Turns out nitrogen execution isn't quick and painless after all.

[Jason]

First nitrogen gas execution in US has happened, but did it go as expected? - ABC News

ABCNEWS.GO.COM

---

The Alabama attorney general says he believes more nitrogen gas executions will occur after Kenneth Smith became the first person in the U.S. to be executed that way.

 

[CitizenVectron]

26 minutes ago, Jason said:

First nitrogen gas execution in US has happened, but did it go as expected? - ABC News

ABCNEWS.GO.COM

---

The Alabama attorney general says he believes more nitrogen gas executions will occur after Kenneth Smith became the first person in the U.S. to be executed that way.

 

 

I don't understand...if done properly (and I am not advocating for this, I am against the death penalty), shouldn't a person go unconscious within 2-3 minutes without oxygen? And the panic reflex is allegedly caused by rising CO2 levels, not low oxygen levels, so the idea is that a person basically slips into unconsciousness without even knowing they are (similar to how people often getting drowsy and then pass out when exposed to high CO levels (not CO2). So either this understanding is entirely wrong, or they didn't administer 100% pure Nitrogen?

[mclumber1]

28 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I don't understand...if done properly (and I am not advocating for this, I am against the death penalty), shouldn't a person go unconscious within 2-3 minutes without oxygen? And the panic reflex is allegedly caused by rising CO2 levels, not low oxygen levels, so the idea is that a person basically slips into unconsciousness without even knowing they are (similar to how people often getting drowsy and then pass out when exposed to high CO levels (not CO2). So either this understanding is entirely wrong, or they didn't administer 100% pure Nitrogen?

I guess they used a mask, instead of filling the room with nitrogen.  If you going to do it, at least do it in the same way that people actually die by (accidental) nitrogen asphyxiation.

[Dodger]

Not that I support the death penalty but friendly reminder this guy stabbed a woman to death so I just can’t get too worked up about his death not being completely painless. Not like his victim got a quick painless death.

[TUFKAK]

I personally always find it curious we worry about humane capital punishment against those who perpetuated inhumane crimes.

[Xbob42]

Bullets are cheap, why are places wasting their time on weird experimental shit?

[best3444]

1 minute ago, Xbob42 said:

Bullets are cheap, why are places wasting their time on weird experimental shit?

 

I agree. Why can't we litteraly kill them with a quick headshot? It's inhumane...fuck that. 

[Xbob42]

Well, I think it should be humane. Not because these people deserve it, but because the job of the state, to me, is to apply neither "punishment" nor any sort of needlessly excessive pain. That ain't the state's job and I'm not about to endorse it. I'm only "against" the death penalty (even calling it a penalty really poisons the well) insofar as I don't think our current justice system is very reliable when it comes to correctly identifying people who are a permanent threat to society and should be removed (read: killed) rather than risking even a small chance of escape or parole.

 

Clear that shit up, fix up our prisons to be places where people are likely to be reformed rather than just turn into even more hardened criminals, and suddenly I'm just fine with the death penalty. I think a high caliber round directly to the temple's gonna be about as humane as it gets, and is a lot harder to botch than a buncha fucking rednecks playing mad doctor. Plus if you fuck it up, you keep on firin'!

[Ominous]

23 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

I personally always find it curious we worry about humane capital punishment against those who perpetuated inhumane crimes.

Because the American police and justice system are terrible... At best. 

[Brick]

31 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

I personally always find it curious we worry about humane capital punishment against those who perpetuated inhumane crimes.

 

A civilized society rests on the principle that we treat our criminals better than they treated their victims. It's what separates us from them. Otherwise we might as well just go back to barbarism and start chopping hands off, putting people in torture devices, and stoning to death. 

[TUFKAK]

And child abusers should be in productive custody too. Wouldn’t want anything inhumane to happen to them.

[Ghost_MH]

41 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

I personally always find it curious we worry about humane capital punishment against those who perpetuated inhumane crimes.

 

Because we want the death penalty to be a spectacle, but not so much as to make the families watching ill. Otherwise, we'd do it like Japan and kill death row inmates in secret and not let anyone know until after the deed is done.

[TUFKAK]

24 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Because we want the death penalty to be a spectacle, but not so much as to make the families watching ill. Otherwise, we'd do it like Japan and kill death row inmates in secret and not let anyone know until after the deed is done.

 

I have no issue with making it private, none, I agree there’s reforms to be done but I can not feel bad for people who’ve perpetuated horrible crime suffering for a few minutes. 

 

I promise you, a lot of my trauma would be relieved if my abuser felt even a fraction of what they put me through. A few minutes of pain doesn’t even come close to balancing the scales.

 

I personally believe the victims matters way more than the perpetrators and I will never shift my views on that.

[TUFKAK]

I do wonder, how many of you have seen knife wounds. Seen the trauma it inflicts, seen the people as they bled out in front of you.

