A Backyard Fight Club as an Alternative to Gun Violence
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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.
There is a dispute resolution mechanism for criminals. It's called organized crime. The boss decides.
I'm not entirely certain of whether lethal dueling should be permissible, but complete prohibition might not be in order, either.
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.
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.
I never thought of that. Excitement, peer notoriety, girls. I agree it fits.
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.
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.
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/adult...
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
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.
Surely there is the "our group is better than your group", and that certainly is served by creative outlets like your breakdancing--however, there is also very much the "somehow or some way you have wronged me, and I demand a chance to even things out".
That latter case is not really handled well by creative outlets, because it gives no visceral satisfaction. In those cases, avenging against a bully or thief or something similar, slugging it out with boxing gloves is probably the better answer.
I guess it comes down to whether you want to fight human nature or safely accommodate it.
I don't meant to come across as supporting violence instead of more civilized ways of handling things; your point about getting older and being able to handle things nonviolently certain rings true to me.
It's more, to me, that that violent stage is very much something that we all go through to one degree or another. Once we're past that stage, we see how silly it is, but if you never grow through and out of it, I think you can't reason about it as successfully.
Policies which seek to remove that stage entirely (typically through medication, zero-tolerance policies, or what not) damage the socialization of young adults and children. I think we should provide a safe route to explore and then grow out of those tendencies, instead of trying to pretend they don't exist.
Should we allow homophobic bullying because it's in human nature too?
I guess I like my print media ... printed.
The two guys who made the documentary are not NY Times employees, but independents.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/matteo-minasi-13abb418
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stuart-harmon-993a206
Perhaps it was a freelance pitch and the NY Times accepted it?
If there is going to be violence at least moving from kill-at-a-distance weapons to fists is a step in the right direction. I read a really good book on this subject[1] and realized I identified with a lot of what he had to say. Though I didn't grow up in a neighborhood where I had to fight anyone to prove myself, I certainly saw those attitudes around me (you're only a man if you're always ready to hurt another man) and it always struck me as sad. I see the same thing happening with the popularity of MMA - sure ancient cultures used to watch gladiators fight to the death, but is watching and cheering that on a good thing for any culture?
[1]: Fist Stick Knife Gun: A Personal History of Violence by Geoffrey Canada
Citation needed.
Maybe I should clarify. I'm not saying that every human being secretly yearns to smash and kill. I'm saying that most of the human race has an instinctive drive to respond to certain setbacks with violence, and some people (whether through nature, nurture, or both) find it more difficult to suppress that than others.
Kill-at-a-distance weapons are often considered to be an equalizer, since it is possible for people with wildly different body types to weild a gun with similar stopping power effectively. Using fists is the bare definition of "might makes right", which isn't desirable either.
The value in fist fighting is that there isn't a proxy for the damage done, you are literally hurting someone with your own hands, which is arguably less humane because it can take longer and perhaps more brutal. Compared to long distance weapons, a gun is impersonal. A nuclear weapon even more so.
I am speaking on behalf of the thinking of kids I used to teach in a rough neighborhood. I've never lived with such dynamics myself.
This is an alternative to murder or serious assault.
You would be stuck measuring the specific subset of the problem.
The problem is assault or intentional homicide; so the form only matters in considering concrete solutions. What you measure afterward should be assault or intentional homicide.
Whether the approach is perfect or not, the intentions appear good to me. I worry though that the yard would just be a revolving door for people that have long-running disputes. Of course, having the same two people fight each other every few months is more desirable than the more permanent alternatives.
Now the drug problem in rural America has really gotten out of hand. There have been quite a number of meth labs, and crack and heroin have become a public health problem on the other side of the tracks.
I'm not sure the rest of harrisonburg really is very violent.
This sounds like an interesting take on the matter.
Not that it should necessarily be encouraged. But to prohibit it entirely seems counterproductive, like the hilariously unenforceable prohibitions against suicide (unless you survive, making you wish you had succeeded once facing the legal consequences).
Someone being taken to court when innocent is inconvenient, but it can be resolved. If you're innocent but not very good with a sword that innocence isn't going to prevent potentially mortal wounds, yet refusing the challenge leaves a stain on your character.
How about the honor of not engaging in violence?
You can think it bogus all you want, but that is small comfort if there are concrete socially-enforced ramifications for declining a duel.
If it is bogus, we should be trying to eliminate socially-enforced ramifications that allow VCs to promote violence.