Prison Gladiatorial Death Matches

[Azure-Supernova]

As long as they've got the Dealth Penalty, minds as well get some sport out of it. Though instead of Arena combat, how about making them do obstacle courses like It's a Knockout - Prison Edition!

Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, but rather than contribute to the seemingly endless retardization and bastardizing of our culture, why not have them do, like, cancer research or something? I mean not the heavy lifting, obviously, but squirting shit into test tubes or some such. Even if not that specifically, you get the idea. Give them an out that responds to them working hard. I mean sure, it's the literal definition of slavery, but what the fuck? We're already talking blood sport, why not bring back slaves?

Well hey I was only joking about the sport thing... semi-joking about the 'It's a Knockout - Prison Edition' thing. Still some kind of service for the community might work as incentive if they're offered a lesser punishment. The standard death penalty could start out at stoning and for every so many days, weeks or months service they get something a little quicker and painless. /joke

 

[Chaos Marine]

Because of the ethical issues even if it's voluntary. In general you don't want murderers to kill more people.

If they're killing other murderers, rapists or other serious criminal scum, I don't see what's wrong with it.

 

[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)

Biiiig difference between boxing or MMA and two men literally beating each other to death to survive. I want you to think about it. REALLY think about it. Ever seen a car wreck up close? Ever watched the light slip from someone's eyes as they die in excruciating agony? Ever watched a snuff film? If the answer is no, you quite literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about, 'cuse that's what you'd be willingly signing up for. Just as a viewer! If you genuinely think that's "awesome" I suggest you seek immediate mental help, because there is something seriously wrong with you.

Look, if we're talking about forcing inmates to do shit to survive, why not make them do something constructive? Tax preparation? First one through the I-9 forms gets an extra week of life. I mean if you're going to make them dance like monkeys, why the fuck not go all out? Dancing with death. A reality show where whoever's the best dancer survives while those that aren't get fed through a wood chipper feet first so all the good little girls and boys of america can hear their agonizing death screams. Amateur surgery hour! This one's only for inmates with illnesses, like cancer and whatnot, you go grab folks off the street and they perform the operations, see if you can survive!

Or better still, how about this, you let them go, give them unlimited ammo and weapons and just film the killing spree while you have people paid to hunt them down. Sure, innocents would die by the hundreds, but think of the ratings!

Look at his post again,

I highly doubt you could even watch two people punch each other if blood was involved.

I appreciate you've written a long enough piece there, but you sort of missed the point of my post.

Also, I considered the situation hypothetical, what would be cool is MMA style fights for willing participants, but with extended time Pride rules. That would be sweet, not like it'd ever happen though!

 

[Superbeast]

Snip

Snip 2

Just wanted to let you guys know that I am totally with you on this. Sometimes this forum terrifies me (usually surrounding topics in the same vein as this...hmm). Oh, and Theseus32, I'm an idiot and somehow managed to report you when trying to quote you - many apologies.

++

To everyone saying that you'd watch this: have any of you, ever, seen someone die, bloodily, of savagely inflicted wounds?

I have. The very idea of turning that into sport turns my stomach. The very idea that you guys are claiming to be totally willing to pay to watch such a thing makes me want to vomit.

That's not even going into the total and callous disregard for human life shown here (I know, I know...those involved aren't human because they showed a total disregard for human life...oh wait); nor the fact that we do not really want to be glorifying murder; nor the inevitable problems with such a set-up thanks to the all-wonderful and totally-faultless nature of capitalism (touched on in my previous post); nor the entire concept of ethics telling us it is not a good idea.

The Romans decided that this was a bad idea and went off it - and they fucking loved bloodshed, their entire empire was built around military might (and not just in terms of expansionism, largely the defining aspect of being a "Roman" was, to them, to be awesome and killing shit with the military...partly because it was about the only thing they could do better than the Greeks, but that is a wholly different topic). Given that they had the most widespread and publicised/commercialised/politicised bloodsports ever seen, I think their opinions on why it is a bloody bad idea should be taken into consideration here.

