Is the trial by combat majorly flawed?

[DirePenguin]

Sounds to me that they can *request* a trial by combat. And depend on the lord judge, it may or may not be granted.

90% of the things in Westeros would be flawed if you use our today's standard to judge.

[The Frosted King]

Only in the sense that someone with everything on the line likely wouldn't hold to it.

Ie, in the tv show, when Jaime made the offer to Robb...Even if Robb sliced jaime apart, his father likely wouldn't honor it, and we know Joff wouldn't.

So its ultimately a pointless ritual.

[James Arryn]

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).

There are all kinds of example of it being used as legalized murder/torture in medieval history.

One example I just heard about recently involved a poor but physically able man in Norman England invent an accusation against a weak wealthy neighbor, choose trial by combat, beat the man half to death, blind him, castrate him, and throw his manhood to the crowd.

And, having won, claim his property as compensation.

[Ser Lepus]

Sounds to me that they can *request* a trial by combat. And depend on the lord judge, it may or may not be granted.

90% of the things in Westeros would be flawed if you use our today's standard to judge.

Only in the sense that someone with everything on the line likely wouldn't hold to it.

Ie, in the tv show, when Jaime made the offer to Robb...Even if Robb sliced jaime apart, his father likely wouldn't honor it, and we know Joff wouldn't.

So its ultimately a pointless ritual.

A duel between war foes is different to a judicial duel.

I don´t think a judge can deny a trial by combat to a noble or knight; otherwise Lysa wouldn´t have let Tyrion go so easily.

Jamie was held as a prisioner of war, not a criminal, so he couldn´t demand a trial by combat.

Generals can arrange a duel between champions to settle things, but nobody is under the obligation to accept a challenge to that kind of duel.

[PrinceHenryris]

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." ;)

I wonder how the story woud have turned out if Lyssa had chosen

Lyn Corbray, of - if present - Bronze Yohn? Would Bronn have even stepped forward if he was staring down Royce in his armor, or Corbray with Lady Forlorn on his hip?

[Sylvan Fox]

Considering the sort of forensics they have in Westeros, it's no surprise characters on trial seem to prefer trial by combat. Otherwise, it's their words against yours. At least in fighting, or having a champion fight, you can do more than just stand there and listen as someone else spells out your doom.

[teemo]

The fact that you can use "fire" as your champion makes me think it's majorly flawed.

[Howling Mad]

Let's see Sweet Robin as judge or a sword in hand? what to do? what to do?

[Errant Bard]

I see people whining all the time about how unfair Catelyn is for not giving Brienne a trial by combat, so clearly it's only flawed if it doesn't help a crowd favourite to play Houdini.

[Knight Of Winter]

I don´t think a judge can deny a trial by combat to a noble or knight; otherwise Lysa wouldn´t have let Tyrion go so easily.

While this seems true most of the time, as in cases of Tyrion (twice), Rickard Stark, queen Naerys and others, there is one case where "defendant" is sentenced to death without any trial - and that's Ned ordering execution of Gregor.

Although, I don't know if things would be different if Gregor was present and demanded trial by combat. Since there are very few men in Westeros capable of defeating him, he would be free to commit his atrocities time and time again.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Trial by combat has one advantage: It settles the discussion whether the defendant is guilty and deserves punishment or not. If a member of an important house was accused and judged guilty on witnesses alone, his family could claim them to be liars and start feuding. But if the gods spoke per trial by combat*, the affair is settled and the accused is guilty. And his family would have to accept it. No feuds started.

And that is the main point of medieval justice. Not justice in the modern sense, but lessening tensions to the point you could live with them in peace. Trial by combat achieves that (most of the time).

* a fair trial by combat, not the mockery with "fire is the champion of House Targaryen"

[Michaelj]

I just think its a joke because say like Gregor Clegane wanted to murder the prince, he gets accused, trial by combat and wins... Its too flawed.

England had a similar problem, I was really suprised to find out that they had there upto 1819. The last known case was a man who wanted trial by combat but it ended in abolishing the system. There was also a case a few years ago where a motorist from England wanted trial by combat and the DVLA were to send their own champion because of old medieval laws. This was abolished also though.

[Independent George]

I think the correct answer is, "duh".

[LuisDantas]

In all fairness, pretty much any trial is flawed. Trials, by definition, are those things that happen when justice can't be attained any longer and all that remains is the hope for damage control. There are those who see trials as tools for justice, true, but that is an unduly romantic vision.

Trials by combat aren't even all that much jaundiced, since after all the champions can refuse their parts.

Nor is it quite true that the best fighter of the region gets away scott free. For one thing, it is not like being dangerous wouldn't help anyway. For another, a sufficiently reckless and inconsequential killer would simply be ambushed or wounded from a distance until his menace ended.

[Aurelian]

I think it needs to be remembered there isn't really a justice system. It seems the local lord if effectively the judge, and that there is something like the King's Law, but if the local lord isn't interested not much would happen. I think in a way trial by combat could be seen as a deterrent against injustice, if you accuse someone there is the possibility they might want to fight you for it. Trial by combat allows a way to settle things once and for all, to maintain order, and I imagine that is seen as the real point, rather than having justice.

For the idea that a great fighter could live with impunity because he is better than anyone I find this unlikely. It seems that they don't like the idea of entirely unfair fights, e.g. people didn't expect Tyrion to the fight the Mountain, so no matter how good you are there is a chance you will lose or get severely injured. And if there was someone who was living like this, I feel that someone would step in and deal with them.

[Michaelj]

Sounds to me that they can *request* a trial by combat. And depend on the lord judge, it may or may not be granted.

90% of the things in Westeros would be flawed if you use our today's standard to judge.

I don't think you can be denied it. I remember Tyrion challenging this in GoT when he was in the Eerie when they were going to trie him unfairly by Robert Arryn. Where he got the attention of all the singers in the room.

[ServantOnIce]

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.

When his sister said she wanted Ser Gregor Clegane to represent her I would have objected, I would have made her find a dwarf for me to fight. The reality is there was no equal in one on one combat to Ser Gregor Clegane other than Ser Selmy, Daario N., Drogo, Jaime with is good hand and Robert in his prime and the Hound. Even those had a marginal chance . . . .

Trial by combat when it is two guys of near equal height and ability is fair . . Samwell Tarly vs. Jora Mormont wouldn't be fair . .

[_Oberyn_]

Trial by combat seems to apply when there is no clear evidence of guilt though. E.g Oberyn cannot stab Tywin in a room full of people and demand trial by combat.

[Milcov]

Sounds to me that they can *request* a trial by combat. And depend on the lord judge, it may or may not be granted.

90% of the things in Westeros would be flawed if you use our today's standard to judge.

The nobility have a right to trial by combat, obviously the smallfolk don't.

[Frey Pie]

Makes for undeniably good reading however flawed the system itself is