Gladiator matches for death row inmates

Justification: You say the people are not needed in society, but that is no reason to kill them. There are many people who live in undeveloped areas that are not doing anything for our society, but we certainly shouldn't kill these people. Morality is about doing what's right to other people, not about selfishly only helping people who will help us in return. You next say that they deserve death, but there is no actual good done in killing them. Killing them will be bad for them and won't be good or bad for other people, so there is no benefit to killing them. Being killed also will not make a murderer realize his mistakes; it will do the opposite. If a murderer is in prison, he can think about his mistakes, realize what he did wrong, and maybe even be forgiven by himself and the loved ones of the victim, but if you execute him, he doesn't have a chance to think about anything. Brutality: The violence in sports is much less severe than that in gladiator matches. People are injured sometimes in sports, but they recover eventually, and the pain of the injury is much less than the pain of being mauled by an animal would be. Also, if you're using gladiator matches as a method of execution, then, yes, the matches are to the death (and it"s to, not too). Cost: The cost of all those animals and weapons is still going to add up if you keep having gladiator matches, and the taxes that will be necessary to cover it will not boost the economy. As you said, people watching the matches could pay for them, but the problem with this is that most people wouldn't want to. Many would boycott the matches for moral reasons, and many people are disturbed by seeing a person die in real life and would therefore not want to watch. If the government wants to get money from sports, starting a regular sports league would be much more lucrative. What if they escaped?: It's true that they are unlikely to escape, but gladiator matches still increase the chances, and the gates and bulletproof glass you need is going to add to the cost of the arena, speaking of which, the source you used to determine the price of the arena is for horse arenas, not battle arenas. Also, since one of the voting categories is grammar, I feel the need to point out that you made a lot of grammatical mistakes in this section. The Animals: The cost of shipping rabid animals to the arena is going to be higher than the cost of euthanasia, and it will be dangerous to handle the rabid animals. I think most owners of rabid pets would rather have them euthanized than have them kill people in an arena anyway. Bare Fists: You seem to be moving the goalposts a bit here. If it was originally just supposed to be a boxing match, why were you suggesting it for death row criminals among other suggestions that were all fights to the death? Even if it is just this, what would be the point of having the criminals box each other? This would also not justify killing them every other day. Death Row Inmates Gladiators: Actually, if you count out Thursday's fighters that only lowers the death count to 87. I only counted the loser in the weekly death count. It is unlikely that the prisoners will survive fighting the bears, but even if they all do, the weekly death count is still only reduced to 84, and the total number of people fighting is the same. With 2905 inmates, we would run out of people before 35 weeks were over, and since the rate at which new inmates are being convicted is low, we do not have a steady stream of new gladiators. Therefore we do not have enough inmates to make this a reality. Benefits the Inmate: Gladiator matches aren't any faster than other methods of execution such as lethal injections. You also say here that dying of natural causes is a problem, but that is only true if you think it's better to execute criminals, so it is a circular argument. I also want to take a look at one of the sources you used for your argument, http://criminal.lawyers.com..., which you claim supports your case. It actually says that the reason the death penalty takes so long is because of appeals. It's the ultimate punishment, so we have to make sure we aren't executing someone innocent. Gladiator matches would not make the appeals process any shorter. It should also be noted that these appeals don't necessarily always work, and there is always a chance of killing an innocent person. In fact, the article mentions that Teresa Lewis"s death was considered unfair by many because it was more severe than the punishment that the people who actually did the shooting got, and because Lewis had a low IQ that was very close to being mentally challenged. Her lawyer even said, "A good and decent person is about to lose her life because of a system that is badly broken."* Finally, let's look at a quote directly from your article: "If at times it seems unfair or unjust, it's up to us to do something to prevent its use and prevent similar injustices in the future." A good way to prevent these injustices is to abolish the death penalty. There are also many more arguments against the death penalty itself. The current cost in California is $137 million per year, and it would be only $11.5 million if we replaced the death pe penalty with lifetime sentences; in Maryland, the death penalty costs three times as much; in Tennessee, it costs 48% more; and in Kansas, it's 70% more. If we didn't have the death penalty, this money could be used for important things, such as actually preventing the crimes that the death penalty punishes and other crimes; mental health treatment, education, and rehabilitation; helping the victims" loved ones; other parts of the justice system; and other parts of the government such as emergency services, schools and libraries, public health, and transportation.** One could morally justify the death penalty if it lowered crime rates, but it turns out that states without the death penalty actually consistently have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty.*** This means abolishing the death penalty is actually likely to reduce crime. There are also many unfair, arbitrary, and discriminatory factors in the death penalty. Almost every death row inmate couldn't afford their own attorney, meaning the poor are more likely to be executed. Defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death if the victim was white than if the victim was a minority, and minority defendants are more likely to be executed than white defendants, so racism also affects who is executed. Many people who are executed are mentally ill, even though that goes against the Constitution, the United Nations, and obvious morality. Local politics also affects the death penalty; for example, people are more likely to be executed in the South.**** With all these unfair factors influencing the death penalty, it is more like a "Who dies?" lottery than justice. There are also many innocent people who have been put on death before their innocence was discovered.***** This means that every execution risks killing an innocent person. It is clear that the death penalty is wrong, so we should abolish it rather than working backwards by adding gladiator matches to the death row. *http://www.nydailynews.com... **http://www.amnestyusa.org... ***http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... ****http://www.amnestyusa.org... http://www.amnestyusa.org... http://www.amnestyusa.org... *****http://www.amnestyusa.org...