Considered too cruel to be used by vets because of the clear signs of distress shown in animals to which it was administered. But this guy says it’s good enough for humans!
It’s important that a prisoner not just be killed, but can feel themselves dying, apparently.
I understand why you would think this seems peaceful. But we have no idea whether it is, anyone claiming otherwise is bullshitting or lying, and the entire idea of “humane” execution is an oxymoron to begin with.
Diving animals such as rats and minks and burrowing animals are sensitive to low-oxygen atmospheres and (unlike humans) will avoid them, making purely hypoxic techniques possibly inhumane[citation needed] for them.
This makes sense, but there’s also a [citation needed] there. And even if true, it explicitly draws a distinction between these sorts of animals and humans, which the rest of the article is quite emphatic do not have sensitivity to low oxygen.
They were possibly confusing nitrogen with carbon dioxide. CO2 will definitely lead to distress in high concentrations, and has been used in some slaughterhouses.
The fucking US Veterinary Association published that it is only approved for pigs and even then recommends sedating the animal first because of observations of extreme distress. This is widely published – find it if you want, I don’t care at this point. Wikipedia is not going to undermine the countless medical organizations who all objected or condemned this shit. So sick of the wikipedia PhDs in this thread claiming to know what none of the doctors or medical researchers do.
Love that you had the time to get your degree from wikipedia but couldn’t plug “veterinary association nitrogen asphyxiation” into a search engine and click the first, second, or third result.
For me, the first are a couple of UN articles about the subject that contain all of this information. But you couldn’t be bothered to look this up because you can only do wikipedia “research” that confirms your priors, not that might contradict them.
There is no way that it should be done and as a separate unrelated argument there is no was to do it that does not run afoul of The United States Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
It should not be done because it should not be done and there also does not exist a “proper” way it could ever be done.
State executions are an affront to decency and besmirch the dignity of humanity. They are also inherently cruel.
No power which executes the captive holds moral authority to hold people captive.
Humans don’t have low oxygen sensitivity. That’s pretty well established fact. Nitrogen asphyxiation is basically “little bit dizzy -> pass out -> dead.”
It is absolutely, certainly, no question more humane than any other method of execution.
Note, I don’t say that it is humane, just that it’s more humane. And I’d much prefer that, if an execution is going to happen, it be as humane as possible.
Oh, you’ve done it? Tell me about your specific medical expertise that is greater than… basically every medical organization that has spoken on the subject. Is your expertise also that you read a wikipedia page?
Pretty much everything real on the subject is about industrial accidents, which are not really analagous, or from the few examples of euthanasia with nitrogen pods – and the information provided by Dr. Philip Nitschke who researched the actual N2 aspyxiation euthanasia devices and who publicly said the Alabama method was not like that at all and was likely to cause significant pain and distress.
~22 minutes is now being reported, with the guy struggling, gasping, resisting, fighting, trying not to die. Fighting for his life on the gurney. This method provides no guarantees, no timelines, and DEFINITELY is not the nonsense people are describing about “gentle sleep” or whatever the fuck.
I suspect you and the people in this thread have exactly the same level of expertise as the Al lawmakers and agencies that allowed this to happen: bullshit none.
I thought, hmm, maybe this guy is right, and there is some body of research that says nitrogen asphyxiation is actually painful, so I tried to find a source to that fact. I couldn’t find a single one.
I found many saying the Alabama protocols for administering it were bad, and could prolong the process.
I found many saying that leakages were dangerous, as the other people in the room might die of nitrogen asphyxiation without even knowing it was happening.
I’ve read that the man being executed really really would like to not be executed, and is fighting tooth and nail to prevent it, leading to thrashing about on the gurney.
I’ve found sources saying that testing out novel execution methods on inmates is by definition torture, and cruel and unusual punishment.
But I can’t find a single source that claims the process is physically painful. Maybe I’m wrong, and if so, I’d love to know. Can you link me something that says so? I mean this very sincerely. I’d like to be corrected if so.
But all I can find are those things listed above. Nothing at all that I can find that implies that nitrogen asphyxiation is anything other than unnoticeable to the person it kills.
But that IS the point. We don’t know. It isn’t studied – cannot be studied ethically.
