"In accidents, when people have been exposed to high levels of nitrogen and little air in an enclosed space, they have died quickly. In some cases co-workers who rushed in to rescue them also collapsed and died. Nitrogen itself is not poisonous, but someone who inhales it, with no air, will pass out quickly, probably in less than a minute, and die soon after — from lack of oxygen. The same is true of other physiologically inert gases, including helium and argon, which kill only by replacing oxygen.... Death from nitrogen is thought to be painless. It should prevent the condition that causes feelings of suffocation: the buildup of carbon dioxide from not being able to exhale. Humans are highly sensitive to carbon dioxide — too much brings on the panicky feeling of not being able to breathe. Somewhat surprisingly, the lack of oxygen doesn’t trigger that same reflex. Someone breathing pure nitrogen can still exhale carbon dioxide and therefore should not have the sensation of smothering. Before passing out, a person may feel lightheaded, dizzy or maybe even a bit euphoric, and vision may dim...."
From "States Turn to an Unproven Method of Execution: Nitrogen Gas" (NYT).
May 13, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
122 comments:
Can we admit that life imprisonment serves the same ends and costs a lot less? And doesn't corrupt the medical establishment?
Maybe you feel blue.
As for capital punishment, it's neither for retribution nor deterrence, but to show the place society gives to a voice, a voice that is missing.
This is an issue in scuba diving. You go too deep and get nitrogen narcosis. And then you just go to that final sleep in the watery depths and that's it so they say.
Cyanide gas chambers have been used with success and humane execution in California for years before the present anti-execution hysteria took over. There is no reason to change to something with no history.
In a hospital where I worked at one time, the new operating rooms were used before the gas lines had been checked properly.
A surgery was done under general anesthesia and the patient never woke up. The nitrous oxide (an anesthetic gas ) and oxygen lines had been switched in the ceiling. The patient got 85% nitrous oxide. She was a niece of a famous actress. I think a lawsuit was settled.
What about it is unproven? It kills. That is clear.
Firing squads and hangings are proven, too.
Survivors of confined space accidents report "I walked into the room, then I woke up in the hospital."
Sleeping pill overdoses, slit wrists, anaesthetic overdoses, all would work; along with gunshots.
"Before passing out, a person may feel lightheaded, dizzy or maybe even a bit euphoric, and vision may dim...."
I've been 'narked' while diving before. Similar to a mild alcohol high. Not such a bad way to go if you are going to go.
Some murder mystery put carbon monoxide in oxygen lines, the deal being to make it undetectable in autopsy.
If we are going to execute people, we shouldn’t shy from the fact we are killing them. Go back to firing squads.
I’m not sure we should be executing people, but don’t make it clinicial. Make it what it is.
-John Borell
Yes, and apply it evenly, instead of arbitrarily. Otherwise stop.
Sounds like a more humane way to put pets down when the time comes. I suppose its too dangerous to do at home, where most pets are put down today.
John Lynch. I’ve considered your thoughts about the medical establishment and have long felt that executions should be performed by DVMs. They have no qualms about euthanasia. The few times I’ve had to euthanize a pet it went peacefully.
One could argue whether the medical establishment isn't already corrupt.
Doctors should not be killing people. Period. Even if the person wants to be killed. Find someone else to do it. Doctors save lives.
I use argon gas when I weld. Executions should be perform by family members of the person that they killed. Any way that they want.
The Chinese method of shooting someone in the back of the head is actually quick and humane. That said, the death penalty is abhorrent and should be eliminated.
Once we get rid of the death penalty, we need to move on the the horrendous conditions in our prisons, rape, beatings, theft, gangs... These conditions exist because the guards want them to exist. They make life easier for the guards. But the continual brutalization of the inmates makes them unsuitable for release to the world.
There is also the issue that most inmates are insane or have very low IQ's or both, and many are illiterate. That needs to be addressed, too.
Call me old school but strap 'em in. Light 'em up.
Why is it possible for people to die gently during assisted suicide whereas all forms of execution are cruel and unusual?.......I know consent has a great deal to do with it, but there shouldn't be that much difference in the actual means and their effects on the body.
Death from nitrogen is thought to be painless.
