why would you keep a "dangerous prisoner" alive instead of killing him

This is a trend I've noticed a lot, both in real-life history and in fiction: There is a prisoner whose very existence is dangerous, so the ruling power locks him up, puts him under tight guard, whatever. Sometimes I've even read that they're "too afraid of [the prisoners] to have them executed."

Now, if this were just fiction, I would consider it artistic convenience, but it happens a lot in Real Life too. My question is: why? If a prisoner is a member of a rebel party or otherwise poses a threat to your power, why not just have his ass executed and be done? Why keep them alive in prison?

(for those who want an example: The Three Musketeers and its sequels deal with many such political prisoners. One of them—the Man in the Iron Mask—even gets his own self-titled book).

Can somebody shed some light on this?

Well, not wanting to shed blood needlessly is one motivation. Another is not wanting to enrage the followers of said dangerous person.

The man in the iron mask was spared out of familial debt was he not? Executing a rebel leader makes him/her a martyr, while alive s/he is just a hostage. As for prisoners, we only started keeping people alive instead of insta-death recently.

Killing the man would make him a martyr. Imprisonment shows mercy.

Plus, a man who knows he'll be killed will resist with everything he's got.

The Man in the Iron Mask is the prince.

I haven't gotten as far as the Man in the Iron Mask yet. Actually, in Twenty Years After (the second book) Cardinal Mazarin has a political prisoner named Beaufort, a guy he's so terrified of that he works himself up when he thinks Beaufort is going to escape. And yet at one point Beaufort pretended to be dying from arsenic poisoning and Mazarin not only sent his best doctors but also had the cell completely checked and sanitized!

That seems like an awful lot to go through for a guy who is, from your perspective, nothing but trouble.

A lot of the time (in history) it's because the "dangerous prisoner" is also a relative. It's one thing to kill(or order the death of) some joe-schmo who's got some agenda. It's another to kill a sibling, son/daughter, or first cousin.

Edit: This is the one of the bigger reasons why Queen Elizabeth I was never executed by Queen Mary I. Because they were sisters.

edited 12th Apr '11 5:18:22 PM by Swish

I came to say the martyr thing. Killing him could be even more trouble than keeping him alive.

1. As other people have mentioned, it would make the prisoner a martyr.
2. As other people have mentioned, often the "dangerous prisoner" is a relative.
3. As other people have mentioned, often the ruler just doesn't want bloodshed.
4. Executing the prisoner is a sign that the prisoner was justified and you really are a bad ruler. Treating them nicely proves them wrong, so to speak.
5. If their revolution succeeds later, you don't want them executing you in revenge.
6. All rulers have at least one person they don't trust; however for most rulers that one person hasn't actually done anything yet and so executing them would be pretty barbaric.
7. General human decency.

Ah damn, black humour beat me.

I hate you, Moe. I've never been able to find the second bit of that book.

Sometimes from a military perspective there's information the prisoner may have that is worth the risk of keeping him alive.

For example, if we captured Ayman Al-Zawahiri (the brain behind Al Qaeda operations) next Tuesday, we wouldn't be sending him to New York to trial anytime soon nor putting his head on a bayonet. Instead he'd be kept in detention (probably at Gitmo) where he'd be plumbed for information for as long as we deem his info valuable.

Also sometimes its a far worse punishment to just throw someone in a cell and forget about them.

Ummm... [sweatdrop] If it makes you feel any better, my copies weren't in perfect condition (somebody apparently tried to cut off the cover to Twenty Years After, oddly enough).

Also, Amazon links for the whole series (linking to what are commonly considered the best print editions):

The Three Musketeers (or here if you prefer a more classical translation)
Twenty Years After
The Vicomte de Bragelonne
Louise de la Valliere
The Man in the Iron Mask

Getting back to the topic, I'm slapping myself for not thinking of the "Martyr" thing, since that's the excuse Skeletor made in the live-action Masters of the Universe movie for not killing He-Man. Though, Cardinal Mazarin seems to be taking it to extremes with Beaufort.

Thanks. And don't worry about it, I'm not upset. I never really understood why people get so worked up about spoilers.

Right, OTC. Other reasons...they like to think of themselves as keeping resources in reserve? You never know when someone important might come in handy. Plus, there's a chance you can win them over to your side.

"Instead he'd be kept in detention (probably at Gitmo) where he'd be plumbed for information for as long as we deem his info valuable." - Major Tom

"Deemed" nothing; as Penn Jillette points out, you never know what a prisoner might tell us that might be valuable. Executing prisoners is pretty much next to pointless in comparison.

edited 12th Apr '11 8:56:39 PM by neoYTPism

Thread Hop: The same reason that otherwise smart people always do stupid things.

Principle.

edited 12th Apr '11 9:13:40 PM by joeyjojo

You say this as if to imply that keeping prisoners alive is the less rational option.

Thread Hop: I wouldn't do it to a rebel leader, but Mafia Don or Crime Lord would be publicly executed unless they cut a deal to rat out their entire organization that is. because any mafia don, crime lord, gang leader, drug lord type can do just as much damage from inside the prison walls. Not to mention they are magnets for corruption.

edited 12th Apr '11 10:22:47 PM by Vyctorian

When all rational explanations fail, there's always Foe Yay to fall back on.

@Major Tom: The OP was talking about people so dangerous your entire regime could collapse like a house of cards if they got loose, which has absolutely no bearing on any real enemy of the US's, or that of any other democracy.

All good reasons so far. There's also: because it's the law, and because holding someone so powerful may be a status symbol for the captor, like owning a powerful wild animal.

EDIT: In more Science Fiction directions, the SCP Foundation has a few good alternative reasons too: For Science! , because the captor is effectively indestructible, because killing him will just cause him to emerge from hell with new powers, cause a terrible explosion or Divide by Zero .

edited 13th Apr '11 6:46:07 AM by betaalpha

There is the opportunity to "reeducate" the prisoner, or just break their spirit, and use them to discredit their own cause.

You mean people like Simon Bolivar?

???

Aside from the fact he's an artifact of history rather than anyone of present day concern, he was basically South America's George Washington, why would any Democracy have cause to fear him?

Only difference is that Bolivar's attempt at making a democratic nation kinda failed since Gran Colombia sadly fell apart. Which resulted in Bolivar attempting to head back to Spain, but he died before that happened.