It is presumed to be painless based on unrelated case studies. And so people are proudly and confidently stepping forward to say “ignore the situations where it causes apparent pain and distress (animal examples), we’ll just use very different industrial accidents where we THINK it maybe was painless but have no way to know and will use that to declare it is painless.”
Meanwhile this guy struggled to live for over 20 minutes tied to a gurney.
You have a belief without evidence. You have to prove it. And we both know it is not going to happen because the research doesn’t exist and would be unethical.
But people die from nitrogen asphyxiation all the time. It’s in fact well studied that it is so deadly because it can kill you without you even knowing there is a problem. This is widely accepted as fact.
And we know that animals sense oxygen presence differently than humans. I can’t find a single reputable source saying otherwise. All admit that humans don’t sense oxygen deprivation the same way many other animals do.
And yes, this man struggled for 20min on a gurney. Just like he did when they tried to give him a lethal injection. They never even got the needle in for that one. Dude didn’t want to die, which is super reasonable. Of course he struggled. It doesn’t mean the method of execution was painful.
I don’t have a belief without evidence. I have a belief based on accounts of people accidentally exposed to high nitrogen environments.
And while I certainly agree that it’s unethical to study nitrogen asphyxiation by trying to kill people with it, that’s not the only way to study the effects of breathing nitrogen on the human body. We study accidents and suicide attempts after the fact.
We in fact can learn about things that kill people without actively and purposely killing people with them.
Oh, alright then. The guy didn’t spend 20+ minutes gasping for air and struggling on a gurney, then, because industrial accidents are the exact same as what happened here. And the euthanasia researchers that have actually researched N2 asphyxiation and said the Al process would likely be torture are all just… less knowledgeable than you.
You’re actively mischaracterizing what the experts are saying though. They are saying that testing novel execution methods on a person is torture definitionally. They are asserting that it’s torture even if the method is absolutely painless.
And I absolutely don’t disagree that the man was thrashing and gasping for 20+ minutes. But I think it’s very germaine to point out that he was thrashing and gasping for 20+ minutes the last time they tried to execute him, and they didn’t even get a needle in his arm.
I’m sorry my dude, but I really think you’re trying to put a spin on the facts. I’m not even arguing that it’s not torture. You’re literally killing the guy, right? It doesn’t mean that it’s not painless (physically, not mentally, obviously.) And just because you assert that that is what the experts are saying simply doesn’t make it true.
Literally no experts have said they are confident the method is painless, though.
Just wikipedia PhDs talking about industrial accidents in vastly different circumstances, where victims were caught entirely unaware.
You’re basically asking me to prove the negative - so let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Find me medical experts testifying that this execution method would definitely be painless, because it’s really easy to find medical organizations and medical experts saying their concerned the process could be torturous.
Dr. Philip Nitschke, a much-interviewed expert on euthanasia that shows up in a lot of these articles and who specifically studied use of N2 asphyxiation, expressed great concerns about how this was being administered. The only way this can even conceivably be administered painlessly is if you either catch someone by surprise or have their full cooperation. If they’re an unwilling participant you are torturing them to death using a technique that has an indefinite amount of time to work properly. The setup of how Alabama was going to be doing this would be slow and ineffective, and all of that delay is going to be torturous.
And if you can’t find that testimony that this process is definitely humane maybe you should stop assuming it is.
It’s true, it’s pretty inconceivable that any execution method isn’t torturing someone to death. Hard to come up with any theoretical framework for that other than taking a gun to the head in your sleep. But these pseudo-scientific techniques that simply refuse to think through the practicality of administration are entirely designed to make the execution more pleasant to watch for the onlookers and that is particularly heinous.
Stop thinking about the methos you would want used on you if you had to be executed. That line of thinking isn’t analogous or reasonable. Think about the technique you use on someone who doesn’t want to be executed. Because that’s an entirely different thing and the practicality of administering is part of how you make it more humane if that’s really your goal - and to be clear I’m sure that that’s not anyone’s goal here.
The goal of the using this technique is being fulfilled perfectly by you, since it was to fool people into believing there is such a possibility as a more humane execution ( that was still reasonable for onlookers).
