Slashdot Mirror


Oklahoma Says It Will Now Use Nitrogen Gas As Its Backup Method of Execution

schwit1 writes Yesterday, Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin signed into law a bill that approves the use of nitrogen gas for executions in the state. The method, which would effectively asphyxiate death row inmates by forcing them to breathe pure nitrogen through a gas mask, is meant to be the primary alternative to lethal injection, the Washington Post reports.

Fallin and other supporters of the procedure say it's pain-free and effective, noting that the nitrogen would render inmates unconscious within ten seconds and kill them in minutes. It's also cheap: state representatives say the method only requires a nitrogen tank and a gas mask, but financial analysts say its impossible to give precise figures, the Post reports.

Oklahoma's primary execution method is still lethal injection, but the state's procedure is currently under review by the Supreme Court. Earlier this week, Tennessee suspended executions statewide following challenges to its own lethal injection protocol.

97 of 591 comments (clear)

  1. Idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We kill people because they kill people. So who kills the people who kill people because they killed people when we find out they didn't actually kill anyone?

    1. Re: Idiotic by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Killing terrorists isn't so much as judgement as it is a confirmed method of neutralizing a threat that poses a clear a present danger. Otherwise, we wouldn't be incarcerating them in the first place. I'm sure many soldiers would be better off not capturing them in the first place as it puts their own lives in danger to do so.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Idiotic by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is also illegal to kidnap people and hold them against their will.

      So what do you do to someone that kidnapped people and held them against their will?

      Throw them in prison where you'll forcibly imprison them in a place they don't want to be.

      Your citation of hypocrisy makes no logical sense. Wouldn't taxation be stealing under your logic? After all, you are compelled by force to give money you don't want to give them in many cases.

      So on and so forth.

      Executions are not murder. Why? There was a trial. Same reason imprisonment isn't kidnapping. There was a trial.

      If you conflate an execution with a murder then you are suggesting that the trial had no meaning and if it trials have no meaning then every official government action through the courts is no different from when anyone just grabs someone and does the same thing to them.

      Either you admit your error or you're effectively advocating anarchy. At which point there is no law. We'd live in some mad max post apocalyptic hell hole in a week if we followed this to its logical conclusion.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Idiotic by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you conflate an execution with a murder then you are suggesting that the trial had no meaning

      No, that does not follow. The verdict can have meaning even if the sentencing doesn't.

    4. Re: Idiotic by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      I say let the sit in prison.

      And on their dime too.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:Idiotic by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, execution lets the convicted person off the hook the easy way compared to a lifetime of incarceration.

      That's irrelevant, as the justice system is not to be a method for taking revenge, but to make society a better place to live in, with less crime.

      The death sentence is flawed for other reasons. Almost all murders happen either in affect, or in a situation where the perpetrator thinks he can get away with it. In either case, having the death penalty will have no effect on whether a murder will happen or not. And it might lead to more murders, because if there's a death penalty in place, the perpetrator has nothing to lose by killing witnesses, cops, or anyone else who might get them arrested, now or in the future. The rational decision for them is to do anything not to get caught, including more murders.

      Also, the costs of a death row inmate by far exceeds the costs of a long term imprisonment. (This is particularly true in the states that allow prison slave labor - which has a high correlation to the states that allow capital punishment). The many rounds of appeals that a death sentence automatically trigger cost a heck of a lot more than the room and board.

      Then there are the cases of people who have been wrongly executed. One case is one too many. And a peer-reviewed study shows that as many as 4% of people convicted to die are likely innocent.
      Unless there's a way to bring people back to life again, that in itself should be enough to put a stop to it.
      But the unwashed masses want panem et circenses, and revenge, not justice. So the show goes on. And innocent people die.

    6. Re: Idiotic by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you propose a person with a life sentence pay for his incarceration without employment? Put him in jail until he pays??

    7. Re:Idiotic by killkillkill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you can get an appeal. If the evidence against you wasn't fabricated or "overstated".

      I can confidently say that there are crimes so horrible that the death penalty is appropriate for. The problem is you can't undo the punishment if the criminal justice system is found to have made a mistake. How do you objectively measure the level of perceived doubt of guilt between McVeigh and the innocent individuals who have likely been executed? Until we can prosecute with 100% certainty, I can't support executing a convicted criminal.

    8. Re:Idiotic by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.

      Except that one of them is irreversible.
      A -> B vs A -> B, X? B-> A

      By your comprehension of logic, there is no logical difference between my beating you and my beating you to death either.

    9. Re:Idiotic by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      Your argument is OK as far as it goes. But I believe the OP did make a point, while kind of vague, about asking who executes who if you execute an innocent man? It has happened more than once in the past. And we constantly see people exonerated who were convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death after a trial. So who do we execute if the trial finds that an innocent person should be executed and it happens? Do we execute the jury? The judge? The police? The prosecutor? The defense? Any of them? None of them? Why?

      For what it's worth, I don't have too much of a problem doing away with someone for murder when it is absolutely for certain that they caught the real bad guy. But I don't like it dragging on for years, and I don't like it done humanely behind walls. Make it horrible and in public. That way everyone sees what's up. Out of sight out of mind need not apply here. And for me, if an innocent person is executed, find out why and execute the people responsible... but at least one of them has to be an official... even if it includes jury members. That would have made trials of blacks by all white juries in the south more entertaining. Let them wear their uniforms while swinging. It would look like putting out the bed sheets on the line.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    10. Re:Idiotic by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imprisonment is irreversible too. Go ahead and see if you can give someone the years of their life back, the skills they lost, their previous psychological state, their job, their wife and friends they may have lost.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    11. Re:Idiotic by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not so convinced. I didn't mod the post, but I don't think I would have used points on it either way.

      That's irrelevant, as the justice system is not to be a method for taking revenge, but to make society a better place to live in, with less crime.

      This is just a bald assertion of the purpose of the justice system, with no source or explanation. Some people do see the justice system as a method for taking revenge, which is better than having the victims of crime and their families take revenge. I know I feel a need for revenge when someone wrongs my family members. Everyone knows where that leads.

      The rational decision for them is to do anything not to get caught, including more murders.

      This might be true, but taking the death penalty off the table will not make this problem go away. If the maximum penalty is life in prison, and a person has already committed crimes to warrant a life sentence, isn't the "rational decision for them is to do anything not to get caught, including more murders."? So this was a flawed argument.

      Unless there's a way to bring people back to life again, that in itself should be enough to put a stop to it.

