“Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total.”
Pretty compassionate way to kill a person.
Once again, the Law in the south is brutal.
“Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total.”
Pretty compassionate way to kill a person.
Once again, the Law in the south is brutal.
The body is weird when it comes to breathing. It doesn’t measure one of the critical gasses. 3 things particularly send the body into a breathing panic.
Rising CO2 (via blood acidity)
Water in the airways.
Resistance to inflating the lungs.
Water boarding is particularly evil, since it creates just enough of the last 2 to trigger a full blown drowning reaction, but is light enough to not actually be dangerous. This lets the questioner hold the victim in that zone, without permanent physical harm (but massive psychological harm).
Nitrogen hypoxia doesn’t set off any of those triggers. This makes it particularly dangerous to some workers. They don’t realise anything is wrong until they pass out.
Also, to clarify. I am massively against the death penalty. It’s both cruel, and not particularly effective as a deterrent. It’s also no cheaper, in practice, than life imprisonment. However, if it is going to be used, it should be as humane as possible. Nitrogen hypoxia is about as humane as it can get.
They cannot do it humanely with a method that requires the person to breath normally to work. If they can hold their breath it will always be inhumane because they will still be struggling and have the same impending doom and physical reaction as waterboarding.
It does not matter if the chemical properties are different when the person has a working brain and doesn’t want to die. Or if it is being implemented by incompetent people who couldn’t even kill him with lethal injection in 2022.
So what method would you suggest, assuming you must choose a method?
I’m completely against the death penalty. It’s no longer an option over here in the UK. However, if it must be done, do it as humanely as possible.
Locked in a box, with a cat, a flask of poison, a radioactive source, and a Geiger counter.
Except when the Geiger counter gets a hit, it sets off a nuclear bomb inside the box so I’m instantly vaporized.
It only truly works if you can isolate the room completely. That’s quite hard to do with a nuke involved. You’ll definitely know when they are dead!
Unfortunately, I believe any use of nuclear weapons is prohibited by treaties. Might I suggest a giant acme hammer or anvil? Instant meat paste, assuming they aren’t a cartoon character in disguise.
I kinda want to be able to donate my organs, so maybe they could just make a bomb-helmet with shaped charges that would paste my head and leave the rest of my body intact for harvesting. 🤯
I’m actually curious whether nitrogen hypoxia would leave the organs viable. However, it’s not a point that should be pushed. Let’s not give the rich any more reasons to want to keep the death penalty.
Your method could be a bit messy. I’d imagine even the doctors involved in the organ harvesting would be squeamish when confronted by the results. Ironically, nitrogen hypoxia would be my preferred way to go.
Can we get those corneas first though?
I reject your premise. Alabama’s government could have just said “we can’t get the drugs for lethal injection, so we’re not doing the death penalty any more.” Instead they said “we’re going through hell and high water to kill this guy.” Fuck them. The death penalty is morally wrong because it puts every member of a democratic society in the position of being a killer.
Nitrogen is cheap, I doubt it was that much harder to acquire that and a breathing mask to do this.
I will not choose a method because all options require a trained an licensed medical professional to implement humanely, and nobody who qualifies will participate because they have ethics that prohibit causing harm to be licensed medical professionals. That includes putting someone to death against their will.
Picking a method is agreeing with the assumption that we have to put people to death.
The thing is, all of the humane ways to kill someone require the person to be a willing participant in the process. Nitrogen works when the person is relaxed and breathing normally for example.
So you’d rather have someone die in agony, rather than make a decision?
I’m asking that if an evil must happen, should it be a different, lesser evil, or a normalised greater evil? The whether the evil should happen at all is a separate debate.
As I said, I agree with you on the latter. The death penalty shouldn’t be a thing. I’m asking about the situation until you (as a society) actually get that far.
Smith clearly died in agony from this method. Lethal injection was also promoted as painless, which it would be in theory and was not in practice for the same fundamental issue that the whole death penalty process involves incompetent people fucking up because competent people won’t take part in it.
I can’t pick a method when it is guaranteed to be horrible because of the context of the death penalty.
I will gladly pick a method or two for people who want to be euthanized and participate willingly. Those same methods will always be torture to someone who does not want to die as long as incompetent people are running the show.
All options do not require a medical professional to administer. It does not take someone with a doctor’s knowledge or skill to make an airproof chamber. It won’t take a doctor to set up a system to add air to the chamber. You don’t need to be a doctor to rig a way to flood the chamber with another gas and remove the oxygen. Non-doctors can wheel him in, strapped to a bed. Then the regular pre-PhD’s can operate the system. Now the scientists and engineers to design this death trap may have doctorates, but they don’t need medical licenses. Design it well enough and a chimp or small child can operate the chamber controls. You will need a medical professional to declare death, though.
Hard to design a system that can be operated by a chimp when the people actually designing and implementing the process are clearly incompetent.
If they don’t have a medical professional monitoring the person’s oxygen levels to ensure he is dying as fast as it is supposed to work, how will they know if their made up bullshit about it being humane when forced upon someone is accurate?
Imagine if they were putting a free diver or other person who has practiced holding their breath for extended periods of time, how would they know if it was even working without monitoring them?
The states that execute people have lied about every prior method being ‘humane’ and non of them ever were in practice on someone who did not want to die. The electric chair supposedly killed the person instantly, but that was a lie. Lethal injection was supposed to be putting someone to sleep and described in the same way as nitrogen, but that was clearly a lie in practice because the people that do it are incompetent.
Quoting an article about safe use of nitrogen, it is odorless, tasteless, and colorless. At extreme low levels of oxygen, nitrogen can cause unconsciousness and death in seconds and without warning.
I’m not talking about the chimps who executed this guy designing the system, I’m talking about qualified scientists designing it. The beauty is, you don’t need a medical doctor to monitor oxygen levels if you rapidly remove the oxygen and add nitrogen. Send in slightly chilled nitrogen and the air will rise above it. Relief valve up top spits out the oxygen. Homeboy is unconsciousness before he realizes why the air just got cold.
The freediver will hold his breath confidently for four minutes, exhale, suck in pure nitrogen, and be out in a breath or two.
I agree that the state does lie and incompetently kills people, but we can design a system that does it well. I just don’t agree they should ever use it.
Which qualified scientists designed this system?
No idea, I was discussing hypotheticals.
Your first sentence is simply false.
this is like arguing that suicide is inhumane and should be illegal
A person who is doing it voluntarily for suicide would not be struggling against impending doom and would be breathing normally. The context here is execution against someone’s will.
the impending doom is coming in either scenario, either you play it up, fight it, and die trying, or you just follow through with it.
That’s a conscious choice people are capable of making in that scenario.
If you don’t want to struggle, you just breath normally.
I guess the person being put to death should have just made a decision to die then. That’s what you are saying right, that they suffered because they didn’t choose to just roll over and die?
yeah, pretty much.
The same exact decision you make when you get born into society and are forced to integrate, otherwise be ostracized.
I don’t make the rules.