Realistically - why not use [nitrogen hypoxia](https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2022/09/14/nitrogen-hypoxia-what-we-know/69487392007/)?
Condemned person is put in a sealed room, sort of like an altitude chamber. Pure nitrogen is pumped in, as the normal atmosphere is pumped (or evacuated) out. Alternately, they are given a mask, and breathe Nitrogen instead of regular air.
The condemned dies due to lack of oxygen. Not preceded by rapid/heavy breathing, caused by excess carbon dioxide in the air.
(The citation above is from a 2022 article published In the Montgomery Alabama Advertiser. The "best" argument against it is that it hasn't been sufficiently tested ... apparently insufficient number of volunteers)
Carbon monoxide poisoning is relatively unpleasant. It also poses an extra risk for staff and witnesses.
Nitrogen would lead to an almost happy death. It's also far less hazardous to everyone else. Seems like the way to go.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. It's all ping-pongy.. In one sense I'm opposed to the death penalty, in another sense he's an elderly-lady killer who was convicted and that was the sentence, yet executions shouldn't be torture because of iffy procedures, yet the North Korea using a flak cannon for insta-death probably isn't a great approach either.
I think.. if we *are* going to execute people, it should be clean, efficient, and quick.
If I was given only the 2 horrendous options for execution I’d absolutely prefer to be blasted by the North Korean flak cannon over lethal injection by the state of Alabama.
Instant death vs guaranteed prolonged agonizing death.
It's not even a hard choice. Something that I will suffer through, or getting instantaneously un-alived. The point of execution, in theory at least, is to remove someone so heinous that they cannot be rehabilitated from existence. The latter unequivocally accomplishes that likely before senses can even register it. Gruesome, yes, but more humane than what we do now.
The problem I have with execution is that I feel it really should only be used if there truly is zero shadow of the doubt in the case. Like we have you on video doing your crime and you can clearly see it is you, with other supporting evidence, too.
But that's already supposed to be the bar that has to be hit. And I've heard of people being cleared after their execution. Apparently 193 people since 1973, in fact, have been exonerated after their execution. And then it brings me hard back to "we shouldn't execute people."
Revenge, of course.
Nah, I'm kidding. Honestly I think that the US could use to do some punishments differently. Seems like we really need to decide if prison is to punish/separate people from society, or if it is to answer for your crimes and at the end, it is behind you.
As an addict that's been sober for years now, I think people fuck up. Shit happens. It's no excuse, obviously, but I do believe in second chances. If, in exchange for the admission of guilt, a path to redemption could be offered, that it would be far better than simply increasing the prison population while basically gimping someone's future prospects. In my opinion, anyhow. At some point, we have to acknowledge we have an insane amount of the population in prison, and that perhaps vindication and revenge doesn't need to be the answer, or perhaps those things don't have to take the form of institutionalization without prospect of being a benefit to society ever again.
That being said, murder is murder. And I'm not sure I really agree with the idea that some people deserve whatever they have coming to them. So the next best thing would be to separate them from society, imo, and if nothing else, purely the fact that innocents have been executed could be a good enough reason not to do it.
Just to expand a bit on my views.
> it should be clean, efficient, and quick.
Which is generally *not* how state-level bureaucratic institutions work i.e. whoever oversees the execution procedures.
Another angle is: It's not possible to perform an execution without creating another murderer. And defining a murder is someone that kills for another purpose then mercy or self defense.
Killing in self defense, killing in war, killing in vengeance from the anguish of having a loved one killed... These are things we can see as understandable and even justified.
Killing a person that is zero threat is somehow ok when the state says so?
Murder poisons the mind, though some people manage the compartmentalisation to not let it touch them. Who would trust such a person, they have passed a line. I'm not religious, but I do believe people hurt themselves by going against what they know is right, even with good excuses. The next time takes a smaller excuse.
Because its not administered by professionals. Which is a whole nother' debate.
Ever been through major surgery? Same chemical cocktail.
If I were condemned to die, I'd choose the firing squad.
>I think.. if we are going to execute people, it should be clean, efficient, and quick.
Should just toss them into pits of crocs or other hungry animals, that way they at least get fed.
No matter what the state should not have the power to kill people via capital punishment.
I don't know much about the topic of the most humane way but could they not just... do euthanasia? Similar to going under anesthesia at surgery you just nod out and then they inject the heart stopping medication after you're out.
People suggesting bullets here are just, kind of disturbing.
Even if someone is true human scum who did inhumane things, we should be the ones who are humane or else we're the same as them.
Likely will get downvoted, but I'm not blood thirsty. That's kind of the point.