 

tell me more how it’s civilized to prioritize those who put metal into another human being over those who had to deal with those actions. 

[Keyser_Soze]

Turns out dying is painful.

[TUFKAK]

Just now, Keyser_Soze said:

Turns out dying is painful.

No

[Dodger]

2 hours ago, Brick said:

 

A civilized society rests on the principle that we treat our criminals better than they treated their victims. It's what separates us from them. Otherwise we might as well just go back to barbarism and start chopping hands off, putting people in torture devices, and stoning to death. 

 

These people are suffering for a few minutes. They aren’t literally getting all medieval on these guys. Yeah it shouldn’t happen but let’s not act like they are getting flayed alive or something.

[Air_Delivery]

Guillotines are pretty foolproof. People just don't like seeing gore. 

[DarkStar189]

From a totally uneducated point of view on this subject, would fentanyl be a good choice for the death penalty? If we have to poison people to death, seems like they could pick something with a better track record. 

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, DarkStar189 said:

From a totally uneducated point of view on this subject, would fentanyl be a good choice for the death penalty? If we have to poison people to death, seems like they could pick something with a better track record. 

 

The death penalty boosters want to see people suffer not drift off in a blissful high.

[Xbob42]

2 hours ago, Air_Delivery said:

Guillotines are pretty foolproof. People just don't like seeing gore. 

I dunno, I'd want something that actually killed me instantly. Not having my head alive on the floor for like half a minute after it was cleanly sliced. That sounds unpleasant.

 

Anyway, to expand upon what I said earlier, you should always be thinking about situations like this with "Okay, but what if we find out later this person didn't do it?" Sure, here and there you'll get some ironclad evidence, but... not always, which is weird for something like the death penalty. Now imagine this person gets an unbelievably painful death and you cheered it on like a coliseum spectator -- what did that extra cruelty accomplish? Now imagine you one day find yourself in the unlikely-but-not-impossible scenario where you're wrongly being put to death. At least then you only have to contend with your impending death, rather than the extreme dread of fearing a torturous death to thunderous metaphorical applause.

 

It's why I said the state's job isn't to "punish" or to cause excess pain, and it shouldn't be, and we shouldn't ever want it to be. Whatever someone "deserves" is highly subjective and is almost always based on incomplete, highly one-sided information... provided by the state, and some (but of course not all) provided by the media. Our justice system should be pragmatic in the extreme: remove, reform, reintroduce. Failing that, remove until death (with a state-sponsored killing being an option for worst-case scenarios) -- none of this should be about getting back at people or being big tough guys who are hard on crime. That doesn't actually accomplish jack shit, as we've seen from a century of America absolutely fucking up the justice system over and over and over again, ad nauseum.

[LazyPiranha]

5 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

I do wonder, how many of you have seen knife wounds. Seen the trauma it inflicts, seen the people as they bled out in front of you.

 

tell me more how it’s civilized to prioritize those who put metal into another human being over those who had to deal with those actions. 

I don’t understand what the mental block here is. I don’t agree with the death penalty at all, but in a world where it must exist for some reason then it should absolutely be painless and humane.  If it isn’t, then we’re no better than the people we’re executing, we just followed more formalities beforehand. 
 

The fact that we treat terrible people better than they treated others is literally the point.

[Keyser_Soze]

10 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I dunno, I'd want something that actually killed me instantly. Not having my head alive on the floor for like half a minute after it was cleanly sliced. That sounds unpleasant.

 

We need to have government funded spike pits

 

 

[TUFKAK]

5 hours ago, LazyPiranha said:

I don’t understand what the mental block here is. I don’t agree with the death penalty at all, but in a world where it must exist for some reason then it should absolutely be painless and humane.  If it isn’t, then we’re no better than the people we’re executing, we just followed more formalities beforehand. 
 

The fact that we treat terrible people better than they treated others is literally the point.

I personally will never understand why the side opposed to my views are so concerned with the suffering of monsters. I’m not saying be needlessly cruel, but I’m not gonna lose any sleep over some monster suffering for a few moments. Don’t wanna be put to death, dont do horrible things seems a pretty easy bar to clear for me.

 

Philosophically, the state has the moral authority to take life violently, there’s no question on that. I just am willing to extend it out after the fact, especially in cases where the guilt of the monster isn’t in question like this case. I’m also willing to extend capital punishment to other crimes too and I make no apology for that either.
 

Im way more concerned with criminal Justice reform and rehabilitation of our incarcerated population than the tiny fraction of capital punishment cases annually, but since it’s an industrial complex now that’ll never happen as millions are getting made on recidivism over rehabilitation, but let’s keep focusing on monsters getting what they deserve I guess.

[Dodger]

Wasn't there a lethal injection compound that was doing the job, but then people got it banned thinking states would stop execution's but the states that are all gungho about it just said lol no and went on to other ways which are resulting in these "botched" executions? Probably just need to let them go back to using that compound. Unless the Federal government has some way of banning states from using the death penalty altogether. though I assume that's some sort of states rights thing.  