That's supposedly said of CO poisoning, which is why it's used for killing shelter dogs:
"American Humane believes that euthanizing shelter animals by carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide is inhumane to the animal and harmful to humans. American Humane considers euthanasia by injection (EBI) to be the only acceptable and humane means of euthanasia for all shelter animals."
I saw a dog documentary, and in the part about dog-pounds the dogs in the box started screaming when they introduced the CO gas.
Why do we allow assisted suicide if killing anyone is always unreliably tortuous.
Executions were given to the State to perform to remove revenge and vendetta killing. One of the biggest advances in civilization was the invention of having a mechanism to avoid strangers of different tribes killing each on sight.
In the Middle East it’s perverted to the point where families can “forgive” killings literally at the chopping block ( usually after substantial money passes hands). Blood money was to prevent tit for tat tribal killings
Families of the murdered should be able to say their peace - but no more.
One again I'll quote the warden of Stateville Penetentary," Thank god for the death penalty. Without it I couldn't control these guys.
John. These people stole something. Not only from their families but from society at large. My sympathies are with the victims and their families. Death comes to us all. These people chose to leave early.
The few times I’ve had to euthanize a pet it went peacefully.
I had one where that was definitely NOT the case. My vet says it's rare, but does happen.
Just bring back a simple hanging...when done correctly death is instantaneous.
Josephbleau said...
Why do we allow assisted suicide if killing anyone is always unreliably tortuous.
A simple heroin overdose is too easy.
Funny how nearly all these prison execution tables have the guy posed as though he were being crucified.
What humane means do we use to execute inconvenient babies ?
[sykes1:] That said, the death penalty is abhorrent and should be eliminated.
How about a thought experiment.
The only cases considered for the death penalty are a) premeditated and, b) multiple sources of evidence not only prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but go further and exclude everyone but the suspect.
And we promptly execute every murderer that falls into those two categories. Of course, that could amount to a thousand or so executions a year -- definitely not for the squeamish.
Now, what do you suppose the deterrent effect might be of prompt and sure execution?
Having, on account of my job, been periodically put in an altitude chamber, I can attest on first hand experience that any method that allows exhaling CO2 will result, done long enough, in a death no more painful than falling asleep.
John, "Doctors should not be killing people. Period. Even if the person wants to be killed. Find someone else to do it. Doctors save lives."
Ya mean, like abortion "doctors?"
I worry about the euthanasiists, and the tale they are telling themselves about death, and about Nature. I’d be a lot less worried if they seemed more at ease with their beliefs and laughed more at themselves.
sykes.1 gives away the game. John Lynch is playing for that endgame, knowingly or not.
The game is
1) get rid of the death penalty,
2) get rid of life in prison,
3) make prisons less punitive,
4) release people from prison much sooner
There is no way to satisfy the Leftist Collectivists. They are pulling down the not particularly slippery slopes.
“It should prevent the condition that causes feelings of suffocation: the buildup of carbon dioxide from not being able to exhale. Humans are highly sensitive to carbon dioxide — too much brings on the panicky feeling of not being able to breathe. “
End stage COPD’ers (chronic lung damage, generally from smoking) are said to be in the “50/50 club”. Their arterial blood gas (ABG) result shows the blood oxygen level very low (i.e. in the 50’s when it should be in the 90’s) and an elevated CO2 level ( 50’s or higher when should be in the 30’s or lower.
If you give them too much oxygen they slow down/stop breathing because their hypoxia is what’s keeping them alive. In other words their body has gotten used to a high CO2 level.
My business has a nitrogen generator, basically a filtering device that separates the oxygen out of compressed air. We produce about 3000 cubic feet per hour. I could advertise and sell painless killing and suicide.
For $99.99 we can eliminate your marital problems one way or another in a comfortable setting with reclining chairs and big screen TV - 128 channels with Netfix for a small additional charge. Disposal is extra, based on weight. We request that you fast for 24 hours prior, but we provide an all-you-can-eat buffet afterward.
I am puzzling over the use of the adjective "unproven" in the headline. Unproven in what sense?
Death By Whipit has a certain je ne sais quoi that appeals to me.
You want to be killed by miniature greyhounds?
Unproven? No, very well proven. It causes death. Quickly. That's well known fact. No searching for veins, no violent spasms from electricity surging through the body along with no burn marks. No danger of accidental decapitation or slow strangulation. And- no leftover poisonous gasses to be cleaned up.
Inhale...
