Hand to hand

[Antoninus Verus]

Why do we have no hand to hand combat sports anymore? We supposedly have football, but come on, thats not getting out there and KILLING eachother with your bare hands. Ive heard the argument that we are a more evolved culture and that sort of nonsense. We're the same as our ancient counterparts, exactly the same, excpet that we have more technology, thats the only difference.

I personally think it would be a good idea all around to replace the death penalty with optional gladitorial combat. We get two or more felons in an arena, give them a sword and just let them go at it untill one is dead. We televise it and use that money for charity.

It serves a couple purposes

1. Popular entertainment
2. Raising money for charity
3. Punishment
4. Crime deterent.

You may say "Thats cruel, your supposed to re-habilitate criminals". Im sorry but I do not think think that someone who cruely rapes and muders little children is capable of being re-habilitates. And if these criminals are supposedly able to be re habilitated, why do many get locked in prison for life with no posibility of parole?

 

[Icebrc]

Listen to George Carlin much? Sort of sounds like his prison solution lol.

 

[merryheart]

I think that the effects on people who watched this entertainment would be detrimental to society, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Cerberus~]

Why do we have no hand to hand combat sports anymore? We supposedly have football, but come on, thats not getting out there and KILLING eachother with your bare hands. Ive heard the argument that we are a more evolved culture and that sort of nonsense. We're the same as our ancient counterparts, exactly the same, excpet that we have more technology, thats the only difference.

I personally think it would be a good idea all around to replace the death penalty with optional gladitorial combat. We get two or more felons in an arena, give them a sword and just let them go at it untill one is dead. We televise it and use that money for charity.

It serves a couple purposes

1. Popular entertainment
2. Raising money for charity
3. Punishment
4. Crime deterent.

You may say "Thats cruel, your supposed to re-habilitate criminals". Im sorry but I do not think think that someone who cruely rapes and muders little children is capable of being re-habilitates. And if these criminals are supposedly able to be re habilitated, why do many get locked in prison for life with no posibility of parole?

Swords? Hell with that, I wanna see a good ol fashion flail whipping!

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Swords? Hell with that, I wanna see a good ol fashion flail whipping!

Nah, these people make a living on killing people, let them kill eachother and we make money off it for a good cause.

I think that the effects on people who watched this entertainment would be detrimental to society, but that's just my opinion.

Like....

 

[Cerberus~]

Nah, these people make a living on killing people, let them kill eachother and we make money off it for a good cause.

Just be sure not to tell them where it came from. Ppl get eerie around blood money.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

No no no you tell them up front, we used the money we made from these sick *******s killing eachother to help children with cancer. How much better can you get?

 

[Cerberus~]

No no no you tell them up front, we used the money we made from these sick *******s killing eachother to help children with cancer. How much better can you get?

You've got to be the goriest Pagan I've ever met.

 

[Norea]

Sorry revenge isn't a virtue. ^^;

-- Bridget

 

[Antoninus Verus]

You've got to be the goriest Pagan I've ever met.

This has NOTHING to do with with my being Pagan, I had this idea even when I was Christian. And your flail whip idea is none too clean.

Sorry revenge isn't a virtue. ^^;

Who's talking about revenge? This is punishment pure and simple. Punishment that we can profit from and use that profit to re-build people's lives. I cant think of a better system for society.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Who would be in these gladitorial combats, exactly? Certainly you've listed "someone who cruelly rapes and murders little children", but who else? Serial killers? People who've killed on multiple occasions? People who've killed multiple people on one occasion? People who commit rape, then murder? How about just the rape? How about just the one murder? Does it matter which degree of murder it is? How about someone who tortures people, but never actually kills anyone?

My point is that you seem to be justifying these events by saying that there is a point that, when crossed, a person no longer can be considered a normal human, and they will be set in their criminal ways no matter what happens to them. But how do we draw the line? We can't draw it by the actual crime, since there are huge variations in context and motivation. We can't really administer psychological tests, because psychology hasn't done much research into why people commit serious crimes and whether they are able to rid themselves of desires to commit serious crimes. The only way that I can see to effectively draw the line is to simply have the Judge and/or jury draw it on a case-by-case basis. But that is by no means scientific, and with cases as emotionally charged as these tend to be, they would not likely be very accurate. And such a notion gets screwed up by the eighth ammendment anyway, as then gladitorial combat would be quite the unusual punishment.

