Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
So, the Swiss suicide pod lets you kill yourself with nitrogen gas, and apparently that's absolutely fine and painless.
Alabama thinks about using nitrogen gas, and it's cruel and unusual?
WTF am I missing here? Or is it all just the BS hyperbole of US politics?
Well clearly the difference is the Swiss suicide pod is for suicide, and in Alabama it is state-sanctioned murder.
I can understand disagreeing about the death penalty but the difference between choosing to do this to yourself vs it being done to you regardless of your feelings is a dramatic difference, is it not?
You're forgetting that this person is going to die by the State's hand regardless of the method. Given that, how is nitrogen asphyxiation more cruel than lethal injection?
I'm not condoning the death penalty, just confused why someone would say nitrogen asphyxiation is cruel and unusual when in another context it's desirable.
I'm not forgetting that, not really. I was just breaking down the comparison between assisted suicide and the death penalty.
I'm against the death penalty but if we are going down that route nitrogen hypoxia seems the sanest and safest way to me.
First off, I'm 100% against the death penalty, this is only an argument of pragmatism. Nitrogen is by far the most simple and humane method at the states disposal to perform executions. The rapid hypoxia will leave the victim unconscious within a minute and death will happen shortly after. It requires minimal equipment and essentially no training to be effective with this method. People who perform lethal injections receive no training and fuck it up way too much for it to be considered safe. If the state is going to execute people (which they shouldn't) they should seek to limit the amount of suffering and margin for error and inert gas asphyxiation is a good choice for both of those. If they wanted to make us easier on the victim they should consider giving them an oral sedative like versed shortly before the execution. Regardless, they'll be out in under a minute so it still minimizes pain and suffering
Even if breathing Nitrogen is the most humane way to be killed, you can’t disregard the delivery. If someone is fighting to hold their breath to live longer, to knock off their mask to live longer, or a doctor can’t intervene in case it goes wrong, those those are possible arguments against even the best murder method
I’m against capital punishment so won’t agree with either side but you do have to insider whether the delivery method is also humane. This is also the big difference with the suicide pods where the patient is willingly cooperating with delivery, vs state sanctioned murder where they may not be
I think you're disregarding the fact that the idea that breathing will kill you, while you are tied down with a mask over your face, would likely lead to more than a couple terrifying moments of holding your breath and holding on to life for as long as you can.
Nitrogen asphyxiation as a suicide method is painless as far as we know, yes. But try holding your breath for as long as you can, and imagine you are tied down and will die shortly after your next breath... doesn't exactly sound quick or peaceful to me.
I'm not forgetting that aspect of things, as horrible as they are. But they are a significant improvement from the pain and suffering caused by lethal injections. If I were on death row I would beg for nitrogen over lethal injection. The people administering injections often receive no training and screw it up often enough for it to not be a viable method in my eyes. Additionally, the compounds they use cause a burning sensation in your veins. Throughout your entire body. Id rather panic and pass out for a minute than be set on fire from the inside for several minutes until my lungs fill with fluid enough for me to pass out from pain and suffocation that's more akin to drowning or strangulation than regular ole hypoxia.
I don't think it's necessarily peaceful, but it is quicker and less painful and that's about all we can ask for if we're going to be executing people.
Yup I agree. We don’t refer to certain suicides as “cruel and unusual”.
That's because suicides aren't a method. Stabbing is.
Fair
The authors argue:
Nitrogen execution forces prisoners to participate in their own death, which they consider cruel
Delivery by mask is unproven and could lead to problems (like CO2 buildup).
the protocol is heavily redacted and many other executions have been botched before, which does not inspire confidence.
a lack of oxygen can lead to convulsions, which can prolong the execution if the airways are affected
in case of a failed execution the prisoner is entitled to medical help. This could be difficult or even dangerous to administer in an environment of little to no oxygen
mice did show a fear response when executed with nitrogen
While I do agree with those points and oppose lethal punishment myself, I would not expect the arguments to make a big legal difference. All of them do apply to other execution methods as well, and usually much worse. Personally, I would prefer a death by nitrogen to any other method on offer, if there is to be an execution.
You are missing the willingness to participate. One wants to die, the other does not. It's the same difference between a boxing match, and beating someone up.
When you call things whatever you want, you open the door to abusing the law however you like!
Air forces around the world use nitrogen inhalation to simulate the effects of hypoxia caused by high altitude decompression for training.
From that we know for a fact that it is absolutely painless all the way to loss of consciousness.
We also know that it is perfectly safe to have people in the same room who do not participate in the exercise.