Now exhale
Here's what you just took into your lungs:
Nitrogen 780,000ppm
Oxygen 210,000ppm
Argon 9,300
Carbon Dioxide 310ppm
Plus a few hundred ppm of other gases
Happy Mothers day
John Henry
CO2 is more likely 410ish, although it can vary a lot indoors. I once monitored CO2 in an auditorium at a global warming talk, and it rose to over 1000 ppm.
N2, CN-, and CO are all isolectronic diatomics. So why not NO+ too? At least they can go out the hard way.
We already have Planned Parenthood that uses human rights-approved methods and is logistically well appointed to assume processing of capital punishments.
Can we admit that a firing squad serves the same ends and costs a lot less? And doesn't corrupt the medical establishment?
There. FIFY
The means of executing convicted felons has often been controversial, also deciding what felonies should carry the maximum penalty. Years and years ago, a museum I was working in was looking to do an exhibit surrounding the death penalty. I forget what current event sparked the initiative, but I do recall that it was a particular event. Anyway, we had our states electric chair in our collection, along with all the ancillary equipment - fume hood, masks, sponges, generator, etc. There was also a local county gallows in storage nearby. I got tasked with researching the issue for scripting the exhibit. The early county hangings were a horror show. Most Sheriffs were drunk for the event apparently, nearly everyone misjudged the required drop for a quick finish. It was either too light, when they would 'dance' and spectators would have to grab the unfortunates legs and yank downward to effect the sentence, or too heavy, where the head was separated from the body. I recall one of the later events occurred after executions were removed from the public sphere and moved onto prison grounds, and the head actually 'left the yard'and flew over the prison walls onto the street. Anyway, we never mounted the exhibit. The committee couldn't even agree to what paint color would be appropriate. Too many political considerations could arise.
Death by Dutch Oven.
A return to public hangings of notorious criminals (Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, John Muhammed) might focus the minds of a few folks.
The key to progress in this area is a veil of privacy and social conditioning.
""In accidents, when people have been exposed to high levels of nitrogen and little air in an enclosed space, they have died quickly..."
Shit like this kinda happens in comments threads sometimes. It's just that it's high levels of asshole, not nitrogen and shit.
Seriously just shoot them in the head. Quick painless and proven.
The trouble is people in the judiciary and the prison system don't want to execute people.
So, we get this ridiculous game whereby the ACLU or whoever says Execution Method X is "cruel and unusual" - even though it isn't. The Judges then stop the execution, the states appeal, blah, blah, years go by. The SCOTUS rules, we get a new method - the ACLU sues and the farce continues.
Its absolutely idiotic people are OK with dropping bombs on Iran or Syria or whoever for the flimsiest of "Geopoliical" reasons - thereby killing and maiming hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians as "collateral damage" - and then devolve in a puddle of tears when the state wants to execute an Ax murderer.
Doesn't the question really boil down to "what form of execution will make the survivors, society at large, feel good about themselves?" There never was a time when there were no efficacious methods of execution. People have been arguing about more "humane" methods for at least two centuries. Many people have declared themselves unsatisfiable in this regard, while other people declare themselves satisfied by any of a range of choices. There is no solution to such a conflict, so no argument will ever work.
I have my own opinions, but they are as irrelevant as anyone else's.
"I am puzzling over the use of the adjective "unproven" in the headline. Unproven in what sense?"
Unproven in the sense that there are no randomized control trials sanctioned by an ethics board which determined conclusively that subjects (i.e., people) died more peacefully by nitrogen than by other methods.
If someone murders me, or one of my family - i want them executed.
Its too bad we couldn't have different sentences depending on the victims family. People like me would get the killers executed, all the noble opponents of capital punishment would get their killers sentenced to Life (aka 20 years) and a party when paroled.
Indentured servitude could be an alternative to prison.
The body is quite sensitive to changes in arterial oxygen levels, having specific sensors in the carotid body to measure it to regulate respiration. I doubt very much that this is quite as 'painless' as implied. Brain cells will start dying very quickly. Somewhat equivalent situations are high altitude sickness and CO poisoning.
CO poisoning is a real problem on boats. CO accumulates in the hull. Lot of people die in their sleep or while intoxicated this way. If you are awake you may make it out alive because it is pretty unpleasant.