 

[Treblaine]

I see an obvious problem with this, what if you have a 7 foot tall bodybuilder on death row, then a spindly 5'7 man? The big bully would always win and get to go on killing. That is why this cannot work, because the uncertainty of the outcome flies in the face of hot judicial rulings are supposed to be certain in their effect. i.e. "hanged by the neck until dead" not "hang him for a few seconds then cut him down, see what happens"

The point of the death sentence is not to "have some fun" it is the ultimate (capital) punishment, that they must pay with their life for the worst crime. Direct, simple, unambiguous. Yes, a long and tortuous appeals process but that's just to reaffirm the decision that the just punishment is to deprive more than their freedom, but their entire life.

A prisoner Incarcerated they have little but their life. They are fed, clothed and housed just to keep them alive. They are on effective life support.

In WWII, Nazi Germany captured millions of Soviet POWs but had hardly any resources to do anything with them, so they rounded them up in fenced off areas and pretty much left them there to die in the winter exposed with no food, no shelter, no escape. It was a death sentence, they just didn't do it with a bullet.

I suppose corporal punishment would be the middle ground between incarceration and death but corporal punishment has gone out of use I suspect precisely because of the uncertain outcome. Some repent from being flogged, others are enraged and act worse. The distinction is that you are trying to add something: pain. Rather than forcing them to forfeit, like their freedom, or their money in a hefty fine.

Pornography was seen as unethical until the vast majority of Western society agreed that it was no longer a problem.

Spurious logic, as that logic would excuse ANYTHING, even cannibalism and worse. Pornography was socially accepted because it was accepted as benign and also for the inability to legally distinguish from works of art. It's just pictures. PS: pornography remains banned in public.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The hypocrisy in this thread is fucking killing me.

People terrify me sometimes.

 

[Redryhno]

Well, besides the huge implications that these guys more often than not, have family that still care about them, you've got a big chance for the prison system to be screwed and sued(not exactly in that order) by these guy's family for wrongful death, mistrialed for them to have to fight and kill more people, etc.

Besides that, I think there's a statute or bill or something that imposes huge taxes on any network that shows real-life violence (as in people actually being killed on tv for no more reason that public entertainment, I hope you kind've get what I'm saying. the news not being counted in that) that stretches back to around 1969-1978 region.

 

[chadachada123]

I see an obvious problem with this, what if you have a 7 foot tall bodybuilder on death row, then a spindly 5'7 man? The big bully would always win and get to go on killing. That is why this cannot work, because the uncertainty of the outcome flies in the face of hot judicial rulings are supposed to be certain in their effect. i.e. "hanged by the neck until dead" not "hang him for a few seconds then cut him down, see what happens"

The point of the death sentence is not to "have some fun" it is the ultimate (capital) punishment, that they must pay with their life for the worst crime. Direct, simple, unambiguous. Yes, a long and tortuous appeals process but that's just to reaffirm the decision that the just punishment is to deprive more than their freedom, but their entire life.

A prisoner Incarcerated they have little but their life. They are fed, clothed and housed just to keep them alive. They are on effective life support.

In WWII, Nazi Germany captured millions of Soviet POWs but had hardly any resources to do anything with them, so they rounded them up in fenced off areas and pretty much left them there to die in the winter exposed with no food, no shelter, no escape. It was a death sentence, they just didn't do it with a bullet.

I suppose corporal punishment would be the middle ground between incarceration and death but corporal punishment has gone out of use I suspect precisely because of the uncertain outcome. Some repent from being flogged, others are enraged and act worse. The distinction is that you are trying to add something: pain. Rather than forcing them to forfeit, like their freedom, or their money in a hefty fine.

Pornography was seen as unethical until the vast majority of Western society agreed that it was no longer a problem.