Any suggestions for alternatives? The poor unfortunate souls on death row salute you. Can’t cause them any distress now. I’m sure their victims got the same consideration.
I would not say executing innocents is a good thing. I understand your compassion though. It speaks well to you. Unfortunately there is usually no being made whole when it comes to tragedy. I believe the bar for proving guilt when the death penalty is involved is quite high. I have seen the cases of the few exonerated from death row and I am thankful for that. There are people out there fighting for those wrongly accused. However, there are many more clear cut open and shut cases of those not deserving to exist among their fellow man who have done things to the innocent that are hard to even read.
Oh the bar is quite high. No problem then, it will only be a small number of definitely innocent people we murder.
How about we can execute people, but if they’re later exonerated every single person involved in the execution themselves gets executed automatically. I think that may enforce a high enough standard for me.
That made me chuckle. However it seems to go against the premise of your argument. Kill more to prevent the killing of one? I’m afraid there is no good solution. Maybe neuralink will one day allow us to read the memories of those accused for definite convictions.
You have missed my point. If the penalty for an error were death, with no wiggle room whatsoever, there would be no more errors because no one would be willing to risk it. It would end the death penalty.
And even then I’m not sure “I would literally stake my life on it” is a high enough burden. But it is absolutely insane and unacceptable that anyone is willing to stake someone else’s life on it and not their own.
The only way you can have complete control over someone is solitary confinement.
Either you are claiming execution is a form of solitary confinement or Alabama didn’t have complete control over the man they just strapped down and murdered for your statements not to contradict.
Considered too cruel to be used by vets because of the clear signs of distress shown in animals to which it was administered. But this guy says it’s good enough for humans!
It’s important that a prisoner not just be killed, but can feel themselves dying, apparently.
I understand why you would think this seems peaceful. But we have no idea whether it is, anyone claiming otherwise is bullshitting or lying, and the entire idea of “humane” execution is an oxymoron to begin with.
Could you provide a reference for this? According to the Wikipedia article on inert gas asphyxiation:
This makes sense, but there’s also a [citation needed] there. And even if true, it explicitly draws a distinction between these sorts of animals and humans, which the rest of the article is quite emphatic do not have sensitivity to low oxygen.
They were possibly confusing nitrogen with carbon dioxide. CO2 will definitely lead to distress in high concentrations, and has been used in some slaughterhouses.
The fucking US Veterinary Association published that it is only approved for pigs and even then recommends sedating the animal first because of observations of extreme distress. This is widely published – find it if you want, I don’t care at this point. Wikipedia is not going to undermine the countless medical organizations who all objected or condemned this shit. So sick of the wikipedia PhDs in this thread claiming to know what none of the doctors or medical researchers do.
Were you aware that humans aren’t a subject of authority of the US Veterinary Association?
Still waiting on that reference, BTW.
Love that you had the time to get your degree from wikipedia but couldn’t plug “veterinary association nitrogen asphyxiation” into a search engine and click the first, second, or third result.
For me, the first are a couple of UN articles about the subject that contain all of this information. But you couldn’t be bothered to look this up because you can only do wikipedia “research” that confirms your priors, not that might contradict them.
Again, human medicine is not an area that the US Veterinary Association should be having much to say about.
You claim to have a reference, why aren’t you pasting it? Surely that’s easier than rambling on about it.
Blocking bad faith actors is my pastime.
It’s more humane than lethal injection, the only other way we do it, which I think is the argument here
deleted by creator
Trying to +1 you but the comment won’t load right when I click
Yeah, shit you’re right
Lethal injection with heroin or carfentanyl would be pretty humane I would say
There is no way that it should be done and as a separate unrelated argument there is no was to do it that does not run afoul of The United States Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
It should not be done because it should not be done and there also does not exist a “proper” way it could ever be done.
State executions are an affront to decency and besmirch the dignity of humanity. They are also inherently cruel.
No power which executes the captive holds moral authority to hold people captive.
That’s a completely separate argument than the comment you replied to was making.
Humans don’t have low oxygen sensitivity. That’s pretty well established fact. Nitrogen asphyxiation is basically “little bit dizzy -> pass out -> dead.”
It is absolutely, certainly, no question more humane than any other method of execution.