Captive Bolt stunner. Strap in the subject and set it up. Configure switch on a chest strap. Warn the subject that when the red light goes on, his next inhale will trip the switch. Turn on the red light.
The guillotine is also quick and relatively painless. Your head is chopped off in a nanosecond. Instant separation of spinal cord from body.
Why not use that? Probably because the prison system doesn't want to deal with a headless body.
Wouldn't it eliminate the whole cruelty argument if you just sneak up on them and shoot them in the head without any warning? Maybe while they are asleep. I mean, if you never know it's coming, and it's instantaneous, how can it be cruel?
John Lynch wrote: Can we admit that life imprisonment serves the same ends and costs a lot less?
No, we cannot. Career criminals have been known to have conducted their criminality from inside prison. There is no prison including the so-called SuperMax facilities, that are able to isolate murderers and terrorists from their confederates outside. We already have the example of Lynn Stewart, attorney for Omar Abdel-Rahman, who abused her privilege to convey messages to and from overseas Muslim terrorists, possibly including Osama bin Laden. The Blind Sheik's life sentence failed to prevent his plans and cohortatios. Death is intended to punish and bring to an end the activities and preoccupations of the worst criminals. Life in prison does not.
There is the argument that life imprisonment gives society the option to correct an injustice; that is quite true. However, a life sentence also gives society the opportunity to commit a further injustice. For example, a Scottish court released the convicted terrorist Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to return to Libya where he received a hero's welcome for planning and coordinating the murder of 270 people, mostly American. The court's action was in direct contravention of a solemn agreement to keep Megrahi locked away for life made between the Chancellery of Scotland and our DoJ.
There are studies which reveal capital punishment as an ineffective deterrent, that those sentenced to die tell researchers they fear to spend their lives in a prison cell more than "the Chair". Of course, they would. Nor were those studies conducted without a an overwhelming bias on the part of the researchers and the subjects of the interviews. Nothing deters crimes committed by the insane, nor are young criminals deterred by punishment, convinced as they are of their immortality. Deterrence of future crime is a goal of our system of punishments, but it is not the only goal, and it is probably the least achievable goal of any form of penal process.
One argument that has been used against the death penalty could be called the "singularity of death" conundrum. Once a murderer has killed he often reasons that there is no advantage to refrain from further slaughter. They can't hang me more than once reasons the criminal, so I might as well kill everyone. This is quite true. But it also is true of life imprisonment. If he had been tried before a court, Osama bin Laden could have been sentenced to more than 3000 consecutive life terms in prison, but he could only have served one. In a system that has abolished the death penalty the only incentive the State can offer the would-be mass killer is the possibility of a shortened sentence if he surrenders without additional murders, which creates the conundrum of proportionality. However, if the State reserves the death penalty for aggravated capital crimes, the "singularity of death" conundrum is at least partially rectified.
John Lynch wrote: And doesn't corrupt the medical establishment?
There are those in this country, perhaps a majority, who hold the medical establishment already completely corrupted by the millions of abortions performed each year in the United States. I would like to see a "right to choose" advocate who also opposes the death penalty square that circle.
"Once we get rid of the death penalty, we need to move on the the horrendous conditions in our prisons, rape, beatings, theft, gangs... These conditions exist because the guards want them to exist. They make life easier for the guards. But the continual brutalization of the inmates makes them unsuitable for release to the world."
I don't agree with getting rid of the death penalty, (Why should people sign on to the social contract if it guarantees an absence of Justice?) but I agree 100% about prisons. The state of a great number of prisons is barbaric and shameful.
I thought people were constantly dying from CO2 because they are unaware of the buildup and just go to sleep?
Someone can blather on for 100 pages about how the death penalty doesn't deter. Its all BS. You can't prove it one way or the other.
Common sense tells you some killers will be deterred. Why does everyone want to get off death row?
I don't see why we need doctors to kill people, and I don't like these dishonest, quasi-medical means of killing.
Blogger bagoh20 said...
Wouldn't it eliminate the whole cruelty argument if you just sneak up on them and shoot them in the head without any warning? Maybe while they are asleep. I mean, if you never know it's coming, and it's instantaneous, how can it be cruel?
I think that they do something like this in the Russian system of justice.
