Prison Gladiatorial Death Matches

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I think enough people have stated why this is such a bad idea that I don't even need to go into detail.

But Seriously, it's an atrocious idea for ALL the reasons stated by everyone else. I already disagree with the death penalty as it is. (*is Canadian*)

If this kind of thing ends up happening, I can safely say that I will actually not want to live on this planet anymore. Or at least this continent.

It's funny how all those books and movies like to paint really bleak, morally ambiguous pictures of the future.

And then we follow it perfectly.

This. Very much this.

Deus Ex 1 predicts that the US will become a police state. What does the US do? Allow the NDAA to pass.

Other book/game predicts that the internet will be strictly controlled. What happens? China sets up the great Firewall of China....And then the US tries to ram SOPA through, despite everyone saying how bad it is.

At this point, I'm half expecting companies to lease out replacement organs, and then send hit squads to take them back if the person can't pay it off.

 

[VoidWanderer]

An intriguing idea, but I'm sure the Geneva Convention would probably get ammended to include all prisons.

Personally, if a killer/rapist brags about their 'accomplishments', take them out back and SHOOT them. The 'death penalty' is hardly that if they get to 3 square meals a day, and a roof over their head. If they admit, shoot them and get over and done with.

This is the fundamental flaw that frustrates me about prisons. Like Zachary Amaranth posted (bottom of page 1) "I always thought the reason we had prisons was that we weren't monster's."
We aren't monsters, like some of the people in the prison that need to be there, we are worse.

 

[PMorgan18]

Huh, one of my friends had the same idea.
But yes, I support this and we could also add inmates on life sentence too. If someone did something to get the death penalty or life they lose the right to call themselves human.

 

[orangeban]

No, this is a terrible, terrible idea. Firstly: Allowing the strongest and most blood-thirsty prisoners to live longer and get better perks than the rest? Sends out the complete wrong message to prisoners, we shouldn't encourage those kinds of things.

Secondly: Murder shouldn't be a spectator sport, any society which encourages and allows murder on television (actual murder) and brands it as entertainment is effectively condoning murder.

Thirdly: I think the death penalty is awful any and should be abolished

Fourthly: Prisons shouldn't directly make money, they should only recieve it from the government. Prisons should focus entirely on the welfare of the prisoners, not on profit.

Fifthly: It's hardly voluntary, if the choice is fight or die, then that isn't a real choice.

Edit: Sixthly: What about prisoners on death row who are innocent? The justice system always fucks up, and you end up forcing (see point 5) these innocents to fight for their life.

 

[Slash Dementia]

As much as the little voice in the back of my head wants to say that it would be pretty cool, I think it would be wrong. They're murderers and, well, other people who have committed serious crimes. Do we really want to even slightly glorify them for killing more? Killing someone who's family most likely still cares about them, but for our "entertainment", and who will probably watch the death. It's wrong, at least to me.

 

[madster11]

Change it from prisoners on death row to ones with sentences over 30 years under 40 years of age.
Allow rewards like TVs and luxury foods for the winners of the matches, making it completely voluntary.

No executions, either. If one fighter is down and can no longer battle, the match ends. That means if they're just unconscious or were killed while still fighting.

 

[Danny91]

If we ever get to that stage, id rather move straight onto using death-sentenced prisoner's organs for transplants once they're gone, at least some benefit can come from that method.

 

[rayen020]

Lets not deal with the ethical problems here, they are obvious, many and convoluted. We could argue all day on whether allowing murders to duke it out with one another for our entertainment is more humane than strapping to a bed and injecting them with (supposedly) painless poisons.

My quibble more or less arises from participation. Most of not all of the people on death row have some form of an appeal in the works. The whole new evidence last minute reprieve thing. Would i rather go out and get hacked to bits even if i win, or be subject to the painless thing that is going to kill me? I'd take the wait and painless route. Plus i think as a safety precaution we'd have to say if they compete in this blood bath we can't let them out. No parole, No pardons, No hope. Gladiators fought because a) if they didn't they be doing worse stuff that would probably kill them anyway, and b) if they got good enough and lived and preformed well enough they would get freed and become a roman citizen. There was a light at the end of the tunnel. There would be no such light here.

I'm not a opposed to the idea on any moral or ethical grounds, but i do believe such a thing is impossible in this day and age because there would be no participation.

 

[slackbheep]

Because we are supposed to be locking up those whom we deem to be a threat to society. The death penalty is argued for with many different explanations: Humanely dispatching those who are believed to have no chance at rehabilitation, punishment, or what have you. What's being discussed here is bloodsports for the sake of entertainment. We are supposedly locking them up because they are unfit to take part in society. If society is to then revel in their savage behavior what does it say about us? Regardless, our moral high ground becomes ever more slippery.

