Alabama wants to be the 1st state to execute a prisoner by making him breathe only nitrogen
Alabama wants to be the 1st state to execute a prisoner by making him breathe only nitrogen
Alabama is seeking to become the first state to execute a prisoner by making him breathe pure nitrogen
Alabama is seeking to become the first state to execute a prisoner by making him breathe pure nitrogen.
The Alabama attorney general’s office on Friday asked the state Supreme Court to set an execution date for death row inmate Kenneth Eugene Smith, 58. The court filing indicated Alabama plans to put him to death by nitrogen hypoxia, an execution method that is authorized in three states but has never been used.
Nitrogen hypoxia is caused by forcing the inmate to breathe only nitrogen, depriving them of oxygen and causing them to die. Nitrogen makes up 78% of the air inhaled by humans and is harmless when inhaled with oxygen. While proponents of the new method have theorized it would be painless, opponents have likened it to human experimentation.
You're viewing a single thread.
Serious question. Why don't we just shoot them? I'm pretty sure bullets are cheaper than any chemical we use and it's instantly effective. You can't really mess it up either especially if you built a contraption the make sure the bullet hits the base of the skull.
Or fuck even one of those things they use for cattle. I just don't understand why we seem to choose expensive options when the cheapest solution is right there.
Nitrogen is pretty cheap, and would be considered way more human. Bullets aren't an instant death, the cattle thing would be but considered brutal. Both a firing squad and cattle thing would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, the SCOTUS has already said firing squads are cruel and unusual. The classic three drug cocktail was painless but no one will.make it.
Nitrogen makes you feel.like.your drunk, nitrogen narcosis, until you pass out. It is considered painless.
But the real question you should be asking is, why do we even still allow the death penalty. Innocent people have been put to death. Or at least enough doubt that they shouldn't have been killed.
But revenge is more important then justice. /s
People always think of the innocent person who got off. I get that. But what do you do with somebody who has, say, shot lots of kids in a school?
Rehab? In what world could we let that person back into society?
Never said let them back into society. Knowing you will die in a 6x6 cell, alone, and unwanted by anyone in the whole world is far worse punishment then anything else I can imagine. But killing anyone, regardless of crime, or evidence, makes you just as much of a murderer as anyone convicted of that crime. Also, there is the possibility of killing someone completely innocent, what then? Oops our bad, but we killed 30 other bad people, so this one isn't a big deal?
Many people would prefer to be executed vs. being tortured for 50 years in a cell. Others wouldn't, though. Is it worse to imprison someone innocent for decades or mistakenly execute them? I'm not sure. People could take their choice, perhaps? That's pretty cruel too though.
Knowing you will die in a 6x6 cell, alone, and unwanted by anyone in the whole world is far worse
So... Revenge then?
Is there some reason a prison is incapable of containing them until they die? The only two choices aren’t kill them or let them rejoin society.
I didn't mean to imply that - but I don't see how lifetime imprisonment is any more humane. In fact others arguing against the death penalty are saying it's worse which... Is confusing.
If it were your kid in that chair, you wouldn't give a shit what they'd done, you'd fight with your last breath to save them anyway.
Who you are doesn't matter.
Who they are doesn't matter.
Fight to save them.
If it were my 12 year old they killed I would be taking a different view...
because a huge percentage of convicted are later exonerated, and a large percentage that aren't are posthumously exonerated.
I'm talking about where there is no doubt the crime has been committed. School shooters and the like.
I'm talking about where there is zero doubt the crime was committed.
School shootings and the like.
You can't have it both ways. I only execute the absolutely guilty and never put someone in jail who is innocent. The world is not black and white. It's not as simple as you make it out. Innocent people who ere put to death by the criminal.justoce system, at the time we're beyond a doubt guilty.
I'm posting a hypothetical.
Every prosecution team will tell you there is zero doubt until the exoneration, at which point they'll say "hmm."
Also, you say "zero doubt in school shootings" but unlike folk-wisdom, the law actually does care about the minutae of culpability and is exactly the place to get into the distinctions between aforethought, meditation and whether or not they were responsible for their actions.