After seeing yet another innocent person set free from a murder sentence by DNA evidence after 30+ years in prison, I can’t support the death penalty any longer. But speaking in purely practical terms, what’s wrong with a massive heroine overdose? Peaceful unconsciousness sets in almost instantly, followed by death a short time later. It’s been “proven” for more than a hundred years.
"From "States Turn to an Unproven Method of Execution: Nitrogen Gas" (NYT)."
Death by asphyxiation due to nitrogen displacement is very much proven...
The person that wrote that headline is stupid.
bagoh20 said...
Wouldn't it eliminate the whole cruelty argument if you just sneak up on them and shoot them in the head without any warning? Maybe while they are asleep. I mean, if you never know it's coming, and it's instantaneous, how can it be cruel?
The other advantage with this method is that you could only use it once and then we could avoid any further state sponsored killing, of our own citizens at least.
"After seeing yet another innocent person set free from a murder sentence by DNA evidence after 30+ years in prison, I can’t support the death penalty any longer."
Innocent people are in prison -for life - right now. There's never been a justice system that didn't put innocents to death or in prison.
Its impossible to be 100% correct - always - in every human endeavor.
The state should not be allowed to kill citizens. I totally understand the impulse to end a life and there are many who deserve it. But the government has proven to be inept in every instance where they have control in areas where they are not just purely corrupt.
The people who run the government are people and screw up. Beyond that government seems to attract a certain personality type that leads to abuse. We know that leftists overwhelmingly seek and fill positions in government. The government is clearly abusing any power we give them and they are taking power that does not belong to them.
We should not grant them this power.
After seeing yet another innocent person set free from a murder sentence by DNA evidence after 30+ years in prison, I can’t support the death penalty any longer.
It's called taking one for the team.
[We] get this ridiculous game whereby the ACLU or whoever says Execution Method X is "cruel and unusual" - even though it isn't.
Much of the confusion wrought by death penalty opponents turns on a misunderstanding of the logical function of conjunctions. The precept is not "cruel OR unusual". To be prohibited by the Constitution a punishment must be both, not simply cruel, not simply unusual. Nor should unusual be taken as a synonym for rare or uncommon. No form of capital punishment should or can be common or frequent because no society could long endure a situation where murder is so continual and pervasive that there are hangings every day in every village and town. (Though one must admit that Chicago, cursed as it is by 70-plus years of uninterrupted Democratic autocracy is getting very close to the Hobbesian State of Nature.)
Nitrogen is not flammable, so it is a safe gas.
I don't really understand the need to keep the executed calm. I believe we got rid of the Nazi's at Nuremberg swiftly with hanging.
We didn't give a fuck if they were calm.
The Saudi's have executioners with a sword. I think this is mostly for display, and it is a messy execution, with blood shooting all over the place. They have to use sawdust ever time they kill someone to soak it up.
They have to import sawdust, because there is no lumber industry in the desert.
Hanging is good for letting the prisoner know he is being punished. Gas is like ice cream, and why should we give them a treat?
There are very few executions each year.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-year
There are thousands of people on "death" row, but very few are executed.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/sep/21/death-penalty-statistics-us
The most common forms of execution are probably cancer and heart disease.
Wouldn't it eliminate the whole cruelty argument if you just sneak up on them and shoot them in the head without any warning?
When hanging was the "prescribed medicine" for murder and treason in Great Britain the Crown sought to reduce the suffering of the condemned by surprising them. Instead of sitting in a cell with a calendar and a ticking clock in easy view, as in those Hollywood waiting-for-the-hangman fantasies, the condemned dined and slept in a small room adjoining the gallows chamber by a single soundproof door. On the appointed day and hour the hangman, a person the prisoner had never seen before, would enter the confinement room, quickly bind the prisoner's hands, escort him through the door to the gallows chamber, place the hood and the noose in position, and finally spring the trapdoor. The whole procedure could happen in as little as seven seconds. In France, the actual day and hour of execution were kept secret from the convict, and the guards who brought the condemned to the "national razor" walked in their stocking feet so as not to alarm the prisoner with the tramp of approaching boots outside his cell.
"The government is clearly abusing any power we give them and they are taking power that does not belong to them."
Blah, blah. This is an idiot level of abstraction. The "Government" is US. We "The People" are the Government.
And I got news for you charlie, if the Leftist seize control they will execute who they wish, no matter that the prior "Bourgeois Government" didn't.