Spurious logic, as that logic would excuse ANYTHING, even cannibalism and worse. Pornography was socially accepted because it was accepted as benign and also for the inability to legally distinguish from works of art. It's just pictures. PS: pornography remains banned in public.

What's inherently wrong with cannibalism compared to eating other unhealthy foods? Just because you have human meat doesn't mean you murdered someone for it or stole it, should the sale of human meat by legal.

 

[chadachada123]

Well, besides the huge implications that these guys more often than not, have family that still care about them, you've got a big chance for the prison system to be screwed and sued(not exactly in that order) by these guy's family for wrongful death, mistrialed for them to have to fight and kill more people, etc.

Besides that, I think there's a statute or bill or something that imposes huge taxes on any network that shows real-life violence (as in people actually being killed on tv for no more reason that public entertainment, I hope you kind've get what I'm saying. the news not being counted in that) that stretches back to around 1969-1978 region.

But the prisoners are doing this willingly. There's nothing else to it. They're already going to spend the rest of their life in prison, an effective death sentence, so why not let them have at each other if all parties are consenting?

 

[Dr Snakeman]

I always thought the reason we had prisons was that we weren't monsters.

Truest, most poetic response I've read thus far.

I'm pro-death penalty, but this little idea the OP's friend has? It's sick. You shouldn't make convicts slaughter each other for your amusement. Can't believe I actually have to tell you people that.

 

[Treblaine]

I see an obvious problem with this, what if you have a 7 foot tall bodybuilder on death row, then a spindly 5'7 man? The big bully would always win and get to go on killing. That is why this cannot work, because the uncertainty of the outcome flies in the face of hot judicial rulings are supposed to be certain in their effect. i.e. "hanged by the neck until dead" not "hang him for a few seconds then cut him down, see what happens"

The point of the death sentence is not to "have some fun" it is the ultimate (capital) punishment, that they must pay with their life for the worst crime. Direct, simple, unambiguous. Yes, a long and tortuous appeals process but that's just to reaffirm the decision that the just punishment is to deprive more than their freedom, but their entire life.

A prisoner Incarcerated they have little but their life. They are fed, clothed and housed just to keep them alive. They are on effective life support.

In WWII, Nazi Germany captured millions of Soviet POWs but had hardly any resources to do anything with them, so they rounded them up in fenced off areas and pretty much left them there to die in the winter exposed with no food, no shelter, no escape. It was a death sentence, they just didn't do it with a bullet.

I suppose corporal punishment would be the middle ground between incarceration and death but corporal punishment has gone out of use I suspect precisely because of the uncertain outcome. Some repent from being flogged, others are enraged and act worse. The distinction is that you are trying to add something: pain. Rather than forcing them to forfeit, like their freedom, or their money in a hefty fine.

Pornography was seen as unethical until the vast majority of Western society agreed that it was no longer a problem.

Spurious logic, as that logic would excuse ANYTHING, even cannibalism and worse. Pornography was socially accepted because it was accepted as benign and also for the inability to legally distinguish from works of art. It's just pictures. PS: pornography remains banned in public.

What's inherently wrong with cannibalism compared to eating other unhealthy foods? Just because you have human meat doesn't mean you murdered someone for it or stole it, should the sale of human meat by legal.

Uuuurrrggg, I mean cannibalism in the sense of "hunting people down, killing them and eating them". I just been playing Red Dead Redemption where I almost ended up on some crazy guy's spit roast. Not like in a survival situation.

OK, to go extreme: child sexual abuse. There. I think that is one thing we can all agree is not permissible and those who do, well they are crazy. Even if pornography was once prohibited and now legal, that doesn't necessarily mean anything else that is illegal today may be legal, including gladiatorial condemnation for criminals.

