Slashdot Mirror
States Turn To an Unproven Method of Execution: Nitrogen Gas (nytimes.com)
States are reportedly turning to nitrogen gas to carry out the death penalty. "Oklahoma, Alabama and Mississippi have authorized nitrogen for executions and are developing protocols to use it, which represents a leap into the unknown," reports The New York Times. "There is no scientific data on executing people with nitrogen, leading some experts to question whether states, in trying to solve old problems, may create new ones." Slashdot reader schwit1 shares an excerpt from a report via The New York Times: What little is known about human death by nitrogen comes from industrial and medical accidents and its use in suicide. 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.
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.
That word doesn't mean what they think it means.
Not a fan of the death penalty but if you're going to check-out, be it by choice or inflicted then this is one of the nicest ways to go (& cheap/simple). Light headed & pass out. Helium balloons work too but you need a mask to keep the thing in place.
What's good for CO2 scrubbing? A simple balloon rebreather & CO2 absorber should do the job if a bit slower while the O2 converts. I guess I'm coming at this problem from the euthanasia angle rather than the "kill our citizens" one... Not speaking from experience realise... ;) [well I think we've all gone light-headed with the Helium thing]
used helium gas to assist his patients who wanted to commit suicide. I believe it is still used by organizations such as Dignitas for the same purpose.
Because cavemen. And also lying about it, because "punishment" is something you can walk away from. This is revenge and savagery.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Using an unproven means is a clear ethics violation. Where are the double-blind clinical trials?.
This story leads me to a very humorous event at work. While working on a A/C system, I noted to an inspector that the dry nitrogen in the system (used to pressure test the pipes) needed to be released into the atmosphere. This A/C was for a temporary building in the middle of a wide open yard for a power company.
Well this idea.....releasing a gas into the atmosphere was enough to trigger multiple phone calls, and eventually a 4 week delay, since there was about 3 very important meetings about this deadly concept.
I noted to the inspector that air contains 78% Nitrogen. But, he was not convinced, and knew that his job was now question.
Finally, the mighty minds, agreed to let me take out the nitrogen, but it needed to be recovered.
This time, I kept my mouth shut, and "recovered" the nitrogen........
All was well, and the power company lives to see another day.... :)
Use helium gas.
Then at least death row inmates could turn their last minutes into a comedy skit, should they wish.
I'd never thought of using chickens for this purpose ...
We seek better and better, more and more "clinical" means of state-sanctioned killing. First the electric chair, then gas, then injection, then back to gas, apparently. It's almost as if we don't want to admit what the state is doing in the public's name. Personally, if we're going to keep the death penalty, I'd like to see the judge, jury members, and DA draw straws to be on a firing squad. If people are willing to sentence others to death, they should be willing to put their "money where their mouth" is. Better yet, get rid of capital punishment. Wasteful, expensive for appeals, and too much risk of a wrongful convicting that can't be reversed. See also: Cameron Todd Willingham and the West Memphis Three.
I'm going to sketch out some dots (really close together), and I want you to try to connect them...
1 - you're trying to come up with a way to efficiently off people
2 - you're constantly screeching about how fentanyl is instant death
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
I say death by snu snu
Inert gas narcosis on air/nitrox doesn't become a significant concern until past 4ata / 100fsw. For air that's a PPN2 of 3.12. Breathing 100% N2 at 1 ata wouldn't even remotely induce any type of narcosis. This is different the breathing in fresh N2 with each breath. Breathing is controlled by CO2 levels and this method tricks the body into thinking everything is fine by keeping CO2 levels low in the body. Very effective... you never know what hit you. Now why are we trying to "solve old problems"? That's purely a political problem not a technical problem.
Life in prison with no possibility of parole. That is 1/4 the cost, much more humane, and can be reversed if you realize you made a mistake such as crooked forensic scientists getting caught faking the data or police detectives forcing fake confessions. These things happen and it is much easier to say, "oops sorry" when the person is still alive.
The death penalty DOES NOT reduce crime.