The Bolsheviks were the biggest opponents of capital punishment in Czarist Russia. They executed millions when they got into power.
We don't use the death penalty enough.
The Aurora theater shooter is sitting in prison and he should be dead. His victims didn't get the choice. It's about retribution.
The death penalty is the ultimate deterrent. A human life aborted is precluded from repeating an elective abortion, ever again. The only only consideration is that a life deemed in social/legal violation may be innocent of the charge. Still, the modern culture errs on the side of convenience, stability, and social progress. Perhaps the problem is that capital punishment is performed without a veil of privacy and is disruptive to feelings and commerce.
In Biblical times, the citizens executed the criminals.
I don't know they time period, but somewhat later societies began using religious professionals, then later still, governments became involved.
An execution can only be viable if the government has the willingness to perform the function. If they refuse, the people will take their own responsibility, and the rule of law will suffer. Evil requires convictions to do Gods commandments.
If the government is willing to draft citizens and send them to their deaths, then they can step up to the plate and send citizens to die in their prisons.
Executions should be perform by family members of the person that they killed. Any way that they want.
Yes.
The Bolsheviks were the biggest opponents of capital punishment in Czarist Russia. They executed millions
They were feminists before they were male chauvinist pigs. They reconciled on the side of social progress a la great leaps, etc.
Unproven? Please don't use scientific words that you don't understand, NYT.
Executions should be perform by family members of the person that they killed.
The violation was committed against the individual and society. The individual, outside of an immediate frame, does not commonly look for retributive change, but rather for closure. Deferring responsibility to the individual may be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
I don't care if the death penalty is a deterrent or not. In cases of mass murder - the perp should die.
BTW, if you work in certain industries, you're well of aware of enclosed space entry rules. Improper clearance and entry kills people every year. First you set up the entry area. Then, open it up. Send in the explosive gas detector to ensure combustible gasses are below the LEL (lower explosive limit), then the gas analyzer to make sure 1. enough oxygen 2. Non-lethal amounts of CO and CO2.
Witnesses to enclosed space accidents all pretty much say the same thing. "He walked in and that was that."
There's never been a justice system that didn't put innocents to death or in prison.
Yes, that's my point precisely; we are in violent agreement. When we contemplate how to mitigate the inevitable errors the state will make dispensing justice, we must remember that imprisonment is reversible, while execution is not. As Ernie told us on Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the other."
Can we admit that life imprisonment serves the same ends and costs a lot less?
Your claim, how about you support it?
In CA, it costs $71,000 per year today to incarcerate a prisoner, and even vastly more for those on death row (I suppose they are really violent people, and so it costs over twice as much to incarcerate these folks).
The median age of a muderer is 25. The average life expectancy of a male is 78.
53 years in prison * $71,000 is $3.76 million per murderer.
Leftists have made incarcerating prisoners in CA so expensive that it is now cheaper to execute the murderers.
The NYTs says that Nitrogen is not used to euthanize pets. Fortunately, they also point out that different species react differently to lack of oxygen, and so what may be humane for humans may not be humane for your Chihuahua.
Normally, I would love a factoid like that, but what's the purpose of bringing that up in a times article? The only reason I can think is to give a specious argument to anti-death penalty folks. Discussing with their friends, they can say "But it's so cruel they won't even use it to euthanize pets."
In other words, they want to arm their readers with a lie rather than providing rational arguments. I say "Fake News."
sykes. 1,
I can see no reason why I should care whether a murderer is literate or not. What matters is what you did, not whether you can read your lawyer's brief.
Personally, I think N2 is a great idea. And it need not involve medical personnel -- all that's needed is someone to turn a valve. The gas itself is dirt-cheap, the process is (from all accounts) painless, death is swift.
There are only two categories of people who object to this: Those who really object to all capital punishment on principle (many of whom do not actually say so, but find things to object to in every proposed method), and those who don't think N2 poisoning is nearly cruel enough. I don't belong to either group. I think murderers deserve death, but as painless as possible, and this is just the ticket.
Earnest Prole,
Imprisonment is not reversible. Time served is time not spent doing other things, like living a normal life. You don't get back the years you spent in prison and get to live them over again.
Yes, yes, I get your point: Once a man's dead (and it practically always is a man, yes?), you can't bring him back, whereas if someone else confesses to his crime after he's spent 25 years locked up, you can always let him out. But the 25 years are also lost.