 

[Dastardly]

Now, I'm not sure if I agree with him, but I do see where he's coming from. The prisoners in question are going to die either way, so why not give them the option to die in battle? What does everyone else think of this?

Just because they've been sentenced to death doesn't mean they're beyond some kind of redemption. Encouraging them to continue killing could rob them of that, even if it is "voluntary."* A lot of folks on death row may still be awaiting appeals and holding out hope for pardons, too. They may also escape. Further, the survivors of these death matches are liekly going to be the worst and most vicious of your inmates. Bottom line, there is nothing to be gained by teaching these people to be better killers.

*By the way, that's another ethical problem with this: when you take someone that is facing death and asking them "choose," that choice is hardly what one could realistically call "voluntary." It's really more of a hostage situation -- fight or we'll kill you. That kind of ethical dilemma is separate from the "taboo" of deathfights, and won't fade the same way porn's stigma did. This wouldn't be analogous to porn, but more analogous to human trafficking and the sex trade.

 

[Vegosiux]

See, all this "but they would be death convicts" and "it would be voluntary" and "they wouldn't be let off for winning" talk isn't doing much to change the picture as to just what is proposed. And voluntary, seriously? You for real? When there's a business made of it, there's no such thing as voluntary participation anymore, because the show must go on no matter what. You can paint a pile of crap in pretty colors all you like, but it's still going to be a pile of crap.

And the pile of crap that is underlying is people drawing entertainment from two people going at one another until one of them is dead. Two things I have to say about that.

1) I am pret-ty sure plenty of the "Yeah I'd watch it" people would get squicked out after 5 minutes or less when the "action" got "real".

2) I'd be taking notes of those who actually enjoyed and marking them as "potentially dangerous".

2a) Say, maybe the organizer would be running such notes too you know, in case they run out of "voluntary" participants yet the show must go on.

Seriously, people. Learn to get your kicks out of something more constructive. Watching two men mutilate one another until one's physical functions shut down doesn't make you tough or an entertainment connoisseur. What it does make you is deserving of a place in the ring yourself.

Nothing good could come out of jumping from this slippery slope. Well, nothing good for society.

 

[Sandytimeman]

this is a bad idea. One your basically putting a gun against their heads and going fight or die. Of course they are gunna choose to try and live, who wouldn't?

What if after the fact, they discovered some evidence exonerating you, but you've gone on to survive 15 fights and become a stone cold brutal killer.

Seriously this is kinda sick, prisoners on death row, who HAVE to be put down should be put down as humanely and quietly as possible.

Making a spectacle of it isn't going to do anything but cause money to start coming in, and then what happens when you have someone corrupt, in a goverment run killing orginzation that wont make anymore millions of dollars because they need to put a stay on this execution.

 

[SkullKing84]

I'd watch.

You think I'm joking? These prisoners are willingly doing it, let them do it! Let them enjoy a bit of fame if they win a few before they die.

But I think the prisoners should be allowed to join some sort of military program upon winning X amount of fights, military could use killing machines.

I agree. And for all those who compare it to animal fighting... here is the BIG difference. Animals CAN'T volunteer, they are forced in.

Hell, it should also be open for public volunteering.
Would i do it... no. I suck at fighting and wouldn't last a round to even to a kid with wiffleball bat. But i know there are people who would want to test their mettle, and some who are just crazy enough (and egotistical enough) to think they have a chance (and plenty who about to go off the deep end and kill people. Would they kill before joining these ranks of fighter, most likely... but even it saved one innocent life cause the potential murder decided to use the Ring as an outlet instead of doing a thrill kill on the street. it would be worth it).

I read a couple people saying its a step backwards in society... What candy coated world do you live in? Violence and savagery is part of society.

 

[Pinkamena]

Two thumbs up from me. If the prisoners are willing, I see no problem with this! And it would be entertaining!

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Exactly. If you gave murderers the chance to kill, you're not really stopping them from doing it again, you see? You're basically telling them that it's okay as long as it's against prisoners and live on pay-per-view.

so its not okay for murderers to kill other murderers, but it IS okay for the government to kill them?

It seems kind of.... cruel? I dunno. I mean, I've always thought that having arena duels would be pretty cool, so long as participation was voluntary, and the pay-off was huge. But prisoners? It seems far too malicious.

well, it's Death Row prisoners. they're either going to be killed by an injection or electricity or whatever. why not by a fistfight? and death row prisoners are probably going to be pretty violent and not care about killing fellow prisoners. but what about the other prisoners? they can either watch two people fight to the death in a controlled situation, or get the same effect by starting a massive riot.
why do you think the Romans built the Colosseum? people like watching people smashing the God-given fuck out of other people. wrestling, boxing, MMA, UFC, rugby... we just think "its only bad if one person dies!" but what's the difference between Jimmy Stabface and Bob Murderballs fighting, then one of them getting executed, and one of them dying in the ring.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

so its not okay for murderers to kill other murderers, but it IS okay for the government to kill them?