With life imprisonment as the other option, it is far more humane. That would be true if we had Swedish prisons, which are practically luxury apartments. Being caged and isolated do severe damage to the human psyche. The only legit moral issue with the death penalty is that it's imperative to be completely sure you have a guilty man; admittedly, our system is awful at this.
* It prevents the offender from hurting anyone again. Incarceration does not. Incarcerated murder kill prison staff and other prisoners, as well as escape, or serve out their sentences and re-offend.
* It deters as surely as lesser punishments deter, like incarceration or fines. Charts of death penalty vs. murder rate in the US underscore this point. It's curious to assert that lesser punishments deter, but the harshest does not.
* It's the closest to justice as we can get (i.e. a commensurate cost imposed on the offender). Most think the offender should incur some cost for malicious pain inflicted on others. Codes of justice going back to Hammurabi reflect a sense of fairness that it should be commensurate.
It's strange that places that have the highest distrust of government also are cool with the government executing people. Just yesterday, there was a story of a guy who was on death row for 16 years before he was completely exonerated. I would think that just one of those cases would be enough so that anyone with a moral compass would oppose the death penalty. But if there's one thing we know, it's that Americans love seeing people get kilt and they love feeling self-righteous, so that makes for a lethal combination. People in red states seem to love giving their governments the ultimate power over life and death.
Fortunately, there's absolutely nothing in Oklahoma, Alabama, or Mississippi that anyone here would want, so this only affects the poor folks who live there. But it does explain why they're at the bottom of almost every state ranking of quality of life.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You've apparently never been around a pig farm in real life. They make those sounds when their distressed by new things. Unfamiliar locations, being stuck in something. They dont make them from being suffocated by nitrogen. Nitrogen doesn't give any signals to the body there is a problem. You simply pass out. Google OSHA nitrogen accidents to find out how quickly and how dangerous it is.
A CO2 gas chamber is probably one of the worst possible ways to go. Suffocating in CO2 rings pretty much every alarm bell in an animal's head. Hypoxia by CO2 surplus is an incredibly distressing and painful way to go. I have no idea how anyone could refer to that as "humane". Of course those pigs are going crazy!
This is completely unlike Nitrogen displacement, which is found to be incredibly hazardous exactly because it triggers NO pain, panic, or flight response. Your mental capacity goes downhill steadily, imperceptibly, and painlessly, until without even realizing anything is wrong or amiss, you just lose consciousness, with zero chance of waking up before it kills you.
They wouldn't even have to tell you when its happening. You could sit down in a comfy chair, listening to your favorite music, while enjoying your last meal, with no idea when they were going to start changing the air in the room out. At some point you'd faceplant in your mashed potatoes and that'd be it. No pain, no table or chair to strap you to, no needles, it actually is a heck of a lot more humane than lethal injection or any of the other more popular methods. Even a firing squad is more humane than the electric chair or lethal injection!
Bonus: nitrogen is a heck of a lot cheaper than lethal injection drugs. (and they are getting really hard to obtain)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
It's a basic principle of osmosis. Basically, osmosis means that if you have two different solutions (chemistry definition) that pass by each other with a semi-permeable membrane in between, that the parts of the solutions that can pass through the membrane will tend to equalize in concentration on both sides of the membrane.
When you breathe, there are two solutions (your blood and the air) that are separated by a semi-permeable membrane (your lungs). The air is mostly nitrogen (78%) and about about 21% oxygen in it. Your blood has oxygen and CO2 in it. The membrane in your lungs allows oxygen and CO2 to pass through it.
In the normal case, the amount of oxygen in your blood is less than the amount of oxygen in the air. The amount of CO2 in your blood is also higher than the amount of CO2 in the air. Your body takes the Oxygen out of your blood, converts it in to CO2 through metabolism, and puts the CO2 back in to your blood.
Since the concentration of oxygen in your blood is lower than the concentration of oxygen in your lungs, oxygen will move from the air in your lungs in to your blood until the two concentrations equalize. Same for CO2...The higher concentration of CO2 in your blood will move to the air in your lungs until the two concentrations equalize. Then you exhale the low-oxygen/high-CO2 air in your lungs and inhale fresh air...repeat.
In order for the above process to work, the membrane in your lungs has to be a two-way street. Oxygen needs to come in, CO2 needs to go out. The membrane is bidirectional.
