David Ostrom of Paola, Kansas is in a legal battle with his ex-wife over custody and property taxes. Instead of going to court, he is asking the court of Shelby County, Iowa to grant his motion for trial by combat. He believes this is lawful under the ninth amendment which states that citizens have more rights than just the rights stated in the Constitution. Because of this, a defendant in the United States could request trial by combat since it was lawful during Great Britain’s rule over the thirteen colonies. Trial by combat is when two parties settle an accusation by fighting in a single combat. To this day, trial by combat has not technically been banned as a right in the United States, but has not been used since 1818 in British Court. Ostrom states that his ex-wife, Bridgette Ostrom, and her lawyer has destroyed him legally so he would like to bring this conflict to the field of battle. He has asked the Iowa district Court in Shelby County to give him 12 weeks in order to find Samurai swords. Bridgette Ostrom’s attorney, Mathew Hudson, has asked the judge to reject this request.
If you were the judge would you allow the request for trial by combat?
If I were the judge I would not allow this request because it just sounds unreasonable to settle an argument such as this one by combat.
Do you think trial by combat is comparable to a death sentence?
I think that trial by combat is not comparable to a death sentence because in trial by combat the guilty person may be the one who wins.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/14/us/ap-us-odd-trial-by-combat-iowa.html
Replies
Good story choice and well done overall Brad! Both of your questuons are yes/no questions so be sure to ask a follow up such as "why or why not" or "explain your answer". I thought this would get more replies. I'm surprised.
I would reject the trial by combat. It proves nothing except you can stab people, and I'm probably not very good at fighting. The government should probably revise it so all legal matters are settled in court and not with swords.
It's not comparable to a death sentence, but someone is likely going to die or be mained. I wonder if he thinks that if he kills her he gets her stuff and doesn't have to pay child support.
I agree with you on both of these thoughts because it seems unjust to settle a legal battle by war where there is a very likely chance that someone may die. And I am also wondering what happens to the belongings of the person that dies.