Convict Gladiator

[Rook]

So, it has never been addressed if the death penalty is an appropriate or legal Uantirian penalty for crime. This discussion takes into account that it is.

We have a Colosseum. From a political simulation point of view we probably have criminals slated for execution. Once a year, instead of the rope or the chair or the chamber or the guillotine or the garrote or the needle: we have an old school roman gladiatorial match. All criminals who have been convicted of a crime deserving their execution will be transported to the Colosseum and forced to fight to the death. The survivor, if there is any, earns another year of life, though incarcerated not free. He (or she) can defend their right to live as a prisoner (again, they are not fighting for freedom) the next year at the next fight.

Too barbaric, or just the kind of kick in the ass this suffocatingly PC world needs?

[Mira O'Halloran]

It would certainly be an interesting way of doing it.. but what if someone ends up there who is morally opposed to killing?

[Rook]

Than how can they justify having done a crime worthy of death? I can think of only two capitol crimes, murder and rape. If a rapist is opposed to killing who would morn him being struck or gunned down in his first bout?

Though I will intercept the inevitable counter argument now: 'What about the innocents that are convicted wrongly?' If anything this method is a more ethical answer to that potential problem for they have the opportunity to save themselves. Especially if a provision was inserted that their sentence would be commuted to life in prison after being champion of five tournaments.

Also I see nothing wrong with those who are opposed to the conflict being given the option of simply accepting their execution traditionally at the gallows. There needs to be something happening at half time.

[Mira O'Halloran]

No, I'll pay that. I didn't think of that.

[Rook]

Bump, this discussion never really took off, unless everyone simply agrees with me.