Prison Gladiatorial Death Matches

[Superbeast]

Given the very wide and numerous reasons that Roman society went off the gladiatorial games (and the fact that there is compelling evidence that the desensitisation to violence and bloodshed brought about but such spectacles were a large aspect in the acceptance of social disorder throughout both Republic and Empire)...fuck no, this is not a good idea.

Aside from history telling us it may not be a smart move, there are also other aspects to consider. You say that this is to bring in money for the prison system, and would be on a pay-per-view basis. That it is only for death-row inmates. If we go with that being acceptable for a minute (which I am obviously of a contrary viewpoint); what happens if the ratings are great and the show is pulling in a lot of money, but there aren't enough death-row inmates to meet demand? As an extension to this, if this is a source of funding for the prison system I can see the government making cuts to prison funding (as the short-fall is made up by the viewings - which makes it counter-productive anyway), which would then make this type of thing essential to keep prisons running - so are you going to either attempt to have more people convicted of death penalty-worthy crimes (or even extend what classifies as such), or open it up to long-term (but non-death row) inmates?

To be honest, I think this suggestion, and the implications thereof, says far more about your friend than anything else (and shows a staggering amount of ignorance with regards to history). If you are able to dehumanise prisoners to that extent then I feel that you might need to be seeking therapy, else this psychopathy extends to other members of the human population.

 

[AngloDoom]

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."

Personally, I'd think it'd be better suited for prisoners on Death Row used for something like medical testing, rather than gladiator battles.

I mean, even if they are willing or whatever, it's pretty barbaric to have two people fight to the death for the sake of amusement. It's pretty bad to subject another human to medical testing too, but gladiator battles is weird because of the idea of families gathered around their TV watching two individuals bludgeon each other to death with pipes.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

I do love me some armed combat, but only as long as we don't have to kill anybody for it.

confusing? maybe, but it's great excercise and the sheer depth of armed martial arts would make for some excellent matches.
maybe we need to look into reenactment or LARP (without the magic bollocks).

 

[Doom-Slayer]

-snip

Ignoring the ethical issues, I see a fairly big problem...why would prisoners -want- to fight to the death? You need to give them a motive or incentive, ie some actualy reason to fight. The thrill of the fight is all well and good, but then if they DO survive they have to go through pain and agony from possible wounds they may of taken. That doesnt seem good enough. The main problem I see is when you start introducing rewards for winning, where the prison is essentially rewarding murderers and theives for doing MORE killing. Thats going to have a huge societal effect.

Then what...underground fighting etc..oh suddenly randoms are commiting crimes to get into jail so -they- can get some of these rewards. Even ignoring the ethical issue of having people fight to the death youve got a few problems with the concept itself.

 

[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.