If some loser knows they will be devoured by a beast than they will think before they act stupidly.Society gets id of the thug,feeds the animal,and saves a fortune on pantwastes.The money saved should be enough of an incentive in and of itself.When it will happen is the best question here.
If they kill or try to kill a large amount of people they should be treated like animals not humans so they should put in a rink with other animals fighting. Then they can fight like they want to and not harm anyone in the process. Then they can truly be punished.
Though deemed barbaric by the modern world you cannot deny the level of fear it would push upon the population. As of current there is little that can be considered a real deterrent to crime. The fear of the Police and imprisonment is quite simply not doing enough. However, should you enforce a system of damnatio ad bestias then you not only prevent people from wanting to commit the crime but you also allow a just and fair method of removing them. So many officers are killed today as a result of some psychotic moron deciding he needs to "go out with a bang" (apologies for the lack of formality there) However, introduce a level of challenge in their execution then you are going to reduce this factor. Line up multiple tigers or whatever animal you decide and see how many the prisoner can kill before he in turn dies. If anything at least you'll be providing food for the animals which survive.
We honestly shouldn't have capital punishment at all, I think. The issue with the way things run is that, it's less about fixing the issue and more about getting your pound of flesh paid back to you. Honestly, I used to be very pro-capital punishment, but, as I grew up I realized it solves nothing. Prison should be about either reforming criminals or protecting society, not punishing criminals. Capital punishment is nothing more than revenge, and, like all forms of revenge, doesn't actually solve the issues at hand.
Even if you look at punishment in an "eye for an eye" manner, this punishment would fit very little crimes.
I am also anti-capital punishment and believe death is not the answer. It does not help us to find ways to prevent crimes in the future. It also does not teach the individual to overcome their psyche.It does nothing to deter crime or very little, when a decent percentage are by those with nothing to live for.
I am a supporter of capital punishment but execution by animal is barbaric and impractical because of how the animal we use to participate in this would be more prone to attacking or eating human beings. Only psychopaths would think this would be a good form of capital punishment. Firing squad or private hanging would be a better form
I do not support the death for several reasons including the person being punished has knowledge of him or her premeditated death, which causes an unnecessary (and morally unjustifiable) drop in happiness. Their is no evidence that the death penalty has deterrent effect on people and it is easy to see why once we the most common motives for committing the which is passion, compulsion and profit. The first 2 cannot be deterred, while the third one can't be deterred by harsher punishments but instead being better at finding out the person who did it . Even if I ignore all the problems faced by the death penalty and actually supported it, their still be problems with this proposal since this punishment is an slow and extremely painful way to die, obviously causing an massive drop in happiness. This is an big problem since there are less painful and faster ways to kill people.
It may have worked a long time ago in ancient governments to the worst of people, but morals standards have come a long way from barbaric deaths such as these. Without a doubt this is cruel and unusual as well as impractical. Animals killing humans are very dangerous even to the handlers. This is a part of human history that is better left forgotten or remembered to teach ourselves to be better than our savage ancestors.