We should replace capital punishment with gladitorial combat

I don't argue that gambling or corporate sponsorships would fund the gov. Nor do I argue that allowing these people to live longer is inherently good. Them living longer is merely a consequence of winning the fight and a personal reward to the victor, not a benefit to society. Your alternatives don't function. Killing people immediately in order to avoid cost denies them legal due process and their potential appeals. Any other form of individual execution, like the tigers, wouldn't be as humane/efficient as the one we have now, nor would it access the benefits of gladiatorial combat because you don't get the fighting each other aspect. So, lets talk about the money. Government institutions, like this one and the lottery for example, are not legally allowed to be sponsored by corporations. Also, I don't claim this anywhere in my arg. Second, the gov makes money on the winnings of the casino/people because of taxes. The payment to see this event by people would bring in revenue as well. Capitalist head hunting is not a viable argument because it is illegal. The only reason my case functions is because the state has deemed these people should die and is going to kill them anyway. Any corporate attempt to mimic this would be illegal and therefore impossible. The revenue the gov would make would far outweigh the cost of keeping a diminishing number of these people alive for a little while longer. There is no question the gov would make money here (LOTS). On to morality. The FCC has shown us that we can broadcast anything under the right stipulations. We have the UFC beating each other to a pulp on cable TV, porn on PPV, and Howard Stern on public radio. Granted these are not fights to the death, but it has legal ground to be broadcasted. As far as the corruption of morals and children go, we have dozens of shows depicting cartoon, realistic fictional, or real violence already. The kids who would be corrupted by GC would already be corrupted by the violence currently in the media. Even if that isn't true, we have shown executions before on television. We broadcasted Timothy McVeigh's final moments on CBS and lethal injections/executions are on the history channel and A&E all the time. So, this argument is terminally non-unique. Also, our culture is already shot. This is just the next step in satisfying audience demands. This is what is next. There are no further legal options following this. Euthanasia is illegal and therefore impossible to be equated with this scenario. You can't get more corrupt then public GC. But, as I said before, this isn't a problem because we have already reached this point as a society. I don't know what these studies are. If you could cite them, that would be great. This argument is also not possible. As I said before, we hav already broadcasted 'the morbidity of death'. If this immense social realization were to happen, it would have already. We have a big movement against capital punishment and nothing is changing. This is also non-unique. Capital punishment would stay in tact as it did the previous times we have shown this morbidity, not causing the problems you suggest. I am not in a double-bind because I can solve the children problem and the profit problem independently and simultaneously as I illustrated above. So, the benefits of GC are increased gov revenue, increased entertainment for the public, and the relief of the moral burden the state carries. I access the profit benefits and capitalist head hunting is impossible because 1) the gov makes profit off of GC because the revenue generate would far outweigh the costs of keeping these people alive 2) corporate sponsorship is illegal 3) capitalist head hunting is also illegal and 4) the ability of GC rests solely on the fact that only the state already has the power to execute people after due process, any other scenario would be impossible due to its illegality and 5) the death penalty would stay in tact because the risk you provide would have already happened because we have shown society the 'morbidity' before and this hasn't happened. GC is morally justified because 1) these people have been given due process and are already going to die 2) executions have been broadcast on national TV before, so societal corruption and negative child influence would have already taken place 3) society's morals are virtually non-existent anyway 4) immense amounts of violence are already present and accessible. If anything the moral BENEFITS of GC would outweigh any kind of societal corruption due to the immense moral burden of thousands of deaths a year being lifted off the shoulders of innocent state employees. Also, society would get some kind of return from these people who haved damaged society in a way that has deemed them deserving of this. If there is an audience willing to watch this, our cultural values obviously call for it. These benefits would far outweigh any risk of cultural corruption, even in the instance that I haven't fully nullified it with my arguments above. I know this debate began as a joke, and remains that way, but it is a viable option despite the fact that it will never realistically be enacted.