The way a Nitrogen chamber works is that the gas in the nitrogen chamber is very close to 100% nitrogen. The percentage of both oxygen and CO2 in the air is nearly zero. You now breath this new solution in and osmosis works the same way. The oxygen and CO2 concentrations between the two solutions equalizes.
So you have blood returning to your lungs that has a high-concentration of CO2 and a low-concentration of Oxygen. The solution on the other side of the membrane in your lungs is pretty much 0% oxygen and 0% CO2. Since the concentrations want to equalize, this means that both CO2 AND oxygen from your blood is moving to the air in your lungs. Which you then exhale. This effectively causes oxygen to leave your body.
If the concentration of Oxygen in the blood returning to your lungs is at 16%, then when the oxygen in your blood equalizes with the 0% oxygen gas in your lungs, it causes you to now have 8% oxygen in your blood and 8% oxygen in your lungs. You now exhale causing that oxygen that was in your blood and now in your lungs to leave your body, inhaling a "fresh breath" of nearly 100% nitrogen...8% oxygen in your blood and 0% oxygen in your lungs will equalize at 4%...etc.
Holding your breath means the air in your lungs still has oxygen in it. 20% oxygen in your lungs (normal air), 16% oxygen in your blood. They will both equalize at 18%. Now when the blood comes around again, you've got 12% oxygen in your blood and 18% oxygen in your lungs...it equalizes at 15%...etc.
The rate at which the oxygen level in your blood lowers when you hold your breath is much less than the rate it lowers when you breath 100% nitrogen air.
Holding your breath does have the downside of also not exhaling the CO2 in your blood. It's the high concentrations of CO2 in your blood that cause the suffocation feeling. Holding your breath won't let the CO2 out of your lungs and blood. Breathing in Nitrogen causes the CO2 to respirate out of your body normally. This is why you don't feel like you're suffocating when you breath 100% nitrogen air. They say that your vision quickly fades, you shortly afterwards pass out, and then shortly after that die.
It's the same reason they tell you to put your oxygen mask on in a plane before you help others. You will pass out quite quickly, because your lungs change from an oxygen input system to an oxygen output system--your lungs work by osmosis. At 40,000 ft, you'll pass out in 15-20 seconds--whereas most people can hold your breath for 1-2 minutes (without training). Also keep in mind this is "useful consciousness", not death. You will be living, but unconscious, for a while longer. If the plane descends quickly enough, you'll simply wake up with no permanent effects.
What this means is that the prisoner could extend their life for 1-2 minutes by holding their breath. But eventually, they'll run out of oxygen either way, and it gets quite uncomfortable to hold your breath for an extended period of time due to the buildup of CO2 and lung reflexes.
You also wouldn't want to hold your breath during explosive decompression, because your lungs would be at risk of damage or rupture. See [2]. So either way, if you're at high altitude without oxygen or a suit, you're in serious trouble. Likewise if you're strapped to a table and people are just waiting for you to finally breathe and die.
Source:
[1] https://aviation.stackexchange...
(See the accepted answer there, although the FAA has updated their website).
[2] http://www.geoffreylandis.com/...
-=Lothsahn=-
I'm not the OP you were responding to, but I am currently anti-death penalty.
Currently, my only two issues with the death penalty are:
1) It must be done humanely. If there is a method of execution that is fast and completely painless. I currently believe that the only method of execution that satisfies this issue is Nitrogen gas. People who have survived high-nitrogen gas environments said they didn't feel any pain. Just blacked out and woke up later...maybe had a headache after waking. I don't know of any known instances of someone saying that it was a painful experience. I may be wrong on this though...I haven't fully researched it.
2) You must have 100% concrete evidence that this person actually committed the crime that they are accused of. I consider this to be even higher than the legal standard of proof in the US called "Beyond reasonable doubt". You need another legal standard of proof that I don't believe exists. I would call it "Beyond Possible Doubt". Basically this would mean that if the defense can come up with a possible explanation of the evidence presented that suggested he didn't do the crime, then it's up to the prosecution to prove that is explanation didn't happen...If you can prove the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" then it's life in prison...if you can prove it "beyond possible doubt" then it's the death penalty.
