Gladiatorial Punishment

[Humchuckninny]

So here's a thought - why not introduce gladitorial punishment in place of prison time in the penal system? Honestly - the type of "game" would be dependent on the crime and severity thereof. The government can sell tickets - a MAJOR source of revenue. We can also have countires "sell" us their prisoners, improving international relations (*** knows we need that...) and an extra source of income for the U.S. It also will act as a greater deterrent for committing crime.

I can think of two arguments against it, and both I can easily shoot down. Humanist argument - they have already broken moral and societal law, ergo they are not able to benefit from the protection they offer. i.e., their "game" would fit a natural, moral punishment. Hammurabi's code-style, probably.

The second is desensitization (sp?) that the simple fact of the matter is to argue that you'd have to argue against Hollywood, Universal, etc etc. Additionally, I would say it would be no different than the status quo. Any thoughts?

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Sounds good to me.

1) I think the pedophiles should be fed to alligators.

2) Murders should be gladiators.

3) What to do with the tax cheats? ... any ideas?

 

[Insomniac]

Earning your freedom through such games should definitely be an option.

But sentencing it poses problems...

 

[Humchuckninny]

I don't think earning your freedom should be an option - because then it would put the most efficient sociopathic muderers back out onto the streets... yet there must be an incentive to fight, what would that be?

Oh, and which problems does sentancing it pose? I have been through this with many people and have solutions to many, many problems thought up.

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

I don't think earning your freedom should be an option - because then it would put the most efficient sociopathic muderers back out onto the streets...

ABSOLUTELY!

yet there must be an incentive to fight, what would that be?

Well, they could always be given the option to fight... or die of starvation in their 3 X 6 cell.

Oh, and which problems does sentancing it pose? I have been through this with many people and have solutions to many, many problems thought up.

****, I Like the idea... I can see NO drawbacks.

 

[skategreen]

3) What to do with the tax cheats? ... any ideas?

By "Tax Cheats" I would assume you meant the big ones - perhaps the category of "using one's position to bilk and cheat the masses, lining one's own pockets with luxury yachts" ("hello, your retirement fund was used to pay for my spa treatments")

Since some of their loot would have gone to the school system:

These people could be made to teach remedial reading to retarded kids.

They don't get let out until they got 5 potato heads reading Twain.

 

[Humchuckninny]

I also think this provides an incredible disincentive for criminals. But like I said before, the "game" should be dependent on the crime. So here's how it would work in my mind...

In every "game" death is a possibility. It is simply the skill required to avoid death that is changed. i.e., if you have a lot of unpaid parking tickets, instead of being thrown into a pit to fight someone else to the death or be killed yourself, you are put into a cage with some cobras or other poisonious snakes for a set amount of time to try and survive.

I believe that a LOT more people would pay their parking tickets rather than face cobras. Oh, and I thought of the incentive to fight - life. If you don't kill the other man, he will kill you. Unless of course you want to die, in which case we'd have to give out refunds or rain-checks to the observers, because they'd be gipped of a show.

 

[eisanbt]

The less serious side of me thinks this is a hysterical idea and would be funny/cool. BUT I really don't believe in the penal system at all in that these people are ****** up. Both the body and the mind are chemical systems and when somebodys body stop working right we give them drugs and make them better. The same should be true for people who are psychopathic or simply delinquents; They're not functioning properly so we ought to fix them just as we would somebody with yellow fever. Its has been PROVEN again and again throughout history that negative reinforcement simply dosn't work, its a psychological fact, wither to persude people from acting or to rehabiltate them. If they are sickos, then lets cure them and put them back to work!

 

[Humchuckninny]

In theory, yes, curing them and making them contributing members of society would be ideal. I completely agree with that. However it is simply not practical, because we don't have the manpower or the money to do so. The best alterior motive would be do what is best for the United States, and I stand firm that this would what is best. It drastically increases revenue (without raising taxes) and improves international relations (take in other countries prisoners). And it provides a great source of entertainment.

 

[Komrade Vostok Hazard]

I used to make stupid jokes about Prison gladiator tournaments all the time

but in reality, I can't see a point to it, and it doesn't make sense to put someone who was possibly wrongfully accused in a fight for his life against Big Bubba the lifer.

 

[Humchuckninny]

I used to make stupid jokes about Prison gladiator tournaments all the time
but in reality, I can't see a point to it, and it doesn't make sense to put someone who was possibly wrongfully accused in a fight for his life against Big Bubba the lifer.

Therein lies your problem. "Possibly wrongfully accused." Once we convict a criminal that mentality must be destroyed. Without due faith in the judicial system there will always be "second-guessing" which will lead the justice system to fall apart. I would say that it is worth sacrificing one innocent man to put in jail 99 actual criminals. Yes, even if that man is me. To keep society in running and working order sacrifices must be made. It's a basic form of utilitarianism.

And if you don't see the point to it, read some more of my earlier posts. You'll see economic, entertainment and international benefits that have yet to be refuted (and not just on here. My college professors, as much as they want to fail me, cannot find legitimate reasons to refute this either.)

 

[eisanbt]

The cost of matainence and operation oftese facilities in addition to holding facilities.

The terrible impac on those who go to see this ****, slaughter is NOT good for your mind.

Your wrongfullky accused arguement is based solely on personal opinion, and besides they other 99 criminals are just as gone now as they would be in the arena. But with jail the innocent can be recalled.

I'ld like to put a few more but i must goto work. Surely i'm not the only one who can put down this short sighted proposal.

 

[TheJenn88]

It would be a great source of revenue for maintaining the facilities! Less money being taken from the tax payers! I have one condition though - no other non-human sacrifices/involvment in the games. I suggest we only use the prisoners. Animals like tigers are too rare, now.



