We should replace capital punishment with gladitorial combat

First, you say "I don't argue that gambling or corporate sponsorships would fund the gov." I think you are wrong, in your previous post you make the argument that "So, the benefits are money, entertainment and moral values. The state could make MASSIVE profits off of this." Where would the profits come from? Clearly it would have to come from sponsorships etc of the execution to fund the prisons. Otherwise, if they dont make money from sponsorships etc. then they make no money off of the gladiator battle, which means there is absolutely no benefit to transitioning away from current methods of killing prisoners. In terms of my alternatives arguments, I will conceed. I was trying to have fun... although billy the rapist v persian tiger would be amazing, and was an actual staple of gladiator combat back in the day. I will defend the death penalty as it is now, and you spoil the fun through televising executions. You make the argument that we have televised them before? When in the history of the USA have we ever televised executions? The closest thing is live wittnesses to public executions back in the day and they were only in a small scales. The only other close televised execution in history was McVey on closed circuit tv, which was only on 250 televisions. I will cite several studies in a moment that will prove why you lead to an eventual ban of the death penalty. The first examp;e os mere assertion that you will lead to public outrage in the future if you televise executions: Matthew Miller 2000 (http://www.commondreams.org...) "Now, though, thanks to modern media technology, no American need go undeterred. "Reality" and "voyeuristic" shows are in vogue anyway: What's more "real" or voyeuristic than this? To drive ratings, cable programs usually have to make inconsequential events seem earth-shattering. Here, instead, they'd be shining ceaseless light on a state activity that may generate outrage only through sustained exposure." This next example also paints a good picture of what a world with televised executions would look like: Nicholas Compton 2001 (http://law.richmond.edu...) "However, for those individuals who wish to have a public execution, courts should not stand in their way. The public has a right to know the true nature of a procedure it sanctions. Moreover, public executions serve as a check on the prison officials conducting the execution. If the public is going to sanction an execution, it should be assured that the execution is being carried out in as humane a manner as possible given the situation. If the procedure is gruesome, so be it. If execution horror stories[58] are shown on television, then so be it. The public has a right to know what it is authorizing. Some people may find the procedure barbaric and may be moved to protest further executions. Some people may see the execution as a just and rightful end to a barbaric human being. Either way, if the condemned individual wishes to have his message broadcast, if the news media wishes to facilitate that broadcast, and if citizens choose to watch that broadcast, then they should be able to exercise that choice free from any unreasonable restrictions placed on them by the state. It's the perfect melding of medium and message. Instead of "White House Sexcapades" we'd have "Execution of the Week," with a dark little theme song all its own. To be sure, all death-penalty foes don't buy my argument. Mike Farrell, the actor (he played B.J. Honeycutt on the hit series "MASH") and chairman of Death Penalty Focus, told me "Death Penalty TV" could do more harm than good. "The diluted impression people get through their television screen would allow people to accept it and rationalize it," Farrell fears. "It will simply become another event that people shake their heads about, and go on with their lives." Maybe Farrell's right, but I think there's a stronger chance that a steady televised diet of state-sponsored vengeance would turn our national stomach. Even the spectacle of today's "kinder, gentler" executions -- in which the prisoner is dragged from his cell, strapped on a gurney and then put down like an animal with a lethal injection -- might so horrify people that they would call on officials to end this monstrosity being performed in their name." Finally, here is an actual controlled psychological study that shows actual shifts in beliefs after people were forced to view a televised execution: Howells et Al 1995 (http://cjb.sagepub.com...) "Two hundred and ninety one registered California voters completed Peterson and Thurstone's Attitude Toward Capital Punishment scale. About half of the participants then viewed a videotape of two executions, and the other participants watched a nature film. All of the respondents then completed an alternative version of the capital punishment attitude scale. Significantly more viewers of the execution videotape reduced their support for capital punishment than did viewers of the control film, suggesting that resumption of public (i.e., televised) executions may somewhat reduce support for the death penalty." All of the above give theoretical and actual examples of why full scale televised executions will lead to an abolishment of the death penalty. This means, that although you give american something more entertaining (not gonna lie, I'd probably watch) than "A shot at love...." or "American Idol" the repulsion value is much greater than current television. So, whats the point, if you ban the death penalty, some may argue that it is a good thing. However, when your solution claims to solve for things like: money and prison overcrowding, you only make the problem worse. The death penalty is dwindling in states where it is legal in the united states, and you only run the risk of creating a total ban. Therefore death is no longer an option which means you create thousands of more life sentances without parole, which means taxpayers will be paying more money in the long term. You make arguments like "society's morals are nonexistent" which may be true in so many instances, yet the death penalty has been so taboo, which is why it has been locked behind clothes doors. You force the american public to confront their new biggest fear...which means even if there is some capital gain in the short term, my studies cited above prove that you actually make things worse in the long run! On a totally unrelated note....who would have had some of the greatest gladiator battles in history? What about Hussein v. McVeigh? I still think Gemini v. Billy the rapist would be a good PPV