“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.
I’m curious how they implemented this. The air completely has to be replaced with nitrogen, no breathing in a mix of nitrogen and outside air, no oxygen at all. People that enter confined spaces with no oxygen pretty much just drop and are dead quickly, so this doesn’t sound like they did it right.
They used a mask rather than the more appropriate method which would be to use a sealed chamber that was forcefully evacuated of oxygen and replaced by nitrogen the way the suicide pods are supposed to function.
The problem with a mask is it can’t be a perfectly sealed system. The issue with the execution from a logistical standpoint was the redneck engineering they employed and not the actual science behind nitrogen hypoxia.
Please don’t come at me, I’m not making a value judgment about the use of the death penalty, I’m just explaining the issue with their shoddy ass methodology.
Edit: accidentally a word.
Edit #2 (YouTube Link): Here is some additional information about why a gas mask is an ineffective and dangerous way to conduct an execution via nitrogen hypoxia from Dr. Philip Nitschke, a leading advocate of the right to die movement and an expert in the field of voluntary euthanasia. He personally examined the execution method being used in Alabama, and told them he felt it would be ineffective for many of the same reasons stated above.
Complain that execution is wrong, not that the method was unpleasant.
Come on, isn’t this america? Why don’t they just shoot prisoners?! It’s quick, cheap and they love shooting, don’t they? Coming up with so many twisted ways to kill a person just to do it differently than the Nazis. If even Belarus is still officially shooting their people, why isn"t the greatest country in the world?
/s because I can’t handle thisGood that there is extensive evidence on the effectiveness of (brutal) death sentences as means to reduce crime!
Oh wait…
As someone who gets nitrogen at the dentist office with a mask I have a theory that it was just him consciously fighting it. It’s positive pressure nitrogen that you just breath in at normal breath rate. If you breath really hard you can displace the nitrogen and suck in some regular air. It sounds like he fought it which caused it to take longer. It is the standard human reaction to fight against one’s own death and I’m guessing he thought that if they held out long enough they would stop. If they are going to use a mask like that as opposed to a hood or chamber they really should sedate the person first.
…this is hilarious. The dentist gives you nitrous oxide (laughing gas), not straight up nitrogen.
I don’t support capital punishment.
But hypoxia in humans is well studied. Unless they were using monumental stupid gas like CO2 (which triggers your breathing reflex) then the problem wasn’t the method, in principle.
I wouldn’t put it past a execution supporter to fuck it up somehow, though.
This was discussed in another thread. Apparently they did not scrub the CO2 he expelled (which presumably under high anxiety and adrenaline would be way higher) and he simply rebreathed that CO2 back in, mixed with the nitrogen.
For those unaware, CO2 buildup in our blood is what triggers our brainstem to go crazy and gasp for air and convulse and generally have that terrible sense of asphyxiation/drowning. Lack of oxygen does not.
I don’t know anything about this other than the guy most have been pretty terrible to be on death row but even a brutal killer should have some rights nobody deserves to die like that
Pray tell, what is your favourite method of execution?
America is such a funny place. They dont have a problem with execution just experimental ones…
Many of us have a problem with all executions. And capital punishment was illegal in America from 1962-1976 until the Supreme Court reversed their original decision.
The only people I’m ok with killing are the ones we have undeniable poof for. Like the Uvalde school shooter. They have footage of him in the school with the gun and know he killed the kids. In my book he’s OK to execute. if there’s even a shred of doubt in anyone’s case then execution should be off the books period.
I don’t support the execution of the Uvalde shooter.
What does killing him accomplish?
Justice? Not really.
Restitution? Not at all.
Vengeance? Not really.
Deterrence? Not really.
Closure for the families of the victims? I suppose.
I don’t know about this case, but some families of victims oppose the death penalty, even in the case of the murder of their children.
Some reasons for this view could be religious beliefs, or the view that death is the easy way out, or the deterrence value of being able to point at a person in jail, or the potential for the person to do some good in the world.
These people would object to closure for them being used as justification for killing their child’s murderer.
It’s not fair to victim families to make them choose life or death for a murderer. It would be a decision they’d have to live with forever. We can’t do that to them.
My opinion is that capital punishment should only be used where a person guilty of a ‘capital crime’ can’t be reliably imprisoned.
Ie I’m not sure Iraqis were wrong to execute Saddam Hussein. I don’t think it would be wrong for countries that struggle with corruption in their penal system to execute cartel leaders (that have been convicted of ‘capital crimes’). War crimes, insurrection leaders, that sort of thing.
What does killing him accomplish?
One thing and one thing only: saves tax payer money long term.
Nope. The math has been done on this many times, and death sentence is more expensive than life without parole. And that’s according to the State’s own numbers.
When is America going to learn that you can’t punish murder with murder? You are literally saying “rules for thee but not for me.”
I once saw a slogan on a button at a street vendor in Washington D.C. “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?” It’s stuck with me after two decades.
I don’t know that we do it to make any such statement to the guilty party. I personally think we do it to 1. deter others from going down that path for fear of the consequences, and 2. remove an individual from society who has shown themselves incapable (in the most malicious and extreme way) of properly functioning in society. They are a danger to society, therefore they need to be removed. Obviously you could make the argument that we could simply banish them somewhere or lock them up for the remainder of their lives, but in my personal opinion that’s not definitive enough. They could escape, be let out early, and harm someone else.
Or they could be innocent.
That’s entirely possible, no system is perfect, but rather than countering my statement with something that happens the least, perhaps you could offer up an idea on how to handle what happens the most. How do you think we should handle maliciously evil (for lack of a better word) people who commit heinous crimes?
Lock them up, as I said
What should you punish murder with? Genuinely asking. I see many who want to do away with prisons and switch to rehabilitation. In some cases I can certainly understand that, and I am against for profit prisons, but I also know that a certain portion of society is just fundementally born with dysfunctional brains and no amount of rehabilitation will ever correct that. What do you do with the person who is sadistic and sociopathic in their disdain for other human life?
What do you do with the person who is sadistic and sociopathic in their disdain for other human life?
Sounds like a case for a mental institution. Why murder them?
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.
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.
Pro Life!