And we also know that you don't need a perfectly fitting mask if the had mixture is supplied in it at positive pressure.
The author is reaching at straws for arguments so he makes them up. He's imagining possible problems or downsides and calls them as immediately disqualifying without ever bothering to look for their validity or solutions.
I'm against capital punishment. But if it has to be done this seems to be the least cruel method to do it by far.
Is he arguing that this is cruel and unusual punishment because they have to continue breathing? Otherwise they will feel the CO2 build-up if they hold their breath. I'm sorry, but if capital punishment has to be a thing, I'll take Nitrogen poisoning over any current method.
I'm torn about this. I'm against execution in any event, but the idea that this is somehow worse than other methods is a silly proposition. Good job on the article author for making it sound as awful as possible, but there's a lot made of small things that are by and large better than other techniques that are considered constitutional. I strongly feel like this is more about preventing this particular execution than making sure the best method possible is used.
And that's great. This execution should be stopped, but since it's legal for now it would be a shame for this one case to deny this method to other prisoners who would otherwise be subject to lethal injection or electrocution, both of which are far worse.
I'm against capital punishment as well, but this is how I'd plan to go out.
The author's argument actually seems pretry flimsy to me. If the issue is that it's cruel to make a prisoner an active participant in their own execution, you could easily resolve that by putting them to sleep before applying the nitrogen. Breathing is only voluntary as long as you're awake; once you're asleep, you're no more in control of breathing the nitrogen as you are in control of your heart pumping a lethal injection throughout your body.
Absolutely, the argument is crap, but they do a really good job of framing it to sound awful. Like, you die of suffocation. The nitrogen is harmless and breathing it makes you more comfortable. They make it sound like people are going to harm themselves by holding their breath to keep the deadly stuff out of their lungs, but it's harmless and they don't live any longer by not breathing it, so all they are doing by holding their breath is to make the experience more miserable.
But the article careful tiptoes around anything that doesn't serve the narrative. So they did a good job at propaganda, but an awful job at journalism.
I cannot believe we still have the death penalty. Crazy.
Mostly in backwards bumpkin states like Alabama. Most civilized states don't do it or just never use the penalty.
So many arguments in here are basically "I don't like the orphan crushing machine, but I guess if we have to have it, I'd rather the machine be on the fastest setting."
There's no "execution method" argument that can exist with an anti-capital punishment opinion.
There for sure is, there’s even one in the first part of your argument
If the tactic is to outlaw it progressively then outlaw the worse methods first
If you’re trying to blanket ban it all then that isn’t what’s happening here
People recently invented a fancy thing called compromise. It means you can choose your second best preference if your first is not available.
E.g. I would preffer steak for lunch but I will take pizza over being hungry.
There's nothing cruel about nitrogen hypoxya death, it's one the most peaceful ways to die actually.
But a Republican state implemented this, so we’re going to consider it cruel and unusual.
In a veterinary euthanasia study comparing death from pentobarbital injection to nitrogen gas inhalation, most animals exposed to nitrogen gas developed early convulsions. In a prior physiology experiment exploring human adaptations to hypoxia, healthy volunteers breathing pure nitrogen often experienced seizures within 17-20 seconds.
I'd love to read these studies if available. But the author forgot to reference their sources. So I don't know what they're referring to
“Forgot” to cite their sources
What ridiculous reasoning! They are required to participate … by breathing normally? Year somehow participating by your heart beating is ok?
They are against it because they don’t want to set a precedent allowing it. Death penalty opponents have come as close as they ever have at abolishing it by lobbying drug makers to stop providing standard drugs. Nitrogen gas, however, is cheap and easy to obtain. Right now the only argument against it is that it’s “experimental” (despite plenty of accidental deaths providing ample data), but once successfully used, that argument is gone.
If it were just about execution being painless, we'd execute people by detonating a block of C4 taped to their skull. 100% guaranteed instant and painless. But it's not about that. It's about those who oppose execution coming up with every reason to abolish the practice. I don't think there's a single proponent of capital punishment opposing nitrogen gas.
My personal opinion is that capital punishment should be reserved for a new standard of proof - beyond any doubt. If there's the slightest doubt, the sentence drops to incarceration.
"Beyond any doubt" would mean abolishing it. It is an impossible standard
Any case held to the standard of "beyond any doubt" would be trivially defended. It is theoretically possible we're all in the matrix and the whole case was just faked by our all-powerful machine overlords. Is the doubt reasonable? No. Is it a doubt? Yes
I'm in favor of abolishing the death penalty. We shouldn't do it with roundabout semantics and sham trials though
I agree in principle because I think the universe is absurd and complex, but I disagree in practice because most humans form a consensus on the basics of reality far more than we might think.