I know it’s already been stated here, but I can’t resist the urge to pile on.
High levels of nitrogen gas do not kill. We already with each breath inhale approximately 78% nitrogen I’d say that’s a pretty high level.
Rather it’s the removal of the approximately 20% oxygen from each breath that kills.
Accidental deaths usually occur when a substantial amount of liquid nitrogen is spilled in a confined space, and the human occupants of that space have no physical indicator to alert them that they are now breathing nearly 100% nitrogen, and nearly 0% oxygen.
They do not seek safety, as they are completely unaware of the imminent danger of just taking one more oxygen free breath.
Can we admit that life imprisonment serves the same ends and costs a lot less?
If it does cost a lot less (and I'm skeptical), it's only because we've made the death penalty artificially expensive.
And life imprisonment doesn't serve the same ends. The prisoner can do a lot of damage, either within prison or by escaping. And it's a lesser punishment, so it doesn't serve the end of giving the harshest punishment possible.
Leftists have made incarcerating prisoners in CA so expensive that it is now cheaper to execute the murderers.
The only reason executing those sentenced to death is expensive is because of:
A) The endless and often automatic appeals of those sentenced to death.
and
B) The obsession with not causing pain to those executed.
Now I understand the drive to ensure that those sentenced to death are indeed guilty and deserving of death. But we must remember that not every murderer is sentenced to death. I'd be willing to restrict it to mass murderers, those convicted of multiple murders/rapes and those who kill through torture. Also let's all be willing to admit that most of the delay is a deliberate tactic by those opposed to the death penalty at all to make the death penalty too expensive and time consuming to occur very often if at all.
However the drive to make execution pain free baffles me. I wouldn't support deliberate cruelty or something unusual, there's a reason those are forbidden by the Constitution. But death by hanging cannot be cruel or unusual. The men who forbid cruel and unusual hung men on a regular basis. Hanging done well is painless. (and cheap...you can even re-use the rope and the gallows) If that doesn't suit you, an earlier band of Leftists solved the problem for us....the Guillotine. That machine was invented to be a painless form of execution.
When we contemplate how to mitigate the inevitable errors the state will make dispensing justice, we must remember that imprisonment is reversible, while execution is not.
I am not aware of (and they have been searching very hard for a very long time) a documented case of an innocent person being mistakenly executed in the U.S. in modern times.
I suggest a 9mm. Cheap, easy and painless.
Ron, how would you know?
We could drop a two-ton weight on them from a crane. Squish them like a bug.
Sincerely, though, Christians don't support capital punishment.
Beyond the DNA exoneration of innocent men, it’s been shocking to see how unprincipled many prosecutors can be.
it’s been shocking to see how unprincipled many prosecutors can be.
Now THIS is true. While I believe that use of the death penalty should be radically increased and streamlined, ie walk out of the courtroom and into the courtyard where it happens, it is truer than true that we are seeing the hair on the cookie with this current system of unlimited and unaccountable police and prosecutorial powers. The only redress I can think of is that if a prosecutor railroads somebody and is caught, that they get the same sentence. Or at least withdraw their immunity.
The guillotine is also quick and relatively painless. Your head is chopped off in a nanosecond. Instant separation of spinal cord from body.
...
I’ve watched a goat being guillotined at Kalighat recently. The head fell a yard from my feet. In my opinion, looking in its eyes, it lived for at least five seconds. Possibly more.
Time, as we understand it, is progressive (i.e. monotonic), and can never be recovered.
Planned Prisoner
Sincerely, though, Christians don't support capital punishment.
Nonsense. Jesus never said a word against it. And there were plenty of opportunities.
Beyond the DNA exoneration of innocent men
As of a few years ago, there never was a case that proved an innocent man was executed. The evidence was always inconclusive. Many people don't understand what DNA evidence proves. Or doesn't.
Nonsense. Jesus never said a word against it. And there were plenty of opportunities.
You're being sarcastic, right? That's a stunningly silly statement of course, because you can't possibly know this. It's right up there with the notion that Christ endorsed capital punishment because He allowed Himself to be crucified.
You're being sarcastic, right?