      Again, changing the punishment to life incarceration doesn't make the problem go away. If you put someone in jail for life, and then at the end of his life, find out he wasn't guilty, what do you do then? Press the reset button? No, the person's life is just as wasted, and there isn't much anyone can do. And if no one ever determines that the innocent person is innocent, then their life is completely wasted in prison, in my opinion. So, because we might punish the innocent, do we stop handing out long sentences? There is no perfect system, period. If we want to punish anyone, we have to accept a level of mistakes. Is 4% to high? I don't know. What about .4%? All of that said, I do agree with arth1 that executing one innocent person is too many, just not for the reasons arth1 gives.

      --
      Join the IParty!
    12. Re:Idiotic by binarstu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Either you admit your error or you're effectively advocating anarchy. At which point there is no law. We'd live in some mad max post apocalyptic hell hole in a week if we followed this to its logical conclusion.

      That is a great example of the slippery slope logical fallacy. So in your view, if we (i.e., our society) were to reject the death penalty because we decide it is immoral and hypocritical, then the only logically consistent position is to reject all law entirely, which will lead to the inevitable consequence of a lawless, anarchic society.

      In case the absurdity of that is not obvious, consider this: The European Union summarily rejects capital punishment as "cruel and inhuman". In other words, as an instrument of justice, it is immoral and cannot ever be justified, no matter how heinous an offender's crimes. Guided by this premise, many EU states have banned capital punishment for decades. Yet, in no case has this led to a subsequent total rejection of the rule of law, and it doesn't appear that any of these countries are on the brink of anarchy.

      Your entire argument rests squarely on the unstated assumption that the purpose of the criminal justice system is tit for tat revenge. You might see it that way, but many of us do not. Take away that assumption, and there is no logical conflict at all with rejecting the death penalty because it is inhumane and hypocritical while also supporting a functional justice system with the power to enforce laws and impose penalties.

      Sure, a simple statement like "killing people is illegal, ergo the state is hypocritical if it kills people" is not very insightful. But if one accepts the notion that state-sanctioned execution is "cruel and inhuman", then it is perfectly reasonable to wish for a government that does not try to protect its citizens by threatening them with cruel and inhuman punishment.

      Finally, since you like slippery slopes, why not take your own reasoning to its "logical conclusion"? Your arguments lead to the conclusion that any sort of punishment is acceptable as long as it is preceded by a trial. Do you really believe that? Or do you believe that certain kinds of punishment are never appropriate, even if their use would not be "hypocritical" (by your criteria) for certain kinds of crime?

    13. Re:Idiotic by arth1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      How many prison sentences have been reversed after the last appeal was over ?

      Quite a few. Like when new exculpatory evidence comes to light, like someone else confessing, or recanting the testimony that led to the conviction, or new or improved technologies can determine innocence.

      According to the Death Penalty Information Center, from 1973 until today, 152 people have been exonerated after being sentenced to death. Unfortunately, many of them were executed before being exonerated.
      Without the death sentence, many more innocents would be alive.

    14. Re:Idiotic by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.

      Except that one of them is irreversible.

      You think imprisonment is reversible?
      Anyway, regardless of one's stance, everyone should really read this before forming their opinion on death sentences...

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    15. Re:Idiotic by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.

      Okay, but if one is of the opinion (as I am) that murder is always wrong, then saying "well we held this trail so now this is legal" does not change the moral argument one bit.

      I do not believe any state anywhere should be i the business of killing its citizenry except in cases where it's absolutely required to protect others from harm. It's as simple as that.

      If the state LACKS evidence, they resort to imprisonment next.

      So? How does this justify the use of death penalty again? Sure, the state can imprison people more easily than it can execute them, but this doesn't make executions reasonable or acceptable.

      In any case, I'd love to hear why executions are illegitimate in any kind of logical or rational sense. The only position that is going to argue against an execution is going to be an ideological one.

      This is absolute bullshit. There are several rational reasons to be opposed to the capital punishment:
      a) It doesn't work in reducing crime
      b) In the cases where wrongful convictions occur (as they will) the sentences are irrevocable, leading to the cruel fact that the State will sooner or later kill an innocent person (and it already has)
      c) Ir costs more than a life in prison, while achieving no added benefits to the society at large, in fact it only has downsides

      Really the only purpose death penalty achieves is to quench the thirst for revenge that people have, and the basis of any justice system should not be revenge, but rather sensible laws and punishments which help reduce crime and keep the society safe. But even if you disagree with most of this for some reason, b alone should be enough to make any rational human being realize why capital punishment has been abandoned in most countries in the world: even if the margin of error is extremely small, as long as it is greater than 0 (and it is, according to some studies quoted here it's as high as 4 %), it means that sooner or later the state will execute an innocent person. Now, that is something that should never happen. Yes, wrongful prison convictions happen too, but even if one spends 20 years in jail for a crime one did not commit, it is superior to being dead..

      So yes, you do have opinions too, but your opinions are based on faulty reasoning and a very twisted notion of what the justice system should do (hint: the answer should never be "kill innocent people by accident)..

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    16. Re:Idiotic by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      Well that's a valid criticism however you haven't limited your statements.

      Why is this only relevant in executions but not anywhere else? Why can't I apply your argument to everything else?

      The problem is that you may be trying to eat your cake and have it too. That is the core of my actual argument. Not a slippery slope argument. I am instead accusing you of hypocrisy. Because you're applying this logic on one specific context and no where else.

      That makes no sense unless you justify your exclusive use of that argument in only one place.

      Can you do that?

      As to you saying that I assume the justice system is about tit for tat revenge... nope. And I don't need to elaborate on that unless you elaborate your claim further.

      Next, why must I accept that state sanctioned killing is either cruel or inhumane? What is your basis for that? And I'll repeat that police officers are empowered to kill people if they feel it is necessary to protect public safety or bring a dangerous criminal in. Hell, the criminal doesn't even need to be dangerous.

      Lets say I steel bananas. That's all do. I steel about 2000 bananas a day and I eat some and toss the rest all over the place. Because this is a silly criminal. No one is really hurt but bananas are destroyed at a prodigious rate and there is a consistent mess. Let us say for the sake of argument that you could not stop me unless you were willing to kill me. I don't know... Let us just say magic as the reason. You can stop me but you have to kill me.

      What are you going to do? Are you going to let me destroy bananas forever and make a silly mess? Or are you going to put a police officer out there that will give me an ultimatum to stop... and when I fail to stop, he will shoot me in the face?

      Don't answer that, because we both know that the banana villian would eat a bullet to the face because eventually it would be too annoying. And people would salve their guilt by saying "well we warned him" and "isn't it tragic" and after all the police officer was TRYING to arrest the banana fiend. But the thing is society at some level makes the choice that its laws are non-negotiable. And if someone says "make me", society has two choices... it can either say "oh really?" and make him... or it can puss out and have its laws mean nothing.

