This is just a light-hearted piece, that occurred to me when reading about men who have their backs to the wall, and facing losing everything, requested by the court, trial by combat. And, of course, such a request is thought, wrongly, to be incompatible with modern law, but not all law.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/15/kansas-man-wants-to-settle-ugly-custody-battle-with-trial-by-combat-with-japanese-swords/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat
“Unlike trial by ordeal in general, which is known to many cultures worldwide, trial by combat is known primarily from the customs of the Germanic peoples. It was in use among the ancient Burgundians, Ripuarian Franks, Alamans, Lombards, and Swedes. It was unknown in Anglo-Saxon law, Roman law and Irish Brehon Law and it does not figure in the traditions of Middle Eastern antiquity such as the code of Hammurabi or the Torah.
The practice is regulated in various Germanic legal codes. Being rooted in Germanic tribal law, the various regional laws of the Frankish Empire (and the later Holy Roman Empire) prescribed different particulars, such as equipment and rules of combat. The Lex Alamannorum (recension Lantfridana 81, dated to 712–730 AD) prescribes a trial by combat in the event of two families disputing the boundary between their lands. A handful of earth taken from the disputed piece of land is put between the contestants and they are required to touch it with their swords, each swearing that their claim is lawful. The losing party besides forfeiting their claim to the land is required to pay a fine. Capitularies governing its use appear from the year 803 onwards. Louis the Pious prescribed combat between witnesses of each side, rather than between the accuser and the accused, and briefly allowed for the Ordeal of the Cross in cases involving clerics. In medieval Scandinavia, the practice survived throughout the Viking Age in the form of the Holmgang. An unusual variant, the marital duel, involved combat between a husband and wife, with the former physically handicapped in some way. The loser was killed.”
Thus, there is medieval precedent for the American’s request. But, I can see no reason why trial by ordeal could not be restated, under a new legal regime. For one thing, it would put a curb, especially in America to civil litigation, if ultimately the plaintiff and defendant had to finish matters with the long sword, rather than long words! Certainly, vexatious litigants, unless they were Masters at Arms, would be more careful legally harassing people, like a few that have hung around the fringes of the Freedom Movement.
Thus, a return to some aspects of medieval law is not outrightly absurd. In the long run it may prove a more satisfying method of people getting closure than years of stress and worry, and masses of money, going through the courts. The pain will be over, quicker! Trial by money will supplemented by something a bit more well, cutting!
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/7uhk8i/bring_back_trial_by_combat/
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-trial-by-combat-no-longer-legal
Why, there is even American rulings that a trial by combat could in principle be conducted in the modern day:
https://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/judge-admits-trial-by-combat-is-available-in-new-york-then-declines-to-order-it/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duXrW0uwSFY&feature=emb_title