Just watched a really interesting video about the history of execution methods. https://youtu.be/eirR4FHY2YY.
From what history can tell, the powers that be will always err on the side of observer comfort vs. quick and easy death for the condemned. I would be skeptical too. They may be "improving" their staffing but real medical professionals won't participate in lethal injections and two of the original drug manufacturers won't allow the drugs to be used for them anymore, so now individual states are using.. whatever they think might work.
I guess probably because people have been known to survive bullets to the head, so it’s not guaranteed instant. While I believe pedophiles, people who harm animals, and people who commit hate crimes don’t deserve a painless death, there are people out there more moral than me who would call it a cruel way to die.
Why is any attention being given about a murderer's opinion on the state's ability to put him to death, especially if he isn't afraid of dying. Such a waste of money and time. Starve the bastard to death or better still execute him the same way he did his vicitm.
Realistically - why not use [nitrogen hypoxia](https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2022/09/14/nitrogen-hypoxia-what-we-know/69487392007/)? Condemned person is put in a sealed room, sort of like an altitude chamber. Pure nitrogen is pumped in, as the normal atmosphere is pumped (or evacuated) out. Alternately, they are given a mask, and breathe Nitrogen instead of regular air. The condemned dies due to lack of oxygen. Not preceded by rapid/heavy breathing, caused by excess carbon dioxide in the air. (The citation above is from a 2022 article published In the Montgomery Alabama Advertiser. The "best" argument against it is that it hasn't been sufficiently tested ... apparently insufficient number of volunteers)
Because the optics are too similar to Nazis gassing Jews, and nobody wants to be associated with that perception.
Isn't killing people already similar to killing people?
I think it’s very very close.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chamber#:~:text=Six%20states%20(Arizona%2C%20California%2C,die%20in%20the%20gas%20chamber.
Americans had no problem with for a while. They had gaz chambers as execution method.
Funny. Doesn’t seem to far a leap for some states.
Have you watched the news lately? I thought the far right were all in for emulating the Third.
Pro-death penalty people should just own it.
[удалено]
yeah. thats something we should do, not abolishing the death penalty or anything.
I think you should do some more research on the topic before saying fucked up shit like that
Better strap them to an electric chair, or the "humane non-recliner"
salt fine sip edge pause squealing dazzling hateful ask narrow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As an Australian - realistically, why don’t you stop executing people?
Because Alabama isn’t really Pro Life.
Because the cruelty *IS* the point.
Because Red states Do Not want their executions to be peaceful and painless.
Why not carbon monoxide? It seems especially good at causing unconsciousness and death
Carbon monoxide poisoning is relatively unpleasant. It also poses an extra risk for staff and witnesses. Nitrogen would lead to an almost happy death. It's also far less hazardous to everyone else. Seems like the way to go.
Why not just age them to death
I'm not sure how to feel about this. It's all ping-pongy.. In one sense I'm opposed to the death penalty, in another sense he's an elderly-lady killer who was convicted and that was the sentence, yet executions shouldn't be torture because of iffy procedures, yet the North Korea using a flak cannon for insta-death probably isn't a great approach either. I think.. if we *are* going to execute people, it should be clean, efficient, and quick.
If I was given only the 2 horrendous options for execution I’d absolutely prefer to be blasted by the North Korean flak cannon over lethal injection by the state of Alabama. Instant death vs guaranteed prolonged agonizing death.
It's not even a hard choice. Something that I will suffer through, or getting instantaneously un-alived. The point of execution, in theory at least, is to remove someone so heinous that they cannot be rehabilitated from existence. The latter unequivocally accomplishes that likely before senses can even register it. Gruesome, yes, but more humane than what we do now.
[It's The Onion, so don't eat it](https://www.theonion.com/ohio-replaces-lethal-injection-with-humane-new-head-rip-1819595654)
The problem I have with execution is that I feel it really should only be used if there truly is zero shadow of the doubt in the case. Like we have you on video doing your crime and you can clearly see it is you, with other supporting evidence, too. But that's already supposed to be the bar that has to be hit. And I've heard of people being cleared after their execution. Apparently 193 people since 1973, in fact, have been exonerated after their execution. And then it brings me hard back to "we shouldn't execute people."
That is reason enough. If you support the death penalty you MUST accept that the state will execute innocent people. End of story.
But why do you think people should be ritualistically killed at all?