      That isn't a slippery slope by the way. That instantly happens. It isn't one thing leading to another that leads to another. That is instant fucking cause and effect.

      So what does that mean? It means you're either assuming the right to make laws and judge people or you're not.

      Which is it? Are you prepared to make life and death choices or not?

      Choose now. Because if you're not willing to assume that authority then someone else or no one else has it. Either way you're just abdicating responsibility to something else that will pick up the slack.

      Here is why I'm okay with executions:

      1. What is the point of any punishment or sentence by a court?
      1a. It is part an incentive either to the individual being sentenced or to the public at large to not break that law again.
      1b. It is to address the central problem of the crime such that justice has been served. Such as returning stolen property to its rightful owner, or seeing that damages to the plaintiff have been made sufficient to recompense them.
      1c. It has to logistically serve the interests of the society and the state. You can't have trials for parking tickets span decades. Or have the state and society ultimately be unduly inconvenienced by the various needs of criminals.
      1d. Ultimately the point of any justice system is to see the consequences of their behavior land on their own shoulders. That does not mean eye for an eye or revenge. It means that the damage that a person does is paid as much as possible by the guilty.

      Wow... I was thinking about doing a three parter or something but I'm just going to stick with this one issue because honestly I'll write a book.

      As to 1a, criminals don't like to be execu

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    17. Re:Idiotic by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      death penalty:

      for the innocent it's too cruel and for the guilty it's too easy.

      it's just a revenge fest really. it used to be a public show and it still is to some extent.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    18. Re:Idiotic by dave420 · · Score: 2

      You are saying it's fine to kill someone in your custody, who is already incapable of ever committing another crime against the general public. It's not first world childishness, it's being a logical, compassionate human being. Your argument boils down to one of hatred and fear, and it is not becoming.

    19. Re: Idiotic by Pseudonym · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Precisely what problem does execution solve that "life without possibility" doesn't?

      It's certainly not cost; executing someone costs far more than life does.

      If it's prison overcrowding that's the issue, we have better ways to manage that, like not incarcerating so many non-violent offenders.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    20. Re:Idiotic by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      I don't really see a criminals behavior changing if there isn't a death penalty [...]

      Well, there's always the broken windows theory. If we live in a society where it's normal to believe that some people don't deserve to live, this could (in theory) result in more homicide.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    21. Re:Idiotic by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Interesting

      if a murderer should be released or escape from prison

      I've never understood this argument. If a murderer is legally released, that should mean that on our best evidence, we believe the offender is unlikely to reoffend, or that we didn't have sufficient evidence to incarcerate them in the first place. In either case, having executed them first is an abomination.

      As for the escape argument, saying that we should kill people because the prison system sucks at its primary job isn't exactly the most persuasive line of thinking I've ever heard. (Or is the argument that we should pre-punish inmates for escaping before they do?) That's quite apart from the fact that almost exactly nobody escapes from correctional institutions these days; they're pretty much all from work release or work camps.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    22. Re:Idiotic by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You think imprisonment is reversible?

      Less irreversible than execution. Also, it's easier for a person to sue for tons of money for wrongful incarceration than for the estate of a person to sue for tons of money due to wrongful execution.

      And suing for lots of money is necessary to motivate the voters/taxpayers to keep the rate of wrongful convictions down. If wrongful convictions aren't freakishly expensive, there's no motivation.

    23. Re:Idiotic by Kiuas · · Score: 2

      First, we have various law breakers that have to be killed to be brought down. You can't even arrest them. So you don't try. You kill them.

      This is a different situation and I addressed it already. Yes, there are cases when lethal force is required to neutralize someone wo is a threat to others, nobody is denying that. My argument was and is that executions are needless killings, as nothing beneficial is achieved via them as compared to life imprisonment for reasons I have already listed.

      The courts officiate over life and death all the time with or without a death penalty. IF you're saying they are unsuitable to make such judgements then I question why they're doing it all the time.

      No, I'm not saying they're unsuitable to make such judgements but I'm saying that because the system makes mistakes, it's better if those mistakes (that are inevitable) lead to innocent people being incarcerated rather than killed, I think I was fairly clear on this. I'm also saying that since data shows that executing people costs more and doesn't help keep the crime rate down any more than life imprisonment does, it doesn't benefit the society at all.

      You feel you have a right to lock me a box for 50 years but you don't have a right to shoot me? How do you figure that?

      No, I don't have the right to do any of those things. But if you do something which proves you to be a danger to me and other people around you, then we have to make sure that danger is controlled. Incarceration is least harmful to the individual in question, and most people would rather be alive and incarcerated rather than dead. Hence most nations have opted to discard the capital punishment. If you argue that you'd rather be dead than incarcerated for life, that's alright, you're within your rights to self-terminate and I think people serving a life sentence should be given that option.

      As to how I justify killing someone... again... justify imprisoning someone for 50 years

      See above.

      That is full disclosure. I'm letting you peak inside my brain. That is what I see

      And why that is I do not knoq, because it should be obvious to anyone that killing someone and imprisoning them are not equivocal things, nor should any rational person treat them as such.

      Ask any culture outside of our privileged bubble what they think of this issue and they're going to come down the on the side of executions

      Except they won't. The countries and cultures employing capital punishment have long since been in the minority in the world. The vast majority of people globally oppose capital punishment.

      I don't understand how killing a dude is going to make him less likely to unsavory things.

      That is not what I said. I said that the capital punsihment doesn't work in reducing crime. I meant it overall. Areas with capital punishment have higher rates of violent crime than areas without it. It doesn't work a sa deterrent. Again, surely it prevents the individual from doing more crimes, but so does life imprisonment and again, with zero risk of killing innocent people by accident.

      But if that's the case then why not kill them? They're clearly damaged beyond all recovery and can't be allowed to remain in society. Why am I feeding this person?

      It's cheaper to you to feed and clothe said prisoenr for the rest of his life in prison than it is to go through the trouble of executing him, so the 'why am I feeding thisd person' argument makes no logical sense. You're achieving no enefit in killing them other than exacting vengeance; you're spending more of society's resources just for the sake of fulfilling a sense of revenge, which to me is outright stupid, no matter how 'beyond repair' this indicidual is,

      A

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    24. Re:Idiotic by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      ... And if no one ever determines that the innocent person is innocent, then their life is completely wasted in prison, in my opinion.

      Quite a few great works of literature were penned in prison.

      Prison - by definition - limits what you can do, but whether you waste your life or not is up to you.