Well, yes. One of the primary reasons for establishing a government in the first place is to kill people that need killing without society descending into anarchy.

why do you think the Romans built the Colosseum? people like watching people smashing the God-given fuck out of other people. wrestling, boxing, MMA, UFC, rugby... we just think "its only bad if one person dies!" but what's the difference between Jimmy Stabface and Bob Murderballs fighting, then one of them getting executed, and one of them dying in the ring.

Just because we're going to execute someone anyway, does not mean that the manner of their death doesn't matter. That's just a weird mirror image of the silly argument that if you execute a murderer, "you're just as bad as he is."

The reason there is so much elaborate ceremony involved in an execution (the last meal, the long walk, the blanks in the firing squad, the final statement, etc.), to say nothing of the elaborate legal proceedings that precede it, is to underscore the grave nature of taking someone's life.

A pay-per-view event with swooshing graphics and commercial breaks for Fritos doesn't have quite the same tragic dignity.

 

[Ham_authority95]

Exactly. If you gave murderers the chance to kill, you're not really stopping them from doing it again, you see? You're basically telling them that it's okay as long as it's against prisoners and live on pay-per-view.

so its not okay for murderers to kill other murderers, but it IS okay for the government to kill them?[

I never said that I support the Death Penalty.

 

[Theseus32]

It's bad simply because they don't HAVE a choice. By choice they wouldn't be in that situation. It's exactly the same as bumfights. Pay a couple hobos to beat the fuck out of each other while you film it. The problem is, they're not exactly homeless by choice. So you get the illusion of consent, when in reality you're just picking meat off the corpse of whatever dreams they might have had.

Same thing with this. Ostensibly you're taking people who enjoy killing, and rather than trying to, ya know, FIX them, or at least make it so they somehow contribute to society as a whole, you allow them to kill each other. Why is this a bad idea? For the same reason it was a bad idea when it was banned 1500 years ago. Because it's frigging inhuman and turns those watching into goddamned monsters, saying nothing of those participating. Your "friend" should seek help immediately, lest he join their future ranks. I get playing devils advocate, but some things are wrong, BECAUSE THEY'RE WRONG. People killing each other for "entertainment"? Wrong. Real wrong.

 

[Theseus32]

snip

And why do you think they shut down the colosseum? Because while people may like watching adults maim and kill each other, it's not exactly conducive to a healthy society as a whole. If we did this now we would literally be setting the human race back two thousand years. 'sides, the net has plenty of outlets for you gore fetishists, sick fucks that you are.

A better question should be if we still want to be a society bent on destroying those we can't "fix". This ain't exactly sophie's choice here. NO ONE dying is a very viable option. Particularly if you get the casual drug users out of the clink to make room for those who actually NEED to be there.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Screw ethics, that would be awesome!

Your friend is dumb. Humans have come a long way from gladiatorial death matches, both as a society and as a people. Why would we suddenly revert to old, archaic ways of unbalanced tomfooloery? While we are at it, why don't we make petty crimes punishable by public ridicule in stocks, or maybe we can solve all of our disputes with ten paces? Hell, why don't we just pit two people against each other that use newborn babies as their weapons.

EDIT: Of course most people on The Escapist like the idea. The Escapist, like most sheltered and uneducated groups, thinks that every single criminal on earth is the worst piece of scum ever. Did that guy go to jail for unpaid speeding tickets?! FUCKING HANG HIM BY HIS TOES AND BEAT HIM TO DEATH. You people disgust me sometimes.

EDIT 2: I also love the people saying that they would totally watch it. No, you most likely wouldn't. You're saying that to look "edgy". Despite all the self diagnosed medical problems people have on this board (all of which are most likely non existent), I highly doubt many, or even a few, of you are as "twisted" as you say you are. I guarantee that most of you would get nauseous, or even start crying uncontrollably, when seeing 2 grown men fight to the death. Hell, most of you barely have the courage to speak to members of the opposite sex, so I highly doubt you could even watch two people punch each other if blood was involved. Grow the fuck up. This isn't high school. Stop lying to yourself.

I regularly watch bloody UFC, Dream and StrikeForce fights, partake and spar in BJJ and do Muay Thai - don't tell me how to think. I don't think I'm 'edgy', I think I'm fairly normal, instinctively, I like watching people fight.
(Unless you're - quite possibly - trolling, in which case well done:3)