Prison Gladiatorial Death Matches

[jimbob123432]

My friend brought this up today: why don't countries with the death penalty offer inmates the opportunity to fight in gladiatorial-style death matches? Each time you fight, if you win, you get to live for a bit longer, maybe with some perks a la Deadman Wonderland. I asked him about the ethical issues with it, but he reminded me that participation was voluntary . He also added that prisons might be able to make some extra money by offering Pay-Per-View versions of the matches on TV or the internet.

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?

EDIT: I posted this just as a general question of opinion. This was not dreamt up by me, but rather posed to me by one of my friends and I wanted to know what people outside of my little circle thought.

EDIT 2: I discussed some of the responses here with my friend who originally posed this question, and he had this to say:
"For all the "ethical" problems people keep bringing up, they are fair. However, most things are only "ethical problems" until society accepts it as normal. Pornography was seen as unethical until the vast majority of Western society agreed that it was no longer a problem. If this is implemented, then after a few years of it being the norm, the people that will point out the ethical problems with it will be in the minority. This is just the natural next step after MMA fighting."

 

[WolfThomas]

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

 

[Colour Scientist]

What is with the people on this site thinking that once someone breaks the law they stop being human? It's disgusting to let dogs and cocks do this anymore, let alone people.

What's even more sick is people would watch it and think they were better than the 'scum' they're forcing to brutally fight to the death for their amusement. Also, before you say it's voluntary, your giving people the chance for life so it isn't really.

One more thing, allowing a prisoner to fight another one to death in a dirty ring in a prison somewhere is not a glorious, romanticised death. They will die in agony with people at home jeering and hissing.

 

[The Madman]

I like to think society in general has advanced a bit since the days of Roman gladiators, I know it's optimistic of me but I still like to think it regardless. The complete disregard for human life, the complete lack of empathy and conscience it would take to go through with this on any grand scale is just terrifying.

 

[JesterRaiin]

My friend brought this up today: why don't countries with the death penalty offer inmates the opportunity to fight in gladiatorial-style death matches?

- Because often those with death penalty are just fuck*ed up weirdos that one could kill with the rolled newspaper. Watching them fight would be boring.
- Because we at least pretend to become more matured than our ancient predecessors.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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 said.

Yeah ive always wondered why we didnt have gladitorial sport of SOME description, but ive always wondered how it would be done without huge risk of death, and for never for a second did i imagine it would be non voluntary.

In my view this seems far too... forced. I mean any prisoner with a death scentence will "volunteer" because youve basically given them no other option. Surely all youre going to create will be a complete monster. You think NICE prisoners will win these fights? I doubt it, youre going to get the fowlest, most brutal, dirtiest fighting people youve ever seen doing horrible inhuman things to win. Because desperation is going to make these fights a higher stake, it would be sad and sickening watching two already desperate humans who have done horrible things in the past attempt to club eachothers brains out with rocks to survive. I mean seriously. Thats just sick.

I propose thusly. Create an ENTIRELY optional fighting league (NOT from prisoners at ALL) that works until first submission and allow for modern armor and weapons no longer than 1m. Disarming, pinning or catching an enemy off guard grants victory. Perhaps a points system for hits to the chest and head? Only way i can see this going through.

 

[jimbob123432]

What is with the people on this site thinking that once someone breaks the law they stop being human? It's disgusting to let dogs and cocks do this anymore, let alone people.

What's even more sick is people would watch it and think they were better than the 'scum' they're forcing to brutally fight to the death for their amusement. Also, before you say it's voluntary, your giving people the chance for life so it isn't really.

One more thing, allowing a prisoner to fight another one to death in a dirty ring in a prison somewhere is not a glorious, romanticised death. They will die in agony with people at home jeering and hissing.

A) I never said people stopped being human. I said they had a choice.
B) I don't support cock/dog fighting. In fact, I'm an avid campaigner against those sorts of things.
C) People who watch Eli Roth or Tom Sixx movies for the gore and torture think that they're above the scum making the movies.
D) I never said people would be allowed to be free. They'd still have to live in prison in the same conditions as everyone else (unless they implemented something like Deadman Wonderland)
E) I never said it would be "glorious" or "romanticized". I just said one of the combatants would die.

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.

I don't know why, but I tend to agree with this line of thinking. You'd think that since they're prisoners, one would be less likely to be offended by their death in an arena.

