lie and purport the angelic and devilish characteristics to the victim and defendant respectively, and the defendant not having financial resources to legally defend himself from these perversions of the justice system.  he's better off taking his chances in trial by combat.  (or is he?  even if he wins trial by combat, white society would come after him in a lynch mob.)

trial by combat is substantially different from letting God administer justice.  if you want God to administer justice, better is to let a delicate random event decide: a coin flip, or the entrails of a randomly selected sacrificial animal.  these have also been done.  (when does society deem randomness to be an acceptable form of justice?)

who wins trial by combat?  it's partially luck (or God), but unlike a coin flip, there's a lot of humanness involved, especially if both sides can call on champions to fight (and die) on their behalf.  whether one person can recruit someone else as their champion may depend on the truths of the underlying conflict that a non-combat justice system cannot accurately extract (imperfect information).

recruiting a champion seems vaguely similar to recruiting a pro bono lawyer to be your champion in a non-combat justice system.  however, the kind of person who can recruit a strong pro bono lawyer seems very different to someone who can recruit someone strong in combat.

war is of course another instance of conflict being solved by violence, and the question "who wins a war?" gets to similar issues as "who wins trial by combat?"  but trial by combat has a feeling of being intentionally limited: the many parties who have stake in the outcome all agree that this one battle should decide the conflict, agree not to interfere with the battle beyond what the rules permit, and agree to stand by its outcome.  in contrast, war does not have a feeling of being intentionally limited.