Note, I don’t say that it is humane, just that it’s more humane. And I’d much prefer that, if an execution is going to happen, it be as humane as possible.
Oh, you’ve done it? Tell me about your specific medical expertise that is greater than… basically every medical organization that has spoken on the subject. Is your expertise also that you read a wikipedia page?
Pretty much everything real on the subject is about industrial accidents, which are not really analagous, or from the few examples of euthanasia with nitrogen pods – and the information provided by Dr. Philip Nitschke who researched the actual N2 aspyxiation euthanasia devices and who publicly said the Alabama method was not like that at all and was likely to cause significant pain and distress.
~22 minutes is now being reported, with the guy struggling, gasping, resisting, fighting, trying not to die. Fighting for his life on the gurney. This method provides no guarantees, no timelines, and DEFINITELY is not the nonsense people are describing about “gentle sleep” or whatever the fuck.
I suspect you and the people in this thread have exactly the same level of expertise as the Al lawmakers and agencies that allowed this to happen: bullshit none.
I thought, hmm, maybe this guy is right, and there is some body of research that says nitrogen asphyxiation is actually painful, so I tried to find a source to that fact. I couldn’t find a single one.
I found many saying the Alabama protocols for administering it were bad, and could prolong the process.
I found many saying that leakages were dangerous, as the other people in the room might die of nitrogen asphyxiation without even knowing it was happening.
I’ve read that the man being executed really really would like to not be executed, and is fighting tooth and nail to prevent it, leading to thrashing about on the gurney.
I’ve found sources saying that testing out novel execution methods on inmates is by definition torture, and cruel and unusual punishment.
But I can’t find a single source that claims the process is physically painful. Maybe I’m wrong, and if so, I’d love to know. Can you link me something that says so? I mean this very sincerely. I’d like to be corrected if so.
But all I can find are those things listed above. Nothing at all that I can find that implies that nitrogen asphyxiation is anything other than unnoticeable to the person it kills.
But that IS the point. We don’t know. It isn’t studied – cannot be studied ethically.
It is presumed to be painless based on unrelated case studies. And so people are proudly and confidently stepping forward to say “ignore the situations where it causes apparent pain and distress (animal examples), we’ll just use very different industrial accidents where we THINK it maybe was painless but have no way to know and will use that to declare it is painless.”
Meanwhile this guy struggled to live for over 20 minutes tied to a gurney.
You have a belief without evidence. You have to prove it. And we both know it is not going to happen because the research doesn’t exist and would be unethical.
But people die from nitrogen asphyxiation all the time. It’s in fact well studied that it is so deadly because it can kill you without you even knowing there is a problem. This is widely accepted as fact.
And we know that animals sense oxygen presence differently than humans. I can’t find a single reputable source saying otherwise. All admit that humans don’t sense oxygen deprivation the same way many other animals do.
And yes, this man struggled for 20min on a gurney. Just like he did when they tried to give him a lethal injection. They never even got the needle in for that one. Dude didn’t want to die, which is super reasonable. Of course he struggled. It doesn’t mean the method of execution was painful.
I don’t have a belief without evidence. I have a belief based on accounts of people accidentally exposed to high nitrogen environments.
And while I certainly agree that it’s unethical to study nitrogen asphyxiation by trying to kill people with it, that’s not the only way to study the effects of breathing nitrogen on the human body. We study accidents and suicide attempts after the fact. We in fact can learn about things that kill people without actively and purposely killing people with them.
Oh, alright then. The guy didn’t spend 20+ minutes gasping for air and struggling on a gurney, then, because industrial accidents are the exact same as what happened here. And the euthanasia researchers that have actually researched N2 asphyxiation and said the Al process would likely be torture are all just… less knowledgeable than you.
You’re actively mischaracterizing what the experts are saying though. They are saying that testing novel execution methods on a person is torture definitionally. They are asserting that it’s torture even if the method is absolutely painless.
And I absolutely don’t disagree that the man was thrashing and gasping for 20+ minutes. But I think it’s very germaine to point out that he was thrashing and gasping for 20+ minutes the last time they tried to execute him, and they didn’t even get a needle in his arm.