    25. Re:Idiotic by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At least it's honest, and actually provides some deterrent^Wentertainment value. Good old-fashioned barbarism has its advantages.

      The reason that we don't still do public executions is that they don't provide deterrent value.

    26. Re:Idiotic by houghi · · Score: 2

      4%? Holy fuck! It should not be unreasonable that this number is higher with others (because it is even scarier to think that it would be higher with people who are in death row), but let us assume that this is the average:
      2,266,800 in Incarceration in the US. That means 90.672 people innocently in prison.

      That is a LOT of inncocent people. That means also a LOT of innocent bystanders, like wifes and children.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    27. Re:Idiotic by man_the_king · · Score: 2

      Here's a thought: Why not give someone who is convicted of such major crimes the choice between life imprisonment or death?

  2. Stupid by Whiteox · · Score: 2

    FFS! What is the accepted definition of execution? Does it involve pain or discomfort?
    What's wrong with anesthesia?

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    1. Re:Stupid by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anesthesia is essentially what is being done, only on a larger scale. The problem is the companies who make the drugs do not allow them to be used for executions.

      As to pain and discomfort, the Constitution forbids it so no, you can't use a chainsaw.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem States are having is that companies refuse to sell the drugs to the States because of sanctions imposed on them by the EU. You can get nitrogen anywhere.

    3. Re:Stupid by MrKevvy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with using anesthesia is that organizations (the largest of which is the EU) forbids selling anything used in executions. So states that use anesthetics to execute the condemned will find they may be then unable to purchase the same anesthetics for use in hospitals. Nitrogen, being ~80% of the atmosphere, can't possibly be restricted.

      FWIW I am completely against capital punishment, and for why one need look no further than the recent admission by the FBI that they were biased to decide a match in forensic hair analysis, which may have led to up to 14 wrongful executions. However some barbaric states are just going to continue to do it anyways, so they may as well do is as humanely as possible.

      --
      -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
    4. Re:Stupid by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with using anesthesia is that organizations (the largest of which is the EU) forbids selling anything used in executions. So states that use anesthetics to execute the condemned will find they may be then unable to purchase the same anesthetics for use in hospitals.

      Which leads to an obvious question: Isn't the U.S. capable of producing its own anesthetics? At least the ones used for executions which should no longer be covered by patents?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    5. Re:Stupid by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      As to pain and discomfort, the Constitution forbids it

      It actually forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Being shot by a firing squad or hung are likely painful albeit very temporarily so. The French Guillotine was invented to be a humane execution device. People these days are looking for the perfect mix of humane and sanitary.

    6. Re:Stupid by compro01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which leads to an obvious question: Isn't the U.S. capable of producing its own anesthetics? At least the ones used for executions which should no longer be covered by patents?

      Sure they could, but there's basically no market for it.

      The established European companies have the legitimate-medical-uses market sown up, so that just leaves the killing-people market, which is really damn small, so they'd never even make back their investment, much less make a profit on it.

      It would be possible to whomp up a government-owned corporation or government division to do it and not care about the cost, but the free market mania that the Republicans running the states that still do executions subscribe to probably wouldn't allow that or even have it occur to them.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    7. Re:Stupid by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People these days are looking for the perfect mix of humane and sanitary.

      I don't think anyone cares about "humane and sanitary". The people that want it abolished, want it abolished completely. The people in favor, tend to think shooting or hanging are fine. So we have "humane and sanitary" as a compromise that nobody really wants.

    8. Re:Stupid by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      at what point will enough of the world forbid capital punishment will it become an "unusual" way of dealing with crime?

      It is already unusual. There are only three main groups that still execute people:
      1. Muslims
      2. East Asians.
      3. Americans.
      This page has a map.

    9. Re: Stupid by CodeArtisan · · Score: 2

      The live ones can be set free if it turns out to be a wrongful conviction. The dead ones...not so much.

    10. Re: Stupid by penix1 · · Score: 2

      The problem States are having is that companies refuse to sell the drugs to the States because of sanctions imposed on them by the EU.

      Oh come on now. That isn't even bullshit. It is horse shit.

      The drug companies that produce the drugs used for execution realized that their drugs, which were originally designed to save lives, was being used to take lives. Every statement made by those companies state that. In other words, they made a moral judgement that they didn't want to be seen as providing death on one hand and life on the other. Sure, the EU pharmacies were the first to refuse but your statement doesn't take into account the American companies refusals.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    11. Re:Stupid by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      a compromise that nobody really wants.

      The problem is that something like nitrogen is too humane and sanitary. The people who want executions banned will be unable to show some guy twitching and flailing about to rally people to their cause, and the people who want firing squads and guillotines won't have some guy twitching and flailing about to appease their bloodlust.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    12. Re: Stupid by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh please; they just realized how the drugs were being used? Decades of repeated, public use and some executive finally picked up a newspaper? Give me a break. What actually happened is that they periodically reevaluated the amount of money they made off sales versus the PR hit they took for making those sales and eventually the numbers tipped in a new direction.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    13. Re:Stupid by davidwr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The people in favor, tend to think shooting or hanging are fine.

      This isn't entirely correct.

      1) Hangings and firing squads aren't error-proof and that bothers some who favor the death penalty.

      2) There is something to be said for sanitary: The condemned prisoner's family didn't do anything wrong. Denying them a decent-looking body to bury is something that the state should avoid if possible. However, if the only legal (as determined by the SCOTUS) methods of execution result in a body that needs a lot of cleanup by the undertaker, that's tough cookies for the family.

      Having said all of this, I'm generally against the death penalty as it is applied in the United States:

      * Too many US states allow people to be condemned under the "law of parties," "murder during the commission of another felony," and for murders by people with no previous convictions for crimes that could have gotten them long prison terms. In almost all if not all of these cases, life-without-parole is a much more civilized punishment than death.

      * Too many US states also don't disallow the death penalty if there were mitigating circumstances like an IQ only slightly higher than that of a mentally retarded person, a person who is young or immature but legally an adult, a person who is under the undue influence of someone else, mild- to-moderate mental impairments that would clearly benefit from the help of a mental health professional but which do not rise to the level of legal insanity, and the like.

      When a jury condemns someone to die, they are basically saying "we give up on you as a human being." I'm almost never willing to do this. In the few cases where I am, it says that I am less civilized than I would like to be.