 

[jimbob123432]

I propose thusly. Create an ENTIRELY optional fighting league that works until first submission and allow for modern armor and weapons no longer than you are tall. Disarming, pinning or catching an enemy off guard grants victory. Perhaps a points system for hits to the chest and head? Only way i can see this going through.

I don't actually envision this plan to go through, but you just suggest something that would result in a few very uneven situations. The length limitation on the weapon would mean that the 6'7" gangbanger would always win against a 5'6" Triad guy. Although the look on the Triad guy when he sees that the opponent is using a stick that bigger than him would be hilarious, it would still be unfair.

How about a whiffle bat fighting league? No one gets hurt (badly) and it would be pretty funny, in a cathartic sense.

My friend brought this up today: why don't countries with the death penalty offer inmates the opportunity to fight in gladiatorial-style death matches?

- Because often those with death penalty are just fuck*ed up weirdos that one could kill with the rolled newspaper. Watching them fight would be boring.
- Because we at least pretend to become more matured than our ancient predecessors.

- Not everyone on death row is a "weirdo". For every Dahmer or Gacy, you've got a Thomas Eugene Creech (killed an inmate during a riot) and Nathan Dunlap (murdered 4 people during a robbery). Also, I think the "weirdos" could come up with some pretty interesting tactics and attacks.
- That's debatable. We live in a society wherein being gay can get you some pretty harsh treatment in certain areas and where we find entertainment in watching other people act like douchebags because they can (I'm looking at you Jersey Shore . At least ancient Romans had dramas and the Olympiads you could go and watch and not seem like a haughty snob.

 

[Colour Scientist]

What is with the people on this site thinking that once someone breaks the law they stop being human? It's disgusting to let dogs and cocks do this anymore, let alone people.

What's even more sick is people would watch it and think they were better than the 'scum' they're forcing to brutally fight to the death for their amusement. Also, before you say it's voluntary, your giving people the chance for life so it isn't really.

One more thing, allowing a prisoner to fight another one to death in a dirty ring in a prison somewhere is not a glorious, romanticised death. They will die in agony with people at home jeering and hissing.

A) I never said people stopped being human. I said they had a choice.
B) I don't support cock/dog fighting. In fact, I'm an avid campaigner against those sorts of things.
C) People who watch Eli Roth or Tom Sixx movies for the gore and torture think that they're above the scum making the movies.
D) I never said people would be allowed to be free. They'd still have to live in prison in the same conditions as everyone else (unless they implemented something like Deadman Wonderland)
E) I never said it would be "glorious" or "romanticized". I just said one of the combatants would die.

As I said, it's not a really a choice if it's the only chance they have of surviving longer. I don't see how you can claim to be an avid campaigner of animals doing it but see the benefits of people doing it. I don't see what that has to do with my point? Why would you indulge that want with real death for the sake of amusement? I never said they would be either, I don't know where you got that from.
You said 'give them the option to die in battle' implying that it would be preferable to a normal death.

 

[jimbob123432]

As I said, it's not a really a choice if it's the only chance they have of surviving longer.

Okay, I guess I see your point. But those who are repentant of their crimes probably won't choose to fight and those who are scared of it.

I don't see how you can claim to be an avid campaigner of animals doing it but see the benefits of people doing it. I don't see what that has to do with my point?

I'm not sure why I brought that up really. I'm sleepy I guess.

Why would you indulge that want with real death for the sake of amusement?

Honestly, I think my friend meant that by televising the matches, in could bring in much-needed money into the prison system. And, let's face it, a few people would shell out good money for a match. Mainly people who either have been so desensitized by gore and death that it doesn't affect them any more or people who are twisted. Maybe the government could put together a list of people who watch the matches too much and keep an eye on them.

I never said they would be either, I don't know where you got that from.

I guess this goes with the first thing here. I thought you inferred that the prisoners could get a chance of release after you win a few fights, not just getting to live longer.

You said 'give them the option to die in battle' implying that it would be preferable to a normal death.

I couldn't think of any other way to put it without going into gory details that I thought we unnecessary.

 

[JesterRaiin]

- Because often those with death penalty are just fuck*ed up weirdos that one could kill with the rolled newspaper. Watching them fight would be boring.
- Because we at least pretend to become more matured than our ancient predecessors.

