Prison Gladiatorial Death Matches

[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.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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.

It is still making a sport out of two people fighting to the death. And making it pay-per-view was brought up as a option, so it is also exploiting their pain and suffering for profit. This idea is not defensible in any way. I worry for the mental health of anyone that would derive pleasure from watching something like this.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Yeah well fighting is fun, and prisoner guilty of heinous crimes don't get to have fun.

Prisoners often are given choice in their mode of execution. I believe the last person in the US executed by firing squad elected for that mode, seems like a safe choice as it's kind of hard to botch being shot 6 times in the chest. But lethal injection and gas chamber, you can end up brain damaged and lingering in pain if it's done wrong.

UK doesn't have the death penalty but we are home to the most prolific (known) serial killer Harold Shipman who murdered over 220 elderly people by abusing his position as a doctor to poison them. He didn't seem to like solitary confinement, he hanged himself in his cell. But the victims relatives felt cheated, they wanted him to rot in prison and not get the easy way out.

On reason I think death penalty may be so popular is I don't think Americans trust the prison system to actually hold prisoners in confinement and actually do so for the rest of their life. If they don't escape then they are released by some myriad factor or another, certainly the american people have been betrayed by their government ineptitude before.

There hasn't been a huge call to execute the 9/11 conspirators. I think that's because everyone knows those guys won't ever be released. But someone who murders a little girl? Well, 20 or 30 years down the line they claim they "found jesus" and that they are a "changed man" and that they can be trusted on the outside. That's the problem, parole board are mainly worrying about safety, not justice. But that little girl's father was told that man would never walk free again... no matter what. Lies. But if he's dead, it's over.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

I am strawmanning nothing. What you seem to be unaware of is that I was merely talking about the act in general of watching two people beat eachother to death is what is twisted, and that is why I was knocking a good population of the website for being so full of shit and talking about how much they would love it, and how much these prisoners deserve to die. Involuntary or not, the act is still barbaric and twisted.

Having two people beat each other to death as opposed to giving them a nice, clean death is what makes it barbaric. I just feel like too many people on this site must have used Gladiator as a masturbatory aid, and not for Russell Crowe.

I agree.

People killing each other as proposed in this thread is not glorious, It isn't a sport, it isn't a measure of skill.

It is visceral, it is terrifying, and it is sickening.

Thinking that this is good idea may very well make you a sociopath.

 

[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.

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?

It doesn't matter if it's voluntary or not, that's more than enough for anyone to be sued these days, seeing as how an employee at McDonalds can get sued for someone going to the drive-thru, ordering a cup of coffee, and while in the parking lot(after having paid for and gone through all the motions of supposed sue-safe territory) slams on the brakes and spills hot coffee all over themselves. it's roughly the same ballpark there, a person can sue for "emotional trauma" and win thousands in a court after all that happened was that some stranger on the street said "hey fatty" or the like to a friend behind them and they assumed they were the one the joke was aimed at.

 

[The Towel Boy]

I love this idea, if people were sentenced to death they should at least give them a chance, but the bad thing is what if they are actually non-guilty, which is not likely is still possible.