“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.
Look I can’t help but feel deceived.
Every single time the death penalty was brought up, nitrogen asphyxiation was touted as a humane alternative. There were always claims that it would be painless, and that the process itself was extremely well understood. It was usually further implied that the reason states don’t do this was because death penalty advocates wanted the prisoner to suffer as long as possible.
Yet the second nitrogen asphyxiation became a viable option, the very same people touting it lined up against it. Suddenly it was completely unproven. Suddenly it was wholly inhumane and inflicted suffering.
It’s so incredibly obvious that the push for nitrogen asphyxiation was at least in part a bad faith argument by people who are philosophically opposed to the death penalty.
Being philosophically opposed to the death penalty is a valid opinion, but the dishonesty makes me much less inclined for me to take these people seriously.
I don’t think I’m unique in that regard. Nobody likes being deceived or lied to.
It seems weird to base your argument on the grounds that a needlessly cruel ineffective and largely incorrect application of something that has long been scientifically and medically understood means the individuals describing how the mechanism is more humane are suddenly sympathizers…?
You should feel betrayed not to deceived. Imagine if someone told you that tires can roll and then they produce a square tire that doesn’t roll. Should you really feel deceived that they failed to produce a round tire? That claims that round things roll are therefore wrong?
It’s well understood that breathing inert gases causes hypoxia and hypoxia is well understood. This man should have been unconscious in less than a minute.
We shouldn’t have the death penalty to begin with and this is a great example why. Because apparently we just can’t get it right even when getting it right is it literally as easy as filling a chamber with pure nitrogen and ensuring that it’s cycled out…
See it’s shit like this. For years hypoxia was touted as a humane solution. Now that states are switching to it all of a sudden the argument shifts to how there isn’t any humane solution.
Goalpost moving.
Nitrogen is a humane route…. if it’s done right. I’m not a capital punishment person but to say it’s inhumane because they fucked up is a bit ridiculous
There’s no humane way to take anyone’s life against their will.
There are certainly more humane ways. Would you consider drowning or burning someone equivalent to lethal injection? That doesn’t sit right with anyone.
there are more humane ways, but killing someone is never humane. Stabbing someone doesn’t become humane just because I could’ve used a wood chipper instead. Killing is never okay, and certainly never humane
That’s the point of “humane”. It’s a sliding scale of “less cruel”.
I raise and butcher livestock so I have hands on experience here. At the end of the day an animal is being turned into meat. Just like with an execution, that fact is already set, and “being humane” is about making it happen in the least cruel way possible.
Back in the bad old days the Halal slaughter method was actually the most humane available. You must cut both arteries with a sharp blade. The animal loses blood pressure immediately and is unconscious in seconds. When all you have are sharp objects this is really the best you can do.
However now that we have guns and captive bolt stunners, we consider shooting the animal in the head before making a cut to release the blood to be “more humane”.
Part of being humane is also about the humans doing the killing. Do you want to feel like a psycho or like you did the best you could to avoid causing suffering? Most of us would choose the second option.
Bullet to the head is the best execution method I believe, because you can’t hold your breath like this guy did and prolong it. There is no dying process, it’s an instant transition to being dead.
You are setting that fact. Just like we as a society are setting the punishment for criminals. It’s not a law of nature that criminals, or animals, have to die at our hands. That is a choice we make. And if we are already deciding to take the life of a person, talking about “humane” is at best hypocritical.
Capital punishment has been proven to be expensive, cruel, and utterly ineffective at scaring off criminals. So why is it still done, then? There are no logical reasons for it. Yet still people revel in the sense of “justice” stemming from an eye for an eye. It’s about revenge, not about keeping victims save or bettering society.
So if cruelty is the point, why worry about how humane it is at all? Someone stabbed their spouse to death? Why not stab them in kind? Hell, I’m sure we can do much better, there’s mass murderers and serial killers who have done horrendous things, isn’t a humane death to good for them? Why don’t we bring back torture? People in the middle ages were quite good at it already, but I’m sure we can do much better by now. Really make them pay for everything they’ve done.
If you’re revolted by that idea, then good. Because that’s not how a justice system or a society should function. Revenge is not helping anyone, and should not be the guiding principle in a civilized society.
Seems to really stretch the term “humane” thin. There are a dozen simple examples that poke holes in this wide net. What about killing someone who is willing to die trying kill you? What about someone currently on a suicidal killing spree (as happens once a day at a school)? What about the millions of animals raised for slaughter everyday? All that is the same category as a painless dispatch and a torturous murder?
Being humane is about how you do something given the choice. It has nothing to do about the absolute action.
Please read Consider the Lobster.
https://faculty.etsu.edu/odonnell/readings/lobster_dfwallace.pdf
Yeah I agree. My point being there are a ton of people who touted hydrogen asphyxiation that suddenly moved the goalposts.
The quickest and most painless method was invented by the French: the guillotine.
If anything, I think the botched nitrogen execution should throw concern at the suicide advocates who touted nitrogen as the ideal method. They were probably wrong.
What if you’re right though? Isn’t then a perfectly good time to lie? If you know for sure that the death penalty is evil (which doesn’t seem too big a leap given the facts), then it’s wrong not to lie to people to get them to stop it. Otherwise you’d be saying that your own morality outweighs the humanity of others. If it results in no death penalty, it was a good action. People act like the ends aren’t justifying the means in 99.99% of cases. It is notable specifically when the ends do not justify the means. If the ends are preventing murder, and the means is lying, there is no question whether lying is justified.
If a person lies to me I’m not going to believe them next time they attempt to engage with me.
Seems like a pretty small price to pay to prevent murder. In fact, I’d go so far as to say you’re a bad person if you’re not willing to pay that price.
I’m not a bad person for not wanting to be lied to.
True, but they’re not a bad person for lying to you.