You're brilliant.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

In concept that would be a freakin' great idea. Nothing I'd like to see more than a couple of convicted murderers/rapists/molesters/etc kill each other.

With that said, the Constitution of the United States of America prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment as retribution. Though our national history is based upon sentencing at the gallows, it is nothing compared to what could happen in a gladiatorial battle. It's just too ludicrous and radical for it to happen... pass into legislation... and the hopes of amending the Constition? Never.

Personally, I would never vote for such an idea. As I stated above, I'd like to see some **** like that. However, such cruel means of retribution and justice takes away from where we are as a nation. As a national goal, we are doing our absolute best to be civilized, modern, and thorough in our judicial system.

Such a radical thought would set us back to the Dark Ages. I can sympathise, however, humans who act like animals should be treated as animals. And child molesters, despite what I've said above, if convicted, should face the death penalty.

 

[Ruse]

In concept that would be a freakin' great idea. Nothing I'd like to see more than a couple of convicted murderers/rapists/molesters/etc kill each other.

That's right. Put them to good use. I don't like the idea of the doing it, in the sense that you're just letting them repeat whatever they did to get in there, anyways. You're encouraging it, in an odd sense. But, like I said, you're putting them to good use.

Another idea is to put them on of those exercise bikes hooked up to be a energy self-generator. Divide all the inmates up to make shifts in which they are the providers of their own energy. So, each shift they climb on one of those bikes and pedal until their shift is over. You put these bikes in a chamber that's sensitive as to whether they're pedaling or not. If not, the chamber begins to fill with water. If they begin to pedal, the water level stays where it is at, just as a reminder. Pretty soon, if they're not pedaling, they're drowning. They have a choice.

Those with medical issues are subject to some other type of sustenance labor. Jail isn

 

[Komrade Vostok Hazard]

Therein lies your problem. "Possibly wrongfully accused." Once we convict a criminal that mentality must be destroyed. Without due faith in the judicial system there will always be "second-guessing" which will lead the justice system to fall apart. I would say that it is worth sacrificing one innocent man to put in jail 99 actual criminals. Yes, even if that man is me. To keep society in running and working order sacrifices must be made. It's a basic form of utilitarianism.
And if you don't see the point to it, read some more of my earlier posts. You'll see economic, entertainment and international benefits that have yet to be refuted (and not just on here. My college professors, as much as they want to fail me, cannot find legitimate reasons to refute this either.)

You're ******* sick in the head. Killing people just for money and entertainment? Human sacrifice? What the **** is wrong with you? Get some therapy. Bullshit like that is everything that's wrong with the human race and holding us back.

 

[Humchuckninny]

You're ******* sick in the head. Killing people just for money and entertainment? Human sacrifice? What the **** is wrong with you? Get some therapy. Bullshit like that is everything that's wrong with the human race and holding us back.

Why? Why is this wrong? I think it's even more sick to say, "ok, well sure you killed someone, but instead of really punishing you we'll give you 3 meals a day, a place to sleep, cable T.V. and free access to a gym." That's what I call sick in the head.

To argue eisanbt, here's what I'd say -

1. The revenue brought in by A.) selling tickets to the "games" and B.) taking in other countries prisoners for a "small" fee would easily cover those costs. Additionally we could probably lower taxes after things got started, because it would be cheaper this way than the current system (which is about $25,000 a year per prisoner).

2. If you want to argue desensitazation you're going to have to take that up with Hollywood. Because quite frankly there is nothing in these "games" that wouldn't already be on Television or in Movies/Video Games. And I would say the American Public is already in the desensitized state - the military is constantly reporting that they are having greater and greater success (psychologically) with new recruits, thanks to all of the blood and gore they've already witnessed. Many argue FOR desensitazation, because someone with it is able to act much more efficiently under psychological pressure and stress than someone who is "sheltered." The two things you should get out of this paragraph are 1.) Desensitazation is beneficial, psychologically, and 2.) it's arguable that it would be no different than the status quo (i.e., movies are so realistic now that it's just like seeing it happen in real life). Plus, remember there would probably be an age limit of 18 or 21 to attend these viewings. And they would be voluntary - for those of you against it, either don't go to jail or simply don't buy a ticket. There's your deterrent right there, so in fact you're arguably arguing FOR this program.

3.) No, my innocent-man-convicted is not based on personal opinion. It's based on Locke's Political Philosophies and Bentham's theory of Utilitarianism - basically, sacrifices must be made for the greater good. Morally and Politically, the sacrificing of 49 people to save the other 51 is just. Especially in democracy. Of course we try to avoid it where we can, but in such instances it is impossible. What you're arguing is no justice system at all, because there will ALWAYS be flaws within the justice system, causing innocent men to be punished.

Someone else brought up both cruel/unusual punishment and the idea that we would revert back to a barbaric state. I give full props to Ruse for answering that, and agree with what he says. Furthermore, civilized is an opinion. If you define civilized as treating those who break moral and societal laws with respect and decency, I think you're mad. Once they break the the laws of morality, deceny and society, they are no longer subject to its benefits.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

So....

Eventually the insane destroy the weak and your National Socalists friends shall inherit the earth.

Nice try...

 

[Komrade Vostok Hazard]

Why? Why is this wrong? I think it's even more sick to say, "ok, well sure you killed someone, but instead of really punishing you we'll give you 3 meals a day, a place to sleep, cable T.V. and free access to a gym." That's what I call sick in the head.

Why is Human Sacrifice wrong? Hmmm....lets see....

Because we're not ******* bushmen