So even if I agreed with the theory behind this idea, I can't bring myself to see how it could ever be executed (no pun intended).

 

[David Gould]

In answer to your question about rehabilitation, much of our justice system is not set up for rehabilitation but rather for revenge.

There are a number of purposes for a justice system:

1.) Deterrence.
2.) Protecting society from dangerous people.
3.) Rehabilitation of the criminal.
4.) Appeasing the revenge reflex in the population.

Our justice system does some of number 1, although not much. It does number 2. It does not do much of number 3. It does number 4.

The idea of a grisly death as entertainment for others does not deter psychopaths. So your idea fails there. It succeeds at number 2, although I am sure that the criminals could conspire to do emotional damage to people - for example, by yelling about how much they enjoyed raping and torturing people, and describing in sick detail everything they did.

It fails number 3.

It might fail number 4, too. It would seem that the triumph of the person winning would be something good that they gained out of the process. They would get to torture and kill - something that they enjoyed. This is likely not something that their victims would want them to enjoy again. But I guess you could get them to vote on it or something.


I am not too hot on the death penalty in any case. And as someone who does not believe we have free will, keeping people in prison for life at least provides for the opportunity of one day curing them when medical technology advances far enough.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Who would be in these gladitorial combats, exactly? Certainly you've listed "someone who cruelly rapes and murders little children", but who else? Serial killers? People who've killed on multiple occasions? People who've killed multiple people on one occasion? People who commit rape, then murder? How about just the rape? How about just the one murder? Does it matter which degree of murder it is? How about someone who tortures people, but never actually kills anyone?

Anyone sentenced to one year or more of jail time can volunteer to fight. If they survive, they get released. Which, realistically, has very little chance of happening. And yes I realize that it may make some people even MORE crazed and then just release them into the population. But I think the benefits of the system and the incredible odds against surviving the pits that long out-weigh the potential risks. Its CERTAINLY better than the system we have now.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Anyone sentenced to one year or more of jail time can volunteer to fight. If they survive, they get released. Which, realistically, has very little chance of happening. And yes I realize that it may make some people even MORE crazed and then just release them into the population. But I think the benefits of the system and the incredible odds against surviving the pits that long out-weigh the potential risks. Its CERTAINLY better than the system we have now. [/font]

Would they just have to win one fight, or would they be placed in the system for some arbitrary length of time? If it was only required that they survive a fight, I can't see how it would be terribly unlikely that someone highly skilled in close-quarters combat would survive. If we have the fight done with swords, then it is feasible to become skilled in swordsmanship before a well-thought out crime just in case. The level of skill needed to best someone without knowledge of how to use a sword (i.e. the vast majority of the world's population) is not terribly great. If we use hand to hand combat without weapons then we are reintroducing the most dangerous criminals back into society. A person who can use their body as an effective weapon can never be disarmed - these are the types of people who would have to be placed in solitary confinement for the safety of the prison staff no matter what supplies they were given to be made into improvised weaponry. If they commit a murder and survive a fight, what's to stop them from murdering again? And if they are skilled at unarmed combat, how can we stop them from killing? If we use guns, then we run into the issue of accidental damage and the fact that two criminals with guns can easily kill a few guards (or worse) unless extensive precautions are taken.

Besides duels aren't particularly entertaining unless the combatants have been trained in gladitorial combat. Most swordfights end with one blow; particularly among inexperienced combatants. Without ratings there is no benefit to this system beyond additional pain to the criminal; at which point we should just torture them (if you believe that retribution is the key part of legal punishment, in any case). To actually have ratings you would have to have a training program that improved the ability of criminals to kill. Do you really think that this system would be better than the one we have now?

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Would they just have to win one fight, or would they be placed in the system for some arbitrary length of time?

For the duration of thier sentence or untill they die, whichever comes first

If it was only required that they survive a fight, I can't see how it would be terribly unlikely that someone highly skilled in close-quarters combat would survive

All it takes is one lucky shot from your opponent and your dead. Get over-confident after winning a few matches and someone pulls a new trick on you and your dead.