It's reasonable to doubt reality from a philosophical point of view. Even though you might be able to make a very well-reasoned case about how humans lack free will using quantum physics and the debate about determinism, we don't see people escaping murder charges this way.
If you have a murderer who was caught on camera and arrested on the scene, one who left a manifesto and confesses to the crime, I think we could use "beyond any doubt" pretty safely here.
My bigger concern is that people would still abuse this though. They'd say they had no doubt about cases where there weren't any witnesses, the accused is denying it, etc. They'd be giving the death penalty to innocent people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time because they had absolutely no doubt the person did it.
So yeah, there are cases where beyond any doubt would make perfect sense but I'm still against capital punishment because I've seen what one crooked police officer or racist judge can do to a person's whole life.
Person on camera was a black male, 5'2" to 6'6" wearing a dark hoodie. The suspect certainly fits the description. There was a written manifesto, but the suspect says he didn't write it. He says he only signed the confession after being tortured by the police for hours.
Your proposal is exactly the system that exists now, and it's unjust.
eh, detonators can fail, and troubleshooting a bad connection could be considered torture.
But I agree with the central thesis - but would suggest a 50t block be dropped on me from 50'. works every time, 0% chance of survival. splat. at most you'd have a microsecond of sensation before everything gooshed out the sides.
It takes too long for the signals to travel to the brain for us to 'experience' an event like this. We don't perceive things instantaneously, it just seems that way.
If you read this article, start from the halfway point. The first half is absolute fluff.
Arguments against:
Author also argues that since other states don’t use this method, it shouldn’t be used… which feels more like a chicken and egg problem.
I guess my biggest question is if this only works well with someone who cooperates, why are they not allowed to put the person under with anesthesia first, then administer nitrogen as part 2?
Anesthesia needs a highly skilled resource to apply it correctly, and most of them refuse to be involved in an execution, for obvious reasons. This is one of the major cause of errors in lethal injection executions.
I am against the death penalty across the board, but this article is bad. It makes a lot of claims about nitrogen asphyxiation without citation, and one thing it does cite contradicts what they write.
There's tons of hand wringing about how the prisoner would be an active participant in their execution. By breathing. They spend an awful lot of time on this point, and it's almost silly.
There's some points about how responders would be able to safely enter the room in case of problems. A portable oxygen source with a mask would do.
And then there's this huge misrepresentation for the one scientific study they actually cite:
A group of Swiss researchers conducted research in 2019 on the comparative humanity of nitrogen versus carbon dioxide in euthanizing mice. Their conclusion? That nitrogen did produce a fear response, raising questions about its ethical use as a mouse execution method, and that further studies would be required to determine whether nitrogen would be a suitable euthanasia agent for mice.
Here's the study they cite for it: https://boris.unibe.ch/136198/1/pone.0210818.pdf
Abstract from there: "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most commonly used gas euthanasia agents in mice, despite reports of aversion and nociception. Inert gases such as nitrogen (N2) may be a via- ble alternative to carbon dioxide. Here we compared behavioural and electrophysiological reactions to CO2 or N2 at either slow fill or rapid fill in C57Bl/6 mice undergoing gas euthana- sia. We found that mice euthanised with CO2 increased locomotor activity compared to baseline, whereas mice exposed to N2 decreased locomotion. Furthermore, mice exposed to CO2 showed significantly more vertical jumps and freezing episodes than mice exposed to N2. We further found that CO2 exposure resulted in increased theta:delta of the EEG, a measure of excitation, whereas the N2 decreased theta:delta. Differences in responses were not oxygen-concentration dependent. Taken together, these results demonstrate that CO2 increases both behavioural and electrophysiological excitation as well as producing a fear response, whereas N2 reduces behavioural activity and central neurological depression and may be less aversive although still produces a fear response. Further studies are required to evaluate N2 as a suitable euthanasia agent for mice."
The tone is completely different. The study thinks N2 would be a good candidate for euthanasia in mice. They do conclude that there is a fear response, but less so. Far from "raising questions about its ethical use as a mouse execution method", the authors think it's worth pursuing as a more humane method.
Again, the death penalty should be abolished. This article is garbage.
"We can't use nitrogen! Lethal injection and the gas chamber and electric chair are all way worse and more painful, like to the point of excruciating torture, and nitrogen is painless, but I just don't like nitrogen!"
"We can't vote for Biden! Look at all the..."
I see a pattern.
(Yes I know Biden's not "painless," it's a flawed analogy a little bit)