It is interesting to consider the following:

A thing is a challenge at law among the tribes around the North Sea basin. / East Sea Basin.

What was discussed there was the pro-ject: vor wurf.

One could call for a stand-in: a champion. Such a person would move towards to call: ad-vocat.

That said: In the Frysian Law of 800: duelling was not outlawed, but it was now established that those having a quarrel, go to the local priest (instead of their thingere) and call it a day: TAG or TAGUNG or DAG, which is the root of dagen, meaning: to challenge.

It is to be taken into account that witnesses were the main cause of proof. These days proof is about papertrails and what not.

As you can see: the current legal process bears a lot of analogy to them days long gone.

So why is revenge outlawed? Because the government does that for you. And they will be very unhappy and insulted if you ever disregard their primacy in the revenge department.

However, if you go and make a complaint, to dote upon them the right to action, forgoing the pleasure of satisfaction.

It has been socialized: the people vs. accused.

It also pertains to the issue of accused. IF you cannot proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect has indeed done the deeds you think he/she did, then ... you would be wrong. So, the .gov does it for you ... and is even more abysmal at that job.

The only reason they get the conviction rate up, is because of deals ....

The chance of dying in a revenge case would eliminate quite a lot of homies. It would also decrease crime.

Is it humane? There are two dimensions to it: 1.to make you whole 2.to protect society from perpetrators.

.gov' s job is abysmal at both.