[mclumber1]

28 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Wasn't there a lethal injection compound that was doing the job, but then people got it banned thinking states would stop execution's but the states that are all gungho about it just said lol no and went on to other ways which are resulting in these "botched" executions? Probably just need to let them go back to using that compound. Unless the Federal government has some way of banning states from using the death penalty altogether. though I assume that's some sort of states rights thing.  

 

I don't understand why these states just don't use the same drugs that are used to put down pets?  We put our dog down early last year, and it was a painless event for him.  

[best3444]

In all honesty there shouldn't be a death penalty. It's an easy way out for subject at hand. Let them suffer in a jail cell for life. Like, if someone is up for the death penalty they should rot in 24 hour confinement until they die. 

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, best3444 said:

In all honesty there shouldn't be a death penalty. It's an easy way out for subject at hand. Let them suffer in a jail cell for life. Like, if someone is up for the death penalty they should rot in 24 hour confinement until they die. 

 

If we are establishing that life in prison is worse than the death penalty, then isn't putting an innocent person in jail for life without the possibility of parole cruel and unusual punishment? 

[best3444]

10 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

If we are establishing that life in prison is worse than the death penalty, then isn't putting an innocent person in jail for life without the possibility of parole cruel and unusual punishment? 

 

Yes. But life isn't perfect nor is our justice system. I've seen countless interviews with folks that were locked up falsely for 30+ years and it's brutal. But life is brutal. 

[Chadatog]

44 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I don't understand why these states just don't use the same drugs that are used to put down pets?  We put our dog down early last year, and it was a painless event for him.  

I believe that they could no longer get those drugs due to liability, then they turned to companies that supply vets, and they had the same liability issues and stopped providing the drugs to states.

[Kal-El814]

8 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

I personally will never understand why the side opposed to my views are so concerned with the suffering of monsters. I’m not saying be needlessly cruel, but I’m not gonna lose any sleep over some monster suffering for a few moments. Don’t wanna be put to death, dont do horrible things seems a pretty easy bar to clear for me.

 

Philosophically, the state has the moral authority to take life violently, there’s no question on that. I just am willing to extend it out after the fact, especially in cases where the guilt of the monster isn’t in question like this case. I’m also willing to extend capital punishment to other crimes too and I make no apology for that either.
 

Im way more concerned with criminal Justice reform and rehabilitation of our incarcerated population than the tiny fraction of capital punishment cases annually, but since it’s an industrial complex now that’ll never happen as millions are getting made on recidivism over rehabilitation, but let’s keep focusing on monsters getting what they deserve I guess.

It costs me nothing and prevents the suffering of people who are potentially innocent? The notion that it’s fine when people who “we’re sure” are guilty end up suffering is lousy because even in those cases there is no pragmatic upside. 
 

Am I losing sleep over it? No, but it’s fucked to dork up executions because some people are “monsters,” whatever that is supposed to mean. 

[brucoe]

1 hour ago, best3444 said:

In all honesty there shouldn't be a death penalty. It's an easy way out for subject at hand. Let them suffer in a jail cell for life. Like, if someone is up for the death penalty they should rot in 24 hour confinement until they die. 

They need to invent that hood from the Apple TV show Foundation and then lock them in a dark room for the rest of their lives. Let them enjoy that for the horrors that it presents.

[CitizenVectron]

4 hours ago, Dodger said:

Wasn't there a lethal injection compound that was doing the job, but then people got it banned thinking states would stop execution's but the states that are all gungho about it just said lol no and went on to other ways which are resulting in these "botched" executions? Probably just need to let them go back to using that compound. Unless the Federal government has some way of banning states from using the death penalty altogether. though I assume that's some sort of states rights thing.  

 

4 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I don't understand why these states just don't use the same drugs that are used to put down pets?  We put our dog down early last year, and it was a painless event for him.  

 

3 hours ago, Chadatog said:

I believe that they could no longer get those drugs due to liability, then they turned to companies that supply vets, and they had the same liability issues and stopped providing the drugs to states.

 

Exactly—the companies that make the drugs refused to sell to governments that use them for execution as it would potentially open them up to liability suits. Imagine if a person was found to be innocent after being executed, for example. In reality, the best solution is a bullet (in terms of being quick and painless), but for some reason puritanical America has decided that having any blood involved makes a death less moral than a bunch of different chemicals that sometimes don't work.

[Joe]

On 1/28/2024 at 4:12 PM, Dodger said:

Not that I support the death penalty but friendly reminder this guy stabbed a woman to death so I just can’t get too worked up about his death not being completely painless. Not like his victim got a quick painless death.

You know how long ago it was? 36 years ago! He was 22 years old at the time. 

[Dodger]

2 hours ago, Joe said:

You know how long ago it was? 36 years ago! He was 22 years old at the time. 

 

We all go through that stabby phase in in our early 20's right?