- Not everyone on death row is a "weirdo". For every Dahmer or Gacy, you've got a Thomas Eugene Creech (killed an inmate during a riot) and Nathan Dunlap (murdered 4 people during a robbery). Also, I think the "weirdos" could come up with some pretty interesting tactics and attacks.
- That's debatable. We live in a society wherein being gay can get you some pretty harsh treatment in certain areas and where we find entertainment in watching other people act like douchebags because they can (I'm looking at you Jersey Shore . At least ancient Romans had dramas and the Olympiads you could go and watch and not seem like a haughty snob.

Not #1 fan of details ?
Same here, same here... Let me fix it for you :

- Because OFTEN those with death penalty

- Because we AT LEAST PRETEND

Further reading :
http://listverse.com/search/?q=serial+killers&sa=Search&siteurl=listverse.com%2F2012%2F01%2F08%2F11-tech-and-science-breakthroughs-of-the-2000s%2F
Just look how they look(ed) like, read who were their victims, how they approached them...
Warning - you're risking staring into the Abyss. I'm not joking, this is seriously disturbing stuff.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I think there something wrong with the human race if the public get enjoyment out of watching convicts trying to killed each other. Yes people watch others fight each other or killing each other in the game but this is real live I'm talking about, seeing real death and bloodshed with your own eyes.
Even if this was a private viewing I still think it's too primative and savage for us. I mean we are better than that.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Considering I'm against the death penalty anyway, you can probably guess that I'm pretty amazed anyone thought this was a good idea. Because murder is entertainment, right?

 

[Esotera]

I would definitely watch that, even though I don't really believe in the death penalty. Especially if the government built a colosseum, and imported lions & tigers from Africa.

 

[Jamash]

So, someone who is going to be put to death because he killed someone would be granted a longer life and stay of execution if he kills some more?

How many people would you need to kill to essentially nullify you death sentence for killing one person?

You can't have a justice system which says that killing someone such a heinous crime that the punishment is death, then reward people by temporarily postponing that punishment if they commit more of the heinous crime that they are being punished for in the first place.

 

[The Salty Vulcan]

What is with the people on this site thinking that once someone breaks the law they stop being human? It's disgusting to let dogs and cocks do this anymore, let alone people.

This. Oh, dear God this. How palpable the sense of self-righteous moral superiority on these forums can be at times. Yes, these men and women may have done horrible, maybe unforgivable things, but at the end of they day, they are still human beings.

Look, I'm not against the concept of a gladiatorial sport, the current popularity of Mix Martial Arts and the staying-power of professional Boxing is more than enough proof that it could catch on and that it could be done safely. What I'm against is turning the value of human life into nothing more than a cheap commodity.

And to all those wondering, yes. Yes I am a hypocrite. What of it?

 

[jimbob123432]

- Because often those with death penalty are just fuck*ed up weirdos that one could kill with the rolled newspaper. Watching them fight would be boring.
- Because we at least pretend to become more matured than our ancient predecessors.

- Not everyone on death row is a "weirdo". For every Dahmer or Gacy, you've got a Thomas Eugene Creech (killed an inmate during a riot) and Nathan Dunlap (murdered 4 people during a robbery). Also, I think the "weirdos" could come up with some pretty interesting tactics and attacks.
- That's debatable. We live in a society wherein being gay can get you some pretty harsh treatment in certain areas and where we find entertainment in watching other people act like douchebags because they can (I'm looking at you Jersey Shore . At least ancient Romans had dramas and the Olympiads you could go and watch and not seem like a haughty snob.

Not #1 fan of details ?
Same here, same here... Let me fix it for you :

- Because OFTEN those with death penalty

- Because we AT LEAST PRETEND

Further reading :
http://listverse.com/search/?q=serial+killers&sa=Search&siteurl=listverse.com%2F2012%2F01%2F08%2F11-tech-and-science-breakthroughs-of-the-2000s%2F
Just look how they look(ed) like, read who were their victims, how they approached them...
Warning - you're risking staring into the Abyss. I'm not joking, this is seriously disturbing stuff.

To be fair, it was 4:30 in the morning when I responded to your post. You are right, I missed those things in your post. Also, Listverse lists a lot of the worst killers on death row and they do overlook the "run-of-the-mill" people on death row.