In fact, now I realise that's the exact opposite. Western world DID used to condemn criminals to gladiatorial combat as in Ancient Rome, and since the Enlightenment Era such practices have been seen as abominable and hedonistic. It did not serve a sense of social justice, it was shallow entertainment rather than justice.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Watch the film "Gamer" that's pretty much the base concept. well, it's more complicated but that's part of it.

 

[chadachada123]

Uuuurrrggg, I mean cannibalism in the sense of "hunting people down, killing them and eating them". I just been playing Red Dead Redemption where I almost ended up on some crazy guy's spit roast. Not like in a survival situation.

OK, to go extreme: child sexual abuse. There. I think that is one thing we can all agree is not permissible and those who do, well they are crazy. Even if pornography was once prohibited and now legal, that doesn't necessarily mean anything else that is illegal today may be legal, including gladiatorial condemnation for criminals.

In fact, now I realise that's the exact opposite. Western world DID used to condemn criminals to gladiatorial combat as in Ancient Rome, and since the Enlightenment Era such practices have been seen as abominable and hedonistic. It did not serve a sense of social justice, it was shallow entertainment rather than justice.

I'm merely looking at it from a prisoner's point of view. If I'm sentenced to life in prison with no chance of getting out, shit, I'd want to go out in a blaze of glory.

I'd take the death penalty over life in prison anyday.

 

[AstylahAthrys]

At least speaking to American law, I think that idea is in in violation of the Eighth Amendment. You know, no excessive bail or fines, no cruel or unusual punishment. Slowly dying in a gladiator match IS a form of cruel and unusual punishment, even if it was voluntary. Also, we don't need killers doing more killing. I'll keep my violence primarily virtual and fake.

Also, after reading all the posts in this thread, I am terrified by all the people who say that it's awesome and that they'd watch it. People actually want to watch someone be beat to death? Really? That's disgusting. I'm just going to tell myself that the people who are saying this are early-to-mid teens who don't really get what that means, or are just trying to sound tough or cool.

 

[chadachada123]

I always thought the reason we had prisons was that we weren't monsters.

Truest, most poetic response I've read thus far.

I'm pro-death penalty, but this little idea the OP's friend has? It's sick. You shouldn't make convicts slaughter each other for your amusement. Can't believe I actually have to tell you people that.

I always thought the reason we had prisons was that we weren't monsters.

Truest, most poetic response I've read thus far.

I'm pro-death penalty, but this little idea the OP's friend has? It's sick. You shouldn't make convicts slaughter each other for your amusement. It's bad. Can't believe I actually have to tell you people that.

Well, it is The Escapist. Incest? Check. Self diagnosed mental illnesses? Check. So it really isn't a far stretch to imagine they would also be into snuff.

What confuses me is that most people here are such moral warriors on trivial issues, yet completely condone barbaric acts such as this. I still stand by what I said earlier, that most of these people are just full of it.

It seems like you guys didn't even read the OP's posted, where he says very clearly that it is completely voluntary. In no way was the OP suggesting that we "make" convicts slaughter each other. It's just giving them the option to. How this is barbaric when they are already dead men walking you both have yet to explain.

What you have done is strawmanned the hell out of OP's post by saying that he wants to force inmates to fight.

 

[Treblaine]

I don't see any problem with it especially if it is voluntary, the government can make some money and gets rid of inmates faster, the public can be entertained, and the prisoners can blow off some built up steam. Everyone wins.

I don't think you get it. The reason for the long delay between sentencing and execution isn't because they physically find it hard to kill the condemned, it's just there are literally years worth of legal wrangling to be done before such a major decision as the Death Penalty can be finalised. The appeals process and everyone who has to sign off on the process is so long and arduous. The actual physical execution is the easiest part.

Trying to arrange two people to fight each other, and fight to the death is a legal and logistical nightmare.

And how is it "entertaining" for the public to see a murderer be allowed to kill and be victorious again? How would you like it if someone who killed or raped someone you love, and was given a weapon and an opportunity to fight. You want 9/11 plotters and serial rapist a chance to continue their evil violence?