I’m sorry my dude, but I really think you’re trying to put a spin on the facts. I’m not even arguing that it’s not torture. You’re literally killing the guy, right? It doesn’t mean that it’s not painless (physically, not mentally, obviously.) And just because you assert that that is what the experts are saying simply doesn’t make it true.
Literally no experts have said they are confident the method is painless, though.
Just wikipedia PhDs talking about industrial accidents in vastly different circumstances, where victims were caught entirely unaware.
You’re basically asking me to prove the negative - so let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Find me medical experts testifying that this execution method would definitely be painless, because it’s really easy to find medical organizations and medical experts saying their concerned the process could be torturous.
Dr. Philip Nitschke, a much-interviewed expert on euthanasia that shows up in a lot of these articles and who specifically studied use of N2 asphyxiation, expressed great concerns about how this was being administered. The only way this can even conceivably be administered painlessly is if you either catch someone by surprise or have their full cooperation. If they’re an unwilling participant you are torturing them to death using a technique that has an indefinite amount of time to work properly. The setup of how Alabama was going to be doing this would be slow and ineffective, and all of that delay is going to be torturous.
And if you can’t find that testimony that this process is definitely humane maybe you should stop assuming it is.
It’s true, it’s pretty inconceivable that any execution method isn’t torturing someone to death. Hard to come up with any theoretical framework for that other than taking a gun to the head in your sleep. But these pseudo-scientific techniques that simply refuse to think through the practicality of administration are entirely designed to make the execution more pleasant to watch for the onlookers and that is particularly heinous.
Stop thinking about the methos you would want used on you if you had to be executed. That line of thinking isn’t analogous or reasonable. Think about the technique you use on someone who doesn’t want to be executed. Because that’s an entirely different thing and the practicality of administering is part of how you make it more humane if that’s really your goal - and to be clear I’m sure that that’s not anyone’s goal here.
The goal of the using this technique is being fulfilled perfectly by you, since it was to fool people into believing there is such a possibility as a more humane execution ( that was still reasonable for onlookers).
You’re as fucking dense as lead.
Any suggestions for alternatives? The poor unfortunate souls on death row salute you. Can’t cause them any distress now. I’m sure their victims got the same consideration.
Good thing executing prisoners never gets the wrong people and always makes the victims whole.
I would not say executing innocents is a good thing. I understand your compassion though. It speaks well to you. Unfortunately there is usually no being made whole when it comes to tragedy. I believe the bar for proving guilt when the death penalty is involved is quite high. I have seen the cases of the few exonerated from death row and I am thankful for that. There are people out there fighting for those wrongly accused. However, there are many more clear cut open and shut cases of those not deserving to exist among their fellow man who have done things to the innocent that are hard to even read.
Oh the bar is quite high. No problem then, it will only be a small number of definitely innocent people we murder.
How about we can execute people, but if they’re later exonerated every single person involved in the execution themselves gets executed automatically. I think that may enforce a high enough standard for me.
Irrelevant, it is wrong to execute even guilty people.
That made me chuckle. However it seems to go against the premise of your argument. Kill more to prevent the killing of one? I’m afraid there is no good solution. Maybe neuralink will one day allow us to read the memories of those accused for definite convictions.
You have missed my point. If the penalty for an error were death, with no wiggle room whatsoever, there would be no more errors because no one would be willing to risk it. It would end the death penalty.
And even then I’m not sure “I would literally stake my life on it” is a high enough burden. But it is absolutely insane and unacceptable that anyone is willing to stake someone else’s life on it and not their own.
I can understand what you are getting at. Ideally, the burden of proof should be absolute. If not then the death penalty should be off the table.
Should be off the table for people we absolutely know did it. It is wrong to kill captive people.
No one exists who can make that call. Once you have complete control over someone is it immoral to kill them.
The only way you can have complete control over someone is solitary confinement. I would rather be dead.
You don’t think strapping someone to a gurney and murdering them constitutes “complete control”?
I didn’t say that at all?
Yes you did.
Either you are claiming execution is a form of solitary confinement or Alabama didn’t have complete control over the man they just strapped down and murdered for your statements not to contradict.
The very idea that violence demands violence in response is terrible for humankind.
Not executing captive people.