If we have the fight done with swords, then it is feasible to become skilled in swordsmanship before a well-thought out crime just in case. The level of skill needed to best someone without knowledge of how to use a sword (i.e. the vast majority of the world's population) is not terribly great.

That kind of time would be great, it takes a while to get good. YEARS of training and conditioning. Plus most criminals operate under the assumption of "I wont be caught" or "I can get away with it".

If we use hand to hand combat without weapons then we are reintroducing the most dangerous criminals back into society.

As I said, the chances of surviving will be extremely small and those that survive will have probably been maimed beyond the danger point or have had thier fill of blood.

A person who can use their body as an effective weapon can never be disarmed - these are the types of people who would have to be placed in solitary confinement for the safety of the prison staff no matter what supplies they were given to be made into improvised weaponry. If they commit a murder and survive a fight, what's to stop them from murdering again? And if they are skilled at unarmed combat, how can we stop them from killing? If we use guns, then we run into the issue of accidental damage and the fact that two criminals with guns can easily kill a few guards (or worse) unless extensive precautions are taken.

The prisoners are KOed with a tranquilizer dart in thier cell prior to the fight. They are thrown in the arena in thier own individual cages with thier weapons. They are revived from a dart fired from above the arena (The arena is a sunken pit with seating around it and curved upper walls to prevent escape). When the contestants are awake, the cages are dropped and the fighting commences. At the end, the survivor is darted and carried back to his cell. You use enough tranquilizer to ensure that faking is impossible and armed escorts just in case. It sounds expensive, but with the money it would draw, it would make bank PLUS extra.

For training, we would do what the Romans did only compacted. Give contestants one month of training with wooden weapons then send them into the arena.

Do you really think that this system would be better than the one we have now?

Yup

 

[Madcoil]

Will there be starved lions? Dangerous snake pits? Some kind of wheel spun by women wearing spiked leather outfits?

 

[Gracchus]

[]To be a deterrent, punishment must be swift and sure. The death penalty is neither.

It is not justice. Justice may be known by an omniscient god, but few, if any, individuals. And justice rendered by the many is inevitably lynch law.

It is vengeance at best.

KJV Genesis 4:15

And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.

Society has a right to protect itself. Those who (we think) transgressed may be locked away humanely to prevent further offense. We need neither kill or brutalize to serve that purpose.

Do you really think that brutality, as proposed by some in this thread, would really profit society? A taste for blood, like a taste for money, is never sated, but always demands more. Whose children are you, that you do not know this?[/]

 

[Blackmarch]

Why do we have no hand to hand combat sports anymore? We supposedly have football, but come on, thats not getting out there and KILLING eachother with your bare hands. Ive heard the argument that we are a more evolved culture and that sort of nonsense. We're the same as our ancient counterparts, exactly the same, excpet that we have more technology, thats the only difference.

I personally think it would be a good idea all around to replace the death penalty with optional gladitorial combat. We get two or more felons in an arena, give them a sword and just let them go at it untill one is dead. We televise it and use that money for charity.

It serves a couple purposes

1. Popular entertainment
2. Raising money for charity
3. Punishment
4. Crime deterent.

You may say "Thats cruel, your supposed to re-habilitate criminals". Im sorry but I do not think think that someone who cruely rapes and muders little children is capable of being re-habilitates. And if these criminals are supposedly able to be re habilitated, why do many get locked in prison for life with no posibility of parole?

And cause people to become more bloodthirsty than they are?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well, if you want a system that values retribution as a form of entertainment, that turns killers into celebrities because they are good at what they do while at the same time condemning their activities beyond all else, I suppose this system might be good.

But as one final question, what is the major benefit of this system over publicized executions? Executions can even draw a crowd today, when the crowd doesn't even see the actual execution. Historically they were always very popular, particularly if they were somewhat brutal. You could even throw in a little torture beforehand if you wanted to add some extended pain to the equation. But at least you aren't training criminals to become more efficient killers, you're not giving them hope for freedom, you're not putting them in a position in which they would be idolized. What advantages does trial by combat have over televised executions?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Hey lets not knock it, I mean it worked in Ancient Rome. Its not as if that was a culture renowned for its brutality, Empire building, invading every where they could think of, murder, rioting and arson...

...oh.

Ghost