Wrestling is fun because it's fakes meaningless fun. Stone Cold Steve Austin doesn't stand for anything that hurt you and your loved ones, he's just a man with an overwhelming need to break tables with other mens faces in hilariously over-the-top ways.

(You know how you let a prisoner blow off some steam? You lock them in a concrete room behind a steel door then go to lunch, any place you like order what you like. Walk in the park. Go see a movie. Go do all the things a prisoner cannot.)

 

[Treblaine]

It seems like you guys didn't even read the OP's posted, where he says very clearly that it is completely voluntary. In no way was the OP suggesting that we "make" convicts slaughter each other. It's just giving them the option to. How this is barbaric when they are already dead men walking you both have yet to explain.

That is precisely the problem. Murderers' impulses should not be indulged. They are on death row (likely) because they murdered people, and such a scheme would encourage them to do so again. No. That shows a monumental lack of consideration for those directly affected by their crimes who would be traumatised to know their murderous ways are being indulged and profited from inside bars, rather than restraining them.

The OP (and others) seems to just treat death-row inmates as "disposable people" because they will have to pay the ultimate price. No. They are very real people who have to pay a very deliberate price for their crimes. Not to be decided by their fighting prowess. But to be decided by a court of LAW! They are not dead until they are dead.

The ethics of deliberately taking life purely for that sake are myriad, but you cannot simplify it as "they are dead men walking, who cares how they die". If you're going to execute someone as a punishment, then do it swiftly and decently. No unnecessary suffering or gory displays as that is superfluous to the intent.

The assassination of Al Qaeda officers in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries are essentially the same as the death penalty. Sure it is not a punishment and it is not done while in custody but it it for the same purpose: to end life deliberately. Not to use lethal force to prevent someone doing something like killing someone else or escaping as most often used by police and even the military.

 

[Laser Priest]

Nothing awful can come of glorifying real violence.

'Course not.

[/sarcasm] Fuck, people are assaulting and occasionally killing each other over not-so-violent sports. This is a horrible idea.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

snip so that you can see that I replied

It seems like you guys didn't even read the OP's posted, where he says very clearly that it is completely voluntary. In no way was the OP suggesting that we "make" convicts slaughter each other. It's just giving them the option to. How this is barbaric when they are already dead men walking you both have yet to explain.

That is precisely the problem. Murderers' impulses should not be indulged. They are on death row (likely) because they murdered people, and such a scheme would encourage them to do so again. No. That shows a monumental lack of consideration for those directly affected by their crimes who would be traumatised to know their murderous ways are being indulged and profited from inside bars, rather than restraining them.

The OP (and others) seems to just treat death-row inmates as "disposable people" because they will have to pay the ultimate price. No. They are very real people who have to pay a very deliberate price for their crimes. Not to be decided by their fighting prowess. But to be decided by a court of LAW! They are not dead until they are dead.

The ethics of deliberately taking life purely for that sake are myriad, but you cannot simplify it as "they are dead men walking, who cares how they die". If you're going to execute someone as a punishment, then do it swiftly and decently. No unnecessary suffering or gory displays as that is superfluous to the intent.

The assassination of Al Qaeda officers in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries are essentially the same as the death penalty. Sure it is not a punishment and it is not done while in custody but it it for the same purpose: to end life deliberately. Not to use lethal force to prevent someone doing something like killing someone else or escaping as most often used by police and even the military.

Everything this guy said, plus the fact that saying, "Hey, kill some dudes and we'll let you live longer" is NOT giving them a choice. It's die now, or die later. Of course they'll choose the latter.

Also, anyone who wants to watch people brutally murdering each other, and would actually consider it entertainment, deserves death themselves. And I don't really think I'm being too extreme here.

 

[Nyaoku]

Why just prisoners? Let some of the general populace join in if they want. Make team matches, set up different arenas, make it a sport again.