No. We have the gospels and Jesus never once said that they didn't have the right to take a human life. He supported the power of State--Render to Caesar and all that. When the other condemned prisoner hanging on a cross next to him said "We deserve it, but" Jesus had a perfect opportunity to say that no one deserves this. But he didn't. Earlier, he told many parables where a master put people to death, or ordered it, or threatened it-- and he never disputed that right. Jesus came to die for our sin, yes. But he never spoke out about others being executed and there were plenty of opportunities.
> But death by hanging cannot be cruel or unusual.
It might be. Does a hanged person immediately become unconscious, or is it equivalent to suffocating to death? In other words, is the snapped neck to make the viewer less uncomfortable. Suffocating to death cannot be a pleasant experience.
Your church, whatever it is, has been infiltrated by the Left. Lefties always want to avoid what they have earned. Christians never disputed the right of legal authority to take a life, until the recent times.
Now, I'm going by what Jesus did say--according to everything we have available now. You may be going by the great book of things he didn't say or were never recorded--which is so much larger and getting larger every day.
As of a few years ago, there never was a case that proved an innocent man was executed. The evidence was always inconclusive.
The evidence has indeed proved inconclusive. What's incontrovertible is that many convicted of murder and sentenced to life were later proved innocent by DNA evidence, including a man recently set free after 38 years of imprisonment because the actual killer was the Golden State Night Stalker. Reading about the prosecution's half-assed case was sobering. When our prosecutors become worthier of our trust then I may be open to supporting the death penalty again.
"rhhardin said...
"Some murder mystery put carbon monoxide in oxygen lines, the deal being to make it undetectable in autopsy."
Hardly. The tissues will have a tell-tale cherry-red color. Not present in 100% of all cases, but still, a murderer can't count on it being undetectable.
There was a case in Chicago, some years ago, where two young boys were suspected by police of murdering a ten-year old girl, riding her "new" used bike. Police were stumped because the girl's ears, nose, and mouth were stuffed with carefully folded leaves. After long questioning, the boys admitted that they were jealous of the girl's new bike--and that she had been taunting them about it, and admitted taking a brick lying in a vacant lot and smashing her head. When asked about the leaves, they told police about a manga they watched when leaves were used to prevent the person becoming a spirit. Later DNA from sperm was found in the body and the kid's parents hired a big lawyer to sue the city. Supporters said the DNA proved the boys innocence. The man who raped the girl said she was dead--he had seen the kids fooling with something on the ground before leaving and he went there to investigate. Were the kids innocent? What does the DNA prove?
But death by hanging cannot be cruel or unusual.
The reason why death by hanging can't be characterized as cruel and unusual is that when the men who banned cruel and unusual punishment did so, execution by hanging was pretty much universally accepted and was not controversial.
The reason why death by hanging can't be characterized as cruel and unusual
is that the prior method of hanging intentionally went for slow strangulation. And taunting by the crowd. It was meant to be slow, humiliating, and painful.
The new, "scientific" hanging took into account the weight of the condemned and the length of the rope drop was set to produce a broken neck and swift death. No, it didn't always go as planned. But it was less cruel than the former practice and much better than first- hanging strangulation, followed by cutting the stomach and ripping out the intestines, then beheading with a small knife.
I think the death penalty is over-applied, but only an idiot would leave a person alive with nothing left to lose. As long as one can still lose his or her life, there is leverage even on a person sentenced to life without parole.
rhhardin said...”Maybe you feel blue.”
Funny because blue is the designated color for nitrogen atoms in molecular modeling.
This is all about anti-death penalty stuff. End of story.
Sorry if I did not read your comment if you said the same thing.
If we're trying to find a method of death that is instantaneous, crushing the head with a very large, heavy weight would seem to do the trick. I think a steel cube of about 500 pounds dropped about a yard (or a meter for you Europhiles and STEM majors) richt onto someone's noggin would do the trick.
The observers might be a bit grossed out, but to live is to suffer.
Only the dead know true peace.
Achilles @ 11:59am,
"We should not grant [the state] this power"
Very well; I'd like it back, then.
"I’ve watched a goat being guillotined at Kalighat recently. The head fell a yard from my feet. In my opinion, looking in its eyes, it lived for at least five seconds. Possibly more."
It could have "lived" for more than 5 seconds, but it didn't feel any pain. Not without a spinal cord attached.
Give them an ounce or less of propofol and in thirty seconds you can do whatever you want and they'll never know.
Post a Comment