We can know they did it regardless of culpability.
Let's hypothesize a perfect legal system for sake of argument.
Bullets aren't an instant death, the cattle thing would be but considered brutal.
Bullets and the cattle thing are both instant when they are fired at the right part of the brain. Why is more brutal and less humane? If it kills them immediately, then it’s as humane as killing someone gets.
Firing squads didn't shoot you in the head.
I didn’t say they should use a firing squad. I said they could shoot you in the part of the brain with a bullet that will kill you instantly.
And it is illegal per cruel and unusual punishment clause.of the Constitution
Why is it cruel and unusual to kill someone instantly with a bullet and not cruel and unusual to electrocute or hang someone?
It’s not actually written in the constitution that killing someone instantly with a bullet is a cruel and unusual punishment. It’s an interpretation of the constitution that is frankly bizarre considering the ways we do actually execute people.
The 3 drug cocktail worked, but it was often a minimally-trained technician charged with placing the actual IV lines. I know most of us have had an IV sometime in our life with relatively little pain, but that seems not to be the case for some inmates. Anxiety, old age, obesity, dehydration, and myriad other reasons can make it more challenging to place a catheter.
Bullets are as instant death as it gets. For a couple bucks you can headshot someone with a 50 cal, you can vaporize the brain way before neurons can propagate... Literally impossible to feel pain physically
Humane isn't about the victim though, it's about the observers. Nitrogen is painless and it's not until the last moments the victim even notices, but in those last months there might be panic
If you disagree with my point, ask yourself... Heroin or fentanyl OD is probably about the cheapest and most pleasant death, why has it never even been considered?
I think fentanyl is a great solution, if you're going to allow the death penalty, which I'm against. And it's more than just a bullet. Read the SCOTUS decision that banned firing squads. The cruel and inhuman part isn't even the pain felt, it's the terror inflicted waiting for it to happen. Psychologically it is far worse waiting for a gun shot than an injection that will put you to sleep and numb you. Mentally there is a huge difference. It is psychological terror, and therefore cruel and inhuman punishment.
Permanently Deleted
Have you ever been narc’d? My dive buddy was once, he took his regulator out of his mouth and tried giving it to fish. Never felt a thing from it other than “oh shit, trying to make a fish breath air”.
I would rather be shot than nitrogen then because I want to die sober.
People can survive gunshots (even momentarily), it's messy, and it looks scary. Honestly nitrogen hypoxia is not the worst way to go, I'd choose it over getting my brain blasted. Ideally we wouldn't do it at all.
They want to look painless and bloodless.
I am against the death penalty. Its only purpose is vengeance.
I'm torn on it honestly.
On one hand I don't want innocent people killed by it but on the other I believe certain people don't deserve to keep living after their crimes.
But I'll never understand how "humane" just means "doesn't leave a mess"
If it's faster and cheaper it should be implemented.
You're correct to identify that your position is inconsistent - (A) not wanting the innocent to be wrongly executed and (B) wanting the option to enact retributive punishment against certain offenders.
Let's analyze these two imperatives:
The benefits of (A) are quite self evident. It's bad to execute people for no reason. It's maybe the most brutal and terrifying thing the state can do to a person. And where there exists capital punishment, it happens with non-zero probability.
The benefits of (B) are that you get a nice bellyfeel that you've set the universe into karmic alignment. Since there's no evidence that capital punishment has a deterrent effect on crime (this can be proven by comparison of statistics between states/countries with capital punishment and without), this is really the ONLY benefit of position (B).
So if you want to prioritize what's best overall for reducing harm in society, then select (A). If you enjoy appointing yourself the moral arbiter of karma by enforcing who "deserves" to live and die (and killing some innocent people is a price worth paying), then select (B).
Simples!
It’s hard for the people doing the execution. That’s why the traditional firing squad gives some of the shooters blanks: so they can convince themselves they’re not the killer.
Pulling a lever in another room for a method that looks calm and painless is a lot easier for the killers.