I think there are very few situations that would actually satisfy my 2nd requirement...you would need multiple videos of the crime, at least one of them must completely clearly show the defendant's face, multiple independent video analysis services verify that the video wasn't altered/doctored/etc., the video shows DNA evidence of the defendant being left at the scene, the video continuously shows that the evidence wasn't tampered with, full video of the chain-of-custody from collection to analysis, and that DNA evidence is matched with an exceptionally high level of certainty (multiple independent labs, and the defense is entitled to their own testing).
And then assuming you can meet both of those criteria, you then start a 10-year waiting period where all evidence must be fully preserved. When there is 1-year left in that waiting period, the defendant is essentially entitled to an almost-second trial, using new/more sophisticated techniques and knowledge to refute the evidence that was present at the trial. Burden of proof on the prosecution isn't as high...you aren't re litigating the entire trial. Just the admissibility and reliability of the evidence. If new/better DNA and video analysis techniques can suggest that the evidence wasn't as reliable/irrefutable as originally thought, then the sentence is turned to life-in-prison. If the new techniques of analyzing the evidence suggests innocence (reasonable doubt), then you're entitled to a new trial.
I understand that this is an exceptionally high prosecutorial burden. It would have to be largely reserved for the most egregious of offenders. But, as others have said...if you kill someone, you can't make them whole....you can't even try to make them whole...You can never bring them back to life. If you simply send someone to prison you can attempt to make them whole (give them triple the average salary in their state, per year for each year they were in prison...put out full-page ads in the top 2 news papers in all locations in a 200-mile radius from their home and the top news paper in the top 20 markets in the US that proclaim their innocence...and a pension that is equal to the average salary in their home state.)
The only legit moral issue with the death penalty is that it's imperative to be completely sure you have a guilty man; admittedly, our system is awful at this.
Death penalty or not, the system should not convict the innocent at all. I makes me sad how many people harp on death penalty while happily allowing confessions and eye witnesses to be used at trials. Those have been proven to be easily manipulated and directly responsible for imprisoning the innocent. It's as if thousands of lifetimes behind bars is better than even one execution.
There's also the issue of settlements. Those basically allow the rich and powerful to skirt the law because the state can't be bothered to fight it all the way. Meanwhile, the poor with their overworked public defenders don't have the resources to fight the long battle, and, regardless of their innocence, have to settle for a plea bargain.
There's another problem with nitrogen. It's too humane.
If the objective was to simply kill painlessly, all it would need is a couple of bullets to the head. People, though, are bastards. They may talk about 'justice,' but what they really mean is 'vengeance.' The public want a show. The family of any victim want a show. Politicians want a show. Many people will feel physically sickened if they believe the condemned died peacefully, as if the scales remain somehow unbalanced. This is why nitrogen was not introduced as a mean of execution years ago. Not many people are bold enough to openly say they want to see just a little bit of torture first, but it's a very common sentiment.
Deterrence doesn't work. Name a single point in time where specific types of crime were reduced purely due to "making an example of someone".
Literally every single dictator, against their political opponents, for the crime of opposing them. Kim Jung Un's uncle is a recent example.
Then there's places like Singapore, where you get lashes for littering. The end result? There is no litter on the roads of Singapore.
[...] the idea that the 'state' has a problem figuring out how to murder those among its own citizenry whom they've decided to murder, suggests their government is being done by utter incompetent morons. Killing people, and doing so quickly and reliably, is one of the easier things there is to do...
Of course. The United States is not short of ways to deliberately murder people. It's just short of ways to do it that involve convincing themselves that they are not deliberately murdering people.
It has to feel like a clinical procedure, otherwise you may as well just be chopping off heads with a sword in the public square.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
There is no obligation to be "fair" when fighting injustice.
I disagree. Do not commit injustices to prevent injustice, as you merely perpetuate injustice.
Holy shit!! First I find out dihydrogen monoxide is in nearly everything I eat and drink, now you're telling me this "nitrogen" stuff is in all of the air I'm breathing?
We're all fucked!!
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere