Is the trial by combat majorly flawed?

[Michaelj]

Correct me if I'm wrong but whenever somebody is tried at a trial, they can choose to participate in trial by combat?

So heres the problem... A knight who is known as the best fighter in the world decides to murder somebody, he gets tried and chooses combat and wins. He is now free to choose his next victim. (as you can become your own champion).

Everyone believed Tyrion was guilty of his deeds as they said they witnessed it but he was still offered a tiral by combat. Unless they got killed on the spot, but most nobles would get arrested I imagine.

[FuzzyJAM]

The idea is that the gods will favour the righteous cause and give them victory regardless of human ability.

Whether they do or not is. . .debatable.

[Kittyhat]

My answer to the post topic:

Is water wet?

[Harland Flint]

For me to derive any significant pleasure from the eventual conclusion of ASoI&F (assuming that Westeros isn't over run by the Others), there will have to be some significant institutional reforms in the epilogue to demonstrate how Westerosi society has adapted after years of war.

For example, Queen Dany could take the advice of Queen's Hand Tyrion Lannister and abolish trial by combat, seeing as it's a stupid institution that led to much suffering and perversion of justice.

[Michaelj]

I've just found we had trial by combat in England upto 1819... Crazy!

What's the chances of Cersei getting the seven trial or whatever its called?

[FuzzyJAM]

My answer to the post topic:

Is water wet?

In fairness, this is a magical land where gods appear to be real in some ways. It's not that ridiculous to imagine some higher power influencing such trials.

Of course, the story rather suggests that the Seven are mostly too busy playing board games to worry about human justice, but the belief itself could be based on some reasonable belief.

[Michaelj]

In fairness, this is a magical land where gods appear to be real in some ways. It's not that ridiculous to imagine some higher power influencing such trials.

Of course, the story rather suggests that the Seven are mostly too busy playing board games to worry about human justice, but the belief itself could be based on some reasonable belief.

For that I disagree as we know Tyrion lost his trial by combat battle when he was innocent, perhaps the gods just didn't like Tyrion?. There is also so many gods that its more or less in my eyes a "religion" thing.

[The Imp With A Pimp Limp]

Its obviously flawed, of course the Gods aren't going to help the one who has a right cause.

Look at Tyrion, Bronn won him a trial when he was innocent but Oberyn lost him another one even though he was innocent.

Furthermore, how is it fair to put someone's life in danger, like whoever it was that fought Bronn for someone else's crime.

Either way though, trial by combat is flawed but so is trial by the faith and trial by the king/small council

[Castel]

Of course it's flawed. Imagine a peasant having to defend himself in TBC against a fully armored knight... or hell, even a sellsword or squire against someone in full plate. It's nonsense.

[The Last Direwolf]

What?! Trial by combat is flawed? I... I can't believe it! No... Surely not? ;)

[FuzzyJAM]

For that I disagree as we know Tyrion lost his trial by combat battle when he was innocent, perhaps the gods just didn't like Tyrion?. There is also so many gods that its more or less in my eyes a "religion" thing.

Perhaps the gods thought it was best if Tyrion lost. Who knows? I mean, I'm pretty confident the gods have no influence, but perhaps they once did, or once in a while they take an interest, or whatever.

There seems to be some truth behind some of the religious beliefs in the world. Who's to say what crazy shit might be true in a world which has the supernatural?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Furthermore, how is it fair to put someone's life in danger, like whoever it was that fought Bronn for someone else's crime.

The Vale knight volunteered.

Near as I can tell, you can't force anyone to fight for you, the exception being that a Kingsguard would have to champion the royal family. And being a Kingsguard in the royal family, something tells me that the royal family would always come out "innocent." ;)

[Maroucia]

I loooove trial by combats! To me it's one of those funny and totally absurd concepts I'll never get tired of... Every time there is one, I’m happy :)!!!

[FuzzyJAM]

The Vale knight volunteered.

Near as I can tell, you can't force anyone to fight for you, the exception being that a Kingsguard would have to champion the royal family. And being a Kingsguard in the royal family, something tells me that the royal family would always come out "innocent." ;)

. . .and then you remember Ser Boros Blount.

[Tourne-Toujours]

A knight who is known as the best fighter in the world decides to murder somebody, he gets tried and chooses combat and wins. He is now free to choose his next victim.

pretty much

[Ser Lepus]

In old Spain there were even professional duelists.

A barraz was a mercenary knight who would work as a profesional duelist; if you had to fight a judiciary duel and you weren´t confident on your skills nor the skills of your own warriors, you could hire him to fight in your stead; they sometimes were hired to fight the ritual duels that were often done before a battle between the champions of both sides.

During the XI century the prince of Zaragoza hired a superb barraz for five hundred gold dinar per year, who was famous for using a whip as secret weapon (he used it to trip other riders and dismount them).

At some point during the Middle Ages the church stopped supporting trials by combat, and some devout kings and queens tried to outlaw them, but in Westeros it seems the Faith is 100% for trial by combat.

[The Imp With A Pimp Limp]

The Vale knight volunteered.

Near as I can tell, you can't force anyone to fight for you, the exception being that a Kingsguard would have to champion the royal family. And being a Kingsguard in the royal family, something tells me that the royal family would always come out "innocent." ;)

His life was still put in danger, not saying it was forced. To me it seems stupid that if a person kills another then another one must die if he's "innocent" and if he's "guilty" two will die.

[sunworshipper]

Here's my theory about how trial-by-combat can be a sensible concept. If everyone in the society believes in just gods who intervene in the affairs of men, then they believe that the winner will be the innocent defendant's champion or the truthful accuser's champion. Even the best warrior in the world won't want to stand accused of a crime he really did commit if he believes the gods will help his opponent win. Trial-by-combat could work as a deterrent to crime and to false accusations. In a similar way, I read that medieval trial-by-ordeal often worked by getting guilty parties to confess and plead for mercy (and a lesser sentence) because they believe that they would fail the ordeal as God would intervene against them. Often these ordeals weren't as impossible to win as they seemed and innocent people passed them because they had faith in God to aid them.

Of course, if society is full of agnostics or if people actually have seen too many trials that freed scumbags, the concept falls apart.

[The Imp With A Pimp Limp]

Here's my theory about how trial-by-combat can be a sensible concept. If everyone in the society believes in just gods who intervene in the affairs of men, then they believe that the winner will be the innocent defendant's champion or the truthful accuser's champion. Even the best warrior in the world won't want to stand accused of a crime he really did commit if he believes the gods will help his opponent win. Trial-by-combat could work as a deterrent to crime and to false accusations. In a similar way, I read that medieval trial-by-ordeal often worked by getting guilty parties to confess and plead for mercy (and a lesser sentence) because they believe that they would fail the ordeal as God would intervene against them. Often these ordeals weren't as impossible to win as they seemed and innocent people passed them because they had faith in God to aid them.

Of course, if society is full of agnostics or if people actually have seen too many trials that freed scumbags, the concept falls apart.

Especially if those who put the trial system in place do so for their own benefit. A king has the best knights so he can do whatever he wants without ant consequence, and this extends to his family members and even close friends.

[BlueHighwind]

My answer to question: yes.