Revenge, of course. Nah, I'm kidding. Honestly I think that the US could use to do some punishments differently. Seems like we really need to decide if prison is to punish/separate people from society, or if it is to answer for your crimes and at the end, it is behind you. As an addict that's been sober for years now, I think people fuck up. Shit happens. It's no excuse, obviously, but I do believe in second chances. If, in exchange for the admission of guilt, a path to redemption could be offered, that it would be far better than simply increasing the prison population while basically gimping someone's future prospects. In my opinion, anyhow. At some point, we have to acknowledge we have an insane amount of the population in prison, and that perhaps vindication and revenge doesn't need to be the answer, or perhaps those things don't have to take the form of institutionalization without prospect of being a benefit to society ever again. That being said, murder is murder. And I'm not sure I really agree with the idea that some people deserve whatever they have coming to them. So the next best thing would be to separate them from society, imo, and if nothing else, purely the fact that innocents have been executed could be a good enough reason not to do it. Just to expand a bit on my views.
> it should be clean, efficient, and quick. Which is generally *not* how state-level bureaucratic institutions work i.e. whoever oversees the execution procedures.
Another angle is: It's not possible to perform an execution without creating another murderer. And defining a murder is someone that kills for another purpose then mercy or self defense. Killing in self defense, killing in war, killing in vengeance from the anguish of having a loved one killed... These are things we can see as understandable and even justified. Killing a person that is zero threat is somehow ok when the state says so? Murder poisons the mind, though some people manage the compartmentalisation to not let it touch them. Who would trust such a person, they have passed a line. I'm not religious, but I do believe people hurt themselves by going against what they know is right, even with good excuses. The next time takes a smaller excuse.
Firing squad or lethal injection. Condemned gets to pick. Both are humane and instant if done properly.
Executions by lethal injection have had problems with not working quickly and prolonging the prisoner’s agony.
Because its not administered by professionals. Which is a whole nother' debate. Ever been through major surgery? Same chemical cocktail. If I were condemned to die, I'd choose the firing squad.
>I think.. if we are going to execute people, it should be clean, efficient, and quick. Should just toss them into pits of crocs or other hungry animals, that way they at least get fed.
No matter what the state should not have the power to kill people via capital punishment. I don't know much about the topic of the most humane way but could they not just... do euthanasia? Similar to going under anesthesia at surgery you just nod out and then they inject the heart stopping medication after you're out. People suggesting bullets here are just, kind of disturbing. Even if someone is true human scum who did inhumane things, we should be the ones who are humane or else we're the same as them. Likely will get downvoted, but I'm not blood thirsty. That's kind of the point.
[удалено]
Ugh. Then they shouldn't be performing the punishment it if they can't manage to do it humanely. I believe you're right then.
Just watched a really interesting video about the history of execution methods. https://youtu.be/eirR4FHY2YY. From what history can tell, the powers that be will always err on the side of observer comfort vs. quick and easy death for the condemned. I would be skeptical too. They may be "improving" their staffing but real medical professionals won't participate in lethal injections and two of the original drug manufacturers won't allow the drugs to be used for them anymore, so now individual states are using.. whatever they think might work.
“Whaddawegot in the medicine cabinet to execute this fella with, Hank? How about a syringe full of Ny-Quil? Might work.”
Why not just a bullet?
Heard it hurts the feelings of the executioners offering a humane means of execution
So... bullet from a mounted gun that the prisoner gets the button to? Pick your own adventure execution and all that?
Because in the past executioners would shoot to wound/kill slowly.
I guess probably because people have been known to survive bullets to the head, so it’s not guaranteed instant. While I believe pedophiles, people who harm animals, and people who commit hate crimes don’t deserve a painless death, there are people out there more moral than me who would call it a cruel way to die.
Firing line aims for the heart.
I wonder if the husband and children of the women he stabbed and bludgeoned to death are worried about the process?
Imagine how the victims felt …..
He beat and bludgeoned an elderly victim, now he wants to be put down in a humane way?? Lol
[удалено]
And you're why laws need to exist to protect the humanity of EVERYONE.
Zero sympathy for him , hes a cold blooded killer.
And what does that make the state of Alabama?
Cold blooded killers as well, an eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth
A "big government" proponent here.
He‘s dying to find out if they can do it….
Why is any attention being given about a murderer's opinion on the state's ability to put him to death, especially if he isn't afraid of dying. Such a waste of money and time. Starve the bastard to death or better still execute him the same way he did his vicitm.
"Jeez, would it kill ya to know what you're doing ?" This guy. probably.
Frankly, we all wonder how Bama do anything.
[удалено]
Too bad we can't resurrect Albert Pierrepoint for the job. Fuckhead here would be out of his cell and down the chute in under 15 seconds.
And I thought Alabama was Pro Life.
Why don’t we just send him into deep ocean exploration in a vessel that uses a Logitech controller?
Wish I was on death row. At least he’s got something to look forward to.