      Assuming the guilty person has no extenuating circumstances, I am willing to recognize my lack of civility and recommend a death sentence for the principal actors (i.e. ringleader, top-lieutenants, and if they were truly free agents, the trigger-men) for things like large-scale "crimes against humanity" (dare I invoke Godwin's Law?) and for premeditated murder for the purpose of corrupting justice, such as to kill or intimidate a witness in a criminal case or intimidate other police (the ones who weren't killed) into resigning or looking the other way. I can also see it for people who commit (or arrange for) a murder while serving a life-without-parole sentence or while "on the run" after escaping prison while they are serving a life-without-parole sentence, on the grounds that without the threat of the death penalty they would be "free" to murder under the theory that "if you are willing to do the time, you are free to do the crime."

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    14. Re:Stupid by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 2

      I honestly don't see anything wrong with euthanizing people, if they have a terminal/incurable illness and are in pain to the point where living at all is misery to them. People in these situations often *want* to die, but the law won't let the doctors do it for them, and a lot of them end up doing it themselves.

    15. Re:Stupid by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nitrogen really is a good method. I learned about its use in this area when I read about 2 NASA(?) engineers who died right after a fuel tank was flushed with nitrogen. One walked into the middle of it for whatever reason and then collapsed, then the second went in to see what was wrong and he collapsed. They say it brings a bit of euphoria and then eternal sleep.

      CO2 works fine too, but the hand flapping and increased respiration attempts aren't real pretty to watch (though worrying about the aesthetics of how you kill someone is, um, just fucking weird). CO also works just fine - no hand flapping or straining to breath, but it also has aesthetic "issues".

      Note: I don't support state sanctioned murder - if for no other reason than the abysmal record the US has for justice - even when the condemned was actually guilty of the crime, the crime was arguably that of the state, not the condemned (homeowner shoots unarmed petty thief, petty thief that is not shot dead is convicted). I doubt there are many people outside the US that don't believe there is something extremely wrong with the self-appointed moral guardian of the world (life imprisonment for a joint, fines for giving out food, secret trade agreements that breach US sponsored International Human rights, etc, etc).

      If you can't bear to kill your 'criminal' by ripping off their heads with a rope tied to the back of a F100 you're just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty. And yes, there really are a large number of US 'citizens' that'd like (Facebook style) the F100 method (sadly it's not unique to the US), just look at the comments on /. from people cheering the idea of prison rape, or the human hemorrhoid that gets all excited at the idea of using liquid nitrogen and a hammer for state executions. On second thought - maybe state execution is the answer, just not for the people you put inside the cells of your prisons with the world's highest percentage of incarceration[*1].

      Disclaimer: I spent part of my youth in Missouri (pronounced "misery") within sight of Monsanto - it's not Denmark that reeks of something seriously rotten.

      [*1] I know.. (sigh), those that deny their ugly blood lust will point to statistically insignificant data from countries with populations of less than 100K, and simultaneously justify their own countries imprisonment rate, and their "right" to armed self-defense - whilst remaining blind to all the inherent contradictions. i.e. if your prison and justice system worked your 'citizens' wouldn't need guns, and you'd have the safest nation on earth. Roll on the triumph of optimism over experience like the Sherman tank of freedom, and whenever you lose a hand - double up.

    16. Re: Stupid by arth1 · · Score: 2

      That in mind. How the fuck does an America come up with all these execution methods, that don't involve just shooting them in the back of the head? If it doesn't kill them straight away, you just use a bigger round. It can't be that expensive. One gun, which you may already have, and a round of ammo.

      I think that the death penalty should be personally executed by the governor of the state that allows it, under a law that makes it murder subject to capital punishment if he or she ever executes an innocent. Since the governor has the authority to pardon a death penalty, he or she cannot claim coercion.
      Would Charlie Baker pull the trigger on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? Possibly.
      But would Greg Abbott pull the trigger on hundreds of people in Texas, knowing that 4 out of 100 people sentenced to death are statistically innocent? Very doubtful.

    17. Re:Stupid by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The two problems with the method, which is incidentally why it was not brought up, it is a very accessible means of suicide and that state is now promoting it and of course an effective murder method, again which the state is now advertising. Quite the blunder, just so it can keep killing people.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:Stupid by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      If you mean this map you might notice that the percentages are based on number of countries and not population. By population the statistics are very different.

      Although many nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the world's population live in countries where executions take place, such as China, India, the United States and Indonesia, the four most-populous countries in the world, which continue to apply the death penalty

    19. Re:Stupid by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      I would be very surprised to find that the patent on Zyklon B hadn't run out yet, and it's known to be very, very effective for this application.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    20. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, your point is that the worst countries have the most people? Or that it's ok to kill as long as the population is high?

    21. Re:Stupid by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Informative

      "What's wrong with anesthesia?"

      That was supposed to be the whole point of lethal injection using propofol, the most common surgical anesthetic. Everybody knows what propofol feels like (I had three procedures under it in 2014 alone), so execution with an overdose of it satisfies the Eighth Amendment test.

      But apparently our whole supply of it is made by one company in Germany, which hasdthreatened to withhold the entire US supply if it keeps being used for executions. This is what prompted the use of a variety of different anesthetic mixtures, some of them little tested for sensory effect (Eighth Amendment fitness) and today's host of lawsuits.

      Should we invoke the TRIPS agreement to bust patent and make our own propofol? Nitrogen satisfies the same "everybody knows wha it does" test without being in any way proprietary or endangering lucrative trade with the EU.

    22. Re:Stupid by oobayly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      CO2 works fine too, but the hand flapping and increased respiration attempts aren't real pretty to watch

      I'm pretty sure that the increased respiration attempts aren't enjoyable to endure either - the body senses heightened levels of CO2 as a sign of suffocation. Whereas CO simply attaches to red blood cells instead of O2, meaning there's no sense of suffocation.

    23. Re:Stupid by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, there is documentary evidence that the incumbent members of the justice administration consider it too humane.

      How to kill a human being is a documentary where a prominent British politician investigates the commonly used methods of execution.

      He concludes that the nitrogen method, used in abattoirs to kill pigs humanely, is ideal for human execution too. All the other methods have drawbacks. In particular, lethal injection is noted to be quite painful. In a country who's constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, this seems odd.

      Several members of the incumbent correctional organizations express the opinion that nitrogen asphyxiation isn't cruel enough because asphyxia induces a brief, mild, state of euphoria before the victim loses consciousness. They also seem of the opinion that the execution should make the target suffer before death to provide a sense of justice to the family of their victim.

      If the killers ... go out with a euphoric high, that is not justice [1]

      (and it's rumoured that Oklahoma is actually taking up nitrogen as an execution method after seeing this documentary).

    24. Re:Stupid by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

      But apparently our whole supply of it is made by one company in Germany, which hasdthreatened to withhold the entire US supply if it keeps being used for executions.

      It's not just that they threatened to: it's flat out illegal for them under EU (and therefore German---since they ratified the treaty) law. They risk criminal sanctions for doing so.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    25. Re:Stupid by DarkTempes · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you can't bear to kill your 'criminal' by ripping off their heads with a rope tied to the back of a F100 you're just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty.

      I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Even if you're against capital punishment you can still recognize the reality of the current situation and desire a better form of execution.

      It's quite simple, if you yourself were to be executed which method would you think is more humane? CO2 buildup is an extremely painful way to die, not just merely "aesthetics." CO poisoning is as well.
      In studies (google for them), nitrogen (or another inert gas) has been shown to be one of the most humane ways to kill any mammal.

      I, in fact, hope this sets a precedent and that states move to nitrogen gas as the primary method of execution. At least then the innocent people we kill wouldn't have to suffer while it's done.

    26. Re:Stupid by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      I think it's because only the Christian god is allowed to kill people.

      And the state, apparently. Plenty of Christians are a-okay with the death penalty.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  3. Exit bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's a pretty good method to die (not that I'm a huge fan of capital punishment). Wikipedia says Right-to-die groups recommend this form of suicide as certain, fast, and painless, according to a 2007 study.

  4. Maybe use helium by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Funny

    Helium, for the giggles. Plus, if there's a leak, you'll know it because people will sound like Donald Duck, whereas the first sign of a nitrogen leak is people passing out.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Maybe use helium by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, that would be very noble.

  5. Phrasing: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Does anyone doubt that the Tsarneavs were responsible for killing and maiming dozens? Timothy Mcveigh?"

    It's a little hard to ask him what he thinks about the Tsarneavs these days.

    1. Re:Phrasing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Does anyone doubt that the Tsarneavs were responsible for killing and maiming dozens? Timothy Mcveigh?"

      It's a little hard to ask him what he thinks about the Tsarneavs these days.

      Even harder to get an answer.

  6. Execute the fastest way possible by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Guillotine. Make sure the guides are sufficiently greased and the blade exquisitely sharp, it will be over in a second or so.

    If there's a question about the instance of pain as the blade slices through the neck, rub a numbing solution on the skin.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Execute the fastest way possible by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But the blood in your brain will keep you alive another 5-7 seconds of agonizing pain as you watch your headless body slump to the floor. Not exactly humane.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Execute the fastest way possible by CaptainLard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember reading about reports from the middle ages about severed heads moving mouths, eyes, etc. well over a minute after decapitation. Surely some of it was involuntary twitches but on the other hand heart attacks usually don't kill instantly and most people can hold their breath somewhere around a minute. In any case its tough to ask how it feels.

    3. Re:Execute the fastest way possible by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's weird how many people bring up the guillotine as the gold standard, given we're pretty sure that the head will remain conscious for some seconds afterwards.

      Shooting in the head with a shotgun would be much more humane, but as others have noted there has always been an intentional conflation of "humane" and "comfort level of the spectators."

    4. Re:Execute the fastest way possible by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      or pretty awesome being able to watch that. you also forgot about shock, i highly doubt there would be time for pain to kick in

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  7. im sure the argument is riveting by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    supreme court: guise the combination of drain-o and bug spray you used to kill someone is...unorthodox...we're going to need to review it so until then you might suspend executions.
    Oklahoma: never fear! we've found that firing squads are extremely effective! executions can continue!
    supreme court: jesus guys...no..thats not the point. the point is, you know, you at least make an attempt to reflect on the nature of capital punishment and the repercussions morally and financially of a system in ...
    Oklahoma:Nitrogen gas! shall be used in a highly controlled and technological manner in order to...
    supreme court: FFS guys....youre going to off people with the gas that car dealerships use to mark up lemons?
    Oklahoma: The gun from Star Trek Into Darkness will henceforeth be legally permitted in the administration of justice! for this we will...
    supreme court: ok...that one doesnt even exist...

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  8. Did they get the idea from this? by gumper23 · · Score: 2

    BBC Documentary - How to Kill a Human Being:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  9. An alternative to the death penalty by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Informative

    Put them in jail instead.

    It's cheaper and a wrongful conviction can be reversed.

    The majority of countries no longer have the death penalty.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:An alternative to the death penalty by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, this is pretty macabre. How about we just avoid killing people?

      And no, it isn't because they don't deserve it (although we inevitably execute and imprison innocent people). Most deserve worse than they get. How about let's just go with the simple idea that killing is wrong and strive to avoid it whenever possible? Killing people diminishes us - even if they were evil scumbags who deserved worse. I don't need to look to other cultures for examples and counter-examples of executing people. I don't need a popularity contest about how many other people don't like the death penalty (or the converse). Let's just go with "no killing" because it is right and be done with it.

    2. Re:An alternative to the death penalty by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Atheism and absence of morality are not synonymous. One need not invoke a deity to have a moral compass. Most publicly vocal atheists in the west are also opposed to the death penalty. At the same time, at least a couple of history's greatest mass murderers were also avowed atheists. It doesn't seem that atheism and opposition to killing are at all correlated, just as belief in any of the major religions is not a good predictor of one's stance on the death penalty.

      Troll rejected: erroneous premise.

    3. Re:An alternative to the death penalty by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Diminishing the power of the state over life and death is not the leftist position. Quite the opposite.

      Second troll rejected: Erroneous premise.

    4. Re:An alternative to the death penalty by Capsaicin · · Score: 2

      As an atheist, there is nothing wrong with killing.

      Quite the opposite. As an atheist one ought to appreciate the permanence of death; that human life is brief enough already; and that each and every human consciousness provides a valuable, unique, never to be repeated perspective on the universe. It's different if one believes that this life is but nothing to the one that follows, but atheists especially have the opportunity of grasping the gravity of extinguishing a human consciousness prematurely. This is an opportunity, apparently, you have still to take.

      There is no right, there is no wrong. Don't try to push your warped sense of morality on others.

      If there were no right nor wrong, then executing a murderer (who in your view has done no wrong) must be the ultimate form of pushing one's morality on others! If there are no ethical concerns in your mind is there at least the flicker of logical consistency (such as would require you, upon the basis you have enunciated, to oppose capital punishment)?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    5. Re:An alternative to the death penalty by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's only cheaper because our capital punishment process is so badly broken. It should not take decades to complete the process; that's just dumb. On the other hand, there are flaw in how it's applied currently (moving to the second part of your issue with it), so those also need to be fixed. I support the death penalty, but with some pretty major reforms. And as a strong advocate of it, I would be open to suspending it until said reform has changed the process to one which is much faster, cheaper, more humane, more fair, more evidence-based, and more regulated. For starters, take all the stuff the Innocence Project is doing and integrate it directly into the process and provide wide open access to all information going into the process to any third-party groups wishing to provide sunshine/oversight.

      Some individuals are so dangerous and destructive that all members of society (including prison guards, staff, and other prisoners) deserve permanent protection from them. I have no issue with extinguishing the existence of those who are so fundamentally broken that we can't contain their violence. However, we need to bend over backwards to ensure the process to do that is applied fairly, reasonably, and is designed to make it as close to impossible to execute an innocent person as we can reasonably make it.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    6. Re:An alternative to the death penalty by Capsaicin · · Score: 2

      Sealing people in dungeons is somehow nicer?

      Well let's not seal them in dungeons then! Absolutely let's house them in secure facilities. But let's also give them whatever assistance we can reasonably afford, to allow them to live their lives in the most meaningful way possible, while still conforming to the imperative of keeping them locked safely away from the rest of us.

      Some might even create some socially useful output to repay our kindness. Who knows, even Hans Reiser may still have some useful contribution left in him?

      Strange that as opposition to the death penalty hardens, euthanasia is becoming accepted.

      This is just rampant individualism isn't it? I mean imagine allowing people themselves the right to decide when (and when not) to die? Thank goodness I'll be able to sleep soundly at night know that you, at least, are left to argue for the rights of the state to make our life and death decisions for us!

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    7. Re:An alternative to the death penalty by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every execution is a 100% successful deterrent - the executed criminal will never again commit a crime. Beat that.

      That argument is defeated easily. If a criminal convicts a crime for which the sentence is death, then obviously the sentence was not a deterrent.

      Any deterrence beyond that is a "nice to have", but not required.

      On the contrary. The purpose of a deterrent is to discourage someone from committing a crime in the first place. That is fundamental, not "nice to have."

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:An alternative to the death penalty by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about let's just go with the simple idea that killing is wrong and strive to avoid it whenever possible?

      Because most people disagree with this. You kill bacteria, and insects, maybe even small mammals, and are responsible for the deaths of many large ones through your choice of appetite, clothes or furniture. Killing is not wrong, killing is right when applied correctly. The only argument is to define the boundary between correct or not.

    9. Re:An alternative to the death penalty by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
      There are no atheists in ISIS.

      What was that again about an absence of religion leading to evil behavior?

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  10. Ten seconds? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 2

    noting that the nitrogen would render inmates unconscious within ten seconds and kill them in minutes.

    Um, what? How the hell does that work? When I was a kid I tried to sing an entire song while doing multiple helium inhales in a row, not stopping for air. It was over a minute before the room suddenly went a little dark and spin-y.

    It wasn't at all painful. I didn't notice anything different at all until seconds before I was (presumably) going to pass out. If it were deemed uncomfortable, the condemned could be given an oral or gaseous anesthetic first.

    The death penalty is wrong and stupid in many ways, but I hope we can at least put aside the quibbling over method now. It has been a ridiculous distraction from the real issues.

    1. Re:Ten seconds? by rjh · · Score: 5, Informative

      You weren't breathing pure helium. You were breathing "balloon gas," which is a mixture of helium and normal, breathable room air. The oxygen in the mixture was keeping you conscious.

      Helium is an expensive substance and you don't need pure helium in a balloon to give it lift. By cutting the helium with air, the balloon outfit is able to make their expensive resource last much longer.

    2. Re:Ten seconds? by Wheels17 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have had two friends overcome by nitrogen on two different occasions in industrial situations. Fortunately there were people to pull them out of the atmosphere and get them breathing again. In both cases there first words were along the lines of "What am I doing on the floor?"

  11. Re:People with makeup and dyed hair aren't logical by queazocotal · · Score: 5, Informative

    It doesn't work the same as holding your breath.
    When you breath a gas containing no oxygen, oxygen streams out of your blood, as it is lower oxygen than the blood, and that is how the blood 'knows' to dump oxygen.
    This means that what's coming out of the lungs is largely deoxygenated blood, not oxygenated.
    This rapidly causes unconsciousness - much faster than just holding your breath.
    It's a not uncommon industrial accident.
    You don't really notice it - there is no shortness of breath, you simply feel a bit woozy one breath, and then are unconscious the next, and the next breath may not happen.

  12. Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead? by arielCo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Instructions unclear - accidentally ate the whole thing. Having dreamy thoughts about how big I am getting.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  13. Re:WW2 by Megol · · Score: 2

    They used hydrogen cyanide (in the form of Zyklon B) and carbon monoxide (from engine exhaust) in their extermination camps. The labor camps didn't try to kill people efficiently.

  14. Re:People with makeup and dyed hair aren't logical by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 4, Informative

    the breathing reflex is based on CO2 . Breathing pure nitrogen would reduce CO2 so as to satisfy that mechanism , but not providing the O2 survival requires. O2 in the blood is used up quickly, that is why we need to breathe constantly.

    --
    This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
  15. Re:People with makeup and dyed hair aren't logical by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, this is something that's often overlooked. The "omg I can't hold my breath any longer" reflex has nothing to do with oxygen, it is solely based on CO2 buildup. Someone breathing pure nitrogen wouldn't even realize anything was wrong until right before they lose consciousness (which would happen in seconds anyway).

  16. Re:Why not nitrous oxide, instead? by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Um, you've got your nitrogen compounds mixed up there. Nitrous oxide is N2O, NOT NO2. NO2 (aka nitrogen dioxide) is reddish brown, very toxic, and has a very sharp biting odor. NO2 would not be pleasant at all.

  17. Re:Wow what a problem by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

    The Bible says "Do not kill".
    Anyone arguing for death penalty is against God and will go to hell.

    actually it says murder not kill in the original language.

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  18. manure pit by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Death by nitrogen is the ideal way to die. It's so effective it's one of the dangers in nitrogen inerted buildings. You don't know you are dieing you just pass out. SOmeone comes along sees you down in the room and tries to rescue you and bang they keel over too. It's the classic farmer manure pit death.

    the key here is that your urgent need to breath oddly enough is not triggered by lack of oxygen but by build up of CO2. when you remove the O2 from your air then you don't notice it because your alarm system isn't triggered. You are still getting rid of the CO2 in your blood.

    Why nature rigged it like that I have no idea but it is easy to see that under almost any normal condition the two are linked making having separate sensors of O2 and CO2 not needed so why evolve one.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:manure pit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Rabbits have a direct O2 sensor and *know* when exposed to deoxygenated air. This also occurs in other burrowing animals.

    2. Re:manure pit by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      We do have the O2 reflex, it's just not the primary one and not active in most humans.

      In individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the O2 reflex takes over - which makes it dangerous to give them high flow oxygen, because they will build up an excess of CO2 (because they don't breathe enough to expel it all). This reveals why CO2 is the usual trigger - normal air has enough oxygen in it, and our lungs are normally very efficient at absorbing it.

  19. Re:Less humane to keep them alive. by davidwr · · Score: 2

    What you overlook is that some people have truly lost the right to be considered human any more,

    This may be true under the legal codes of some countries and it may be true under your moral code and perhaps even the moral code of a majority of Americans, but it is not true under the United States Constitution. All human beings who could ever be convicted of a crime are considered "persons" under the law, and being convicted and condemned does not and, barring a constitutional amendment, cannot change that status.

    Furthermore, it's almost impossible for a person who is born a US citizen to involuntarily lose their citizenship under the US Constitution, particularly if they never leave the country, never indicate any allegiance to any foreign power, and never act on behalf of another country against the interest of the United States (and even then, it is probably impossible). For naturalized citizens whose naturalization did not involve any fraud and who never do any of the other things listed above, it's also almost impossible to strip them of their citizenship.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  20. Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Nitrogen (or any asphyxiation that doesn't involve the buildup of Carbon Dioxide) method involves turning off the brain's ability to feel pain as prelude to death.

    Given the terrible fuckups that we see in executions recently, it's reasonable to assume that almost anything that can be screwed up, will be screwed up, and this one seems a lot simpler than some three needle solution using drugs you can't get made by anonymous compounding pharmacists you can't find with quality you can't test for administered by doctors that aren't trained. No, none of those things HAVE to happen, but they seem to keep happening.

    This sort of execution method sidesteps those problems. But, why do we suspect it is painless? Mostly because people who recover from accidental exposure to Nitrogen generally report being utterly surprised.

    In practice, it may be more humane to administer a sedative or even anesthesia beforehand. But acquiring those seems to be the problem in the first place: still, more options would likely be available than in the classic "three drug combination" of lethal injection, where an anesthetic (hopefully) dulls the pain, while a paralytic agent stops breathing (which causes pain) and a heart stopping agent stops the heart (which causes pain).

    If they don't go this route, you'll likely see a condemned man struggling to hold his breath as long as he can, trying to avoid death, and eventually losing consciousness, inhaling, regaining consciousness for a moment to flail, and then dying. One thing that's missing from all the real life accounts is that almost everyone who gets into trouble with nitrogen or another oxygen displacing agent doesn't realize that they are in danger until it is too late or almost so, and as such the reports of painlessness are definitely flavored by that fact.

  21. Most commenters in this thread ... by Mephistro · · Score: 2

    ... seem to have forgotten about that study in the nineties that applied the then recently developed DNA sequencing techniques to old cases. Said study proved conclusively that about a 20% of the executed were innocent. It can be logically inferred that nowadays the % of false convictions is close to that, excluding (most) cases where DNA evidence is used.

    And the problem with the appeals is that every official involved in the case has an interest, a set of perverse incentives, in upholding the death sentences. No policeman, attorney or judge wants the public to know that they helped to sentence an innocent to death. The result: the appeals process is an uphill battle against the establishment, and most people lack the resources (money) to carry out a successful appeal.

    Other studies prove that witnesses are far less reliable than generally assumed, that often the cops and district attorneys put too much pressure on witnesses and suspects, or directly manipulate or hide evidence that could set the suspect free.

    Is the American legal system perfect and free of errors and corruption? Can you resurrect a wrongly executed person? If you can't answer affirmatively to at least one of these questions, death penalty is just another crime.

    To further clarify my point, most of the convicts in the death row probably deserve to be executed, but the rest of the population doesn't deserve to live in a country that has that kind of power over its citizens, because that power will be -and has been- abused.

    Let the downvotes begin... . Anyway this needed to be said.

  22. Finally. I've been advocating this for years by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let me just first clear out all the people that just don't like executions... lets just take for the sake of argument that executions are going to happen. I know you don't like them... but they're here to stay. Assuming that point, this method of execution is quite a good one. It doesn't inflict pain on people, it doesn't outwardly damage the body, it is very reliable, etc. It has everything going for it so long as you accept that executions are going to happen.

    Now I know you don't want to accept that and I am not forcing you to... I don't have that power. I am simply asking to separate the discussion about executions in general from this specific type of execution. I don't really want to have a long conversation about capital punishment.

    If you reply to me, talk to me about THIS method of execution. That is what interests me.

    On topic, I am really happy they finally did this... the previous methods had too many problems with them. This method is ideal.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  23. If it were me... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 2

    ...I'd want a high-velocity bullet in the head, from a single person, at close range.

    All of these other methods, like lethal injections and nitrogen, are absolutely grotesque, overly dramatic and not "humane" at all.

    With a bullet, there is nothing to debate over. The rounds are cheap and easily available. There is no horrifically botched execution in the case of a misfire. And the hydrostatic shock destroys your brain instantly, so there is no pain.

  24. Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions by fnj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Entirely right about nitrogen asphyxia. There is nothing magic about nitrogen; you could as well use any other colorless, odorless inert gas, but nitrogen is the cheapest.

    One correction, though. "Stopping the heart" per se is most definitely not painful. Ask anyone who has undergone true sudden complete cardiac arrest. You immediately feel a surreal calm as all that commotion in your chest you never really noticed until that moment, and the rush of blood through your head, stops. Within single digit seconds you feel crazy high. In 10-20 seconds you are out like a light. It may take 10 minutes for clinical irreversible death to eventuate, but after 10-20 seconds you are a sack of meat. We know from those whose heart spontaneously restarts, or are resuscitated before complete death or brain damage, that the experience after 10-20 seconds is nothing more than unconsciousness.

    It's not so much that CO2, or cardiac arrest, "turns off" pain. It entirely sidesteps the strangling sensation caused by buildup of CO2. As others have noted, there is no physiologic sensation from lack of oxygen, but there is an almighty agony from CO2 buildup.

  25. Re:The gold standard for fast, painless executions by ImprovOmega · · Score: 2

    I had partial nitrogen exposure due to a leak that had happened in an industrial nitrogen tank I was transporting. I did pass out, but I can tell you there was zero pain involved. It actually felt completely euphoric. I wasn't gasping for air or anything like that (though I did realize what had happened and I got the hell out as quick as possible, so I never went under), but even realizing what had happened didn't give me a sense of panic, and afterwards there were no lingering effects. I really think this should be the preferred method of execution. It's simple and demonstrably painless. If I had to die suddenly, I would prefer that to practically any other method.