I’m torn about this. I’m against execution in any event, but the idea that this is somehow worse than other methods is a silly proposition. Good job on the article author for making it sound as awful as possible, but there’s a lot made of small things that are by and large better than other techniques that are considered constitutional. I strongly feel like this is more about preventing this particular execution than making sure the best method possible is used.
And that’s great. This execution should be stopped, but since it’s legal for now it would be a shame for this one case to deny this method to other prisoners who would otherwise be subject to lethal injection or electrocution, both of which are far worse.
The author’s argument actually seems pretry flimsy to me. If the issue is that it’s cruel to make a prisoner an active participant in their own execution, you could easily resolve that by putting them to sleep before applying the nitrogen. Breathing is only voluntary as long as you’re awake; once you’re asleep, you’re no more in control of breathing the nitrogen as you are in control of your heart pumping a lethal injection throughout your body.
Absolutely, the argument is crap, but they do a really good job of framing it to sound awful. Like, you die of suffocation. The nitrogen is harmless and breathing it makes you more comfortable. They make it sound like people are going to harm themselves by holding their breath to keep the deadly stuff out of their lungs, but it’s harmless and they don’t live any longer by not breathing it, so all they are doing by holding their breath is to make the experience more miserable.
But the article careful tiptoes around anything that doesn’t serve the narrative. So they did a good job at propaganda, but an awful job at journalism.
Maybe. I’m against capital punishment as well so won’t agree to either side, but you need to consider it. I don’t know if it would be more subject to failures of the delivery process but if you’re just dismissing the possibility instead of arguing it, I’ll reflexively disagree. State sanctioned murder is too serious to shortcut due diligence
If you read this article, start from the halfway point. The first half is absolute fluff.
Arguments against:
The executed needs to breathe. Author believes this will cause stress as they may attempt to hold their breath.
An ill fitted mask for nitrogen delivery may be a safety concern for occupants in the same room. Article did not have details on how much nitrogen is delivered or how much would be need to impact a small room.
if an execution fails, first responders may have difficulty treating the patient due to the prevalence of nitrogen gas.
When terminated by nitrogen, a study found mice elicit a fear response indicating that more research is needed before using this as an ethical means of terminating mice… or people.
Author also argues that since other states don’t use this method, it shouldn’t be used… which feels more like a chicken and egg problem.
The thing is, we already know exactly how nitrogen affects humans, and we know due to industrial accidents.
I'll preface this next part by saying that I don't think the death penalty should exist at all, and that when you give the State the power to kill, that power will be abused.
So, addressing the author's "concerns";
You can only hold your breath for so long. The stress of doing so would be no worse than the stress of knowing you're being executed. You can make the exact same stress argument about any form of execution.
Ill fitting masks are a concern, but nitrogen by itself is not a concern in a well ventilated room. The prisoner dies, not because of the nitrogen itself, but because the nitrogen displaces oxygen. Normal air is about 78% nitrogen. Any other concerns can be alleviated by having oxygen sensors in the room.
Saving someone from nitrogen hypoxia is actually pretty easy if you get to them quickly. And again, a well ventilated room means that it will be completely safe for everyone (except the guy wearing the mask)
Mice are not humans. Humans cannot tell when there's more nitrogen than there should be. That's why nitrogen is so dangerous in an industrial setting.
Basically, the author comes off as having failed every basic science class they ever took.
I don’t know enough about the finer details of this topic to say what is right or wrong, but I was hoping to be educated by the article… which felt like it was just thrown together without proper due diligence… or editing.
I am against the death penalty across the board, but this article is bad. It makes a lot of claims about nitrogen asphyxiation without citation, and one thing it does cite contradicts what they write.
There’s tons of hand wringing about how the prisoner would be an active participant in their execution. By breathing. They spend an awful lot of time on this point, and it’s almost silly.
There’s some points about how responders would be able to safely enter the room in case of problems. A portable oxygen source with a mask would do.
And then there’s this huge misrepresentation for the one scientific study they actually cite:
A group of Swiss researchers conducted research in 2019 on the comparative humanity of nitrogen versus carbon dioxide in euthanizing mice. Their conclusion? That nitrogen did produce a fear response, raising questions about its ethical use as a mouse execution method, and that further studies would be required to determine whether nitrogen would be a suitable euthanasia agent for mice.
Abstract from there: “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most commonly used gas euthanasia agents in mice, despite reports of aversion and nociception. Inert gases such as nitrogen (N2) may be a via- ble alternative to carbon dioxide. Here we compared behavioural and electrophysiological reactions to CO2 or N2 at either slow fill or rapid fill in C57Bl/6 mice undergoing gas euthana- sia. We found that mice euthanised with CO2 increased locomotor activity compared to baseline, whereas mice exposed to N2 decreased locomotion. Furthermore, mice exposed to CO2 showed significantly more vertical jumps and freezing episodes than mice exposed to N2. We further found that CO2 exposure resulted in increased theta:delta of the EEG, a measure of excitation, whereas the N2 decreased theta:delta. Differences in responses were not oxygen-concentration dependent. Taken together, these results demonstrate that CO2 increases both behavioural and electrophysiological excitation as well as producing a fear response, whereas N2 reduces behavioural activity and central neurological depression and may be less aversive although still produces a fear response. Further studies are required to evaluate N2 as a suitable euthanasia agent for mice.”
The tone is completely different. The study thinks N2 would be a good candidate for euthanasia in mice. They do conclude that there is a fear response, but less so. Far from “raising questions about its ethical use as a mouse execution method”, the authors think it’s worth pursuing as a more humane method.
Again, the death penalty should be abolished. This article is garbage.
I personally believe that for crimes which warrant the death penalty, death is too good for the culprit. Death is an escape from hardship, not a punishment. Instead I suggest they make the prison sentence for “capital” crimes worse. To paraphrase Heinlein, a punishment needs to be cruel to be effective and should be unusual if society is actually a good one. Neither is true of the American prison industrial complex.
Inhumane prison conditions, disproportionate impact on the poor, the use of prison (slave) labor, long term impact on inmates, private prison profit motives, lack of focus on rehabilitation, and solitary confinement may possibly refute your last statement.
? The person falls unconscious very quickly, doesn’t feel any pain, and it leaves no trace of the cause of death. It is even used for assisted suicide en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarco_pod
Maybe you’re sensitive? If you had someone dear to you suffer murder or rape I think you wouldn’t be that sensitive about the death penalty of the criminal.
If it were just about execution being painless, we’d execute people by detonating a block of C4 taped to their skull. 100% guaranteed instant and painless. But it’s not about that. It’s about those who oppose execution coming up with every reason to abolish the practice. I don’t think there’s a single proponent of capital punishment opposing nitrogen gas.
My personal opinion is that capital punishment should be reserved for a new standard of proof - beyond any doubt. If there’s the slightest doubt, the sentence drops to incarceration.
eh, detonators can fail, and troubleshooting a bad connection could be considered torture.
But I agree with the central thesis - but would suggest a 50t block be dropped on me from 50’. works every time, 0% chance of survival. splat. at most you’d have a microsecond of sensation before everything gooshed out the sides.
It takes too long for the signals to travel to the brain for us to ‘experience’ an event like this. We don’t perceive things instantaneously, it just seems that way.
“Beyond any doubt” would mean abolishing it. It is an impossible standard
Any case held to the standard of “beyond any doubt” would be trivially defended. It is theoretically possible we’re all in the matrix and the whole case was just faked by our all-powerful machine overlords. Is the doubt reasonable? No. Is it a doubt? Yes
I’m in favor of abolishing the death penalty. We shouldn’t do it with roundabout semantics and sham trials though
I agree in principle because I think the universe is absurd and complex, but I disagree in practice because most humans form a consensus on the basics of reality far more than we might think.
It’s reasonable to doubt reality from a philosophical point of view. Even though you might be able to make a very well-reasoned case about how humans lack free will using quantum physics and the debate about determinism, we don’t see people escaping murder charges this way.
If you have a murderer who was caught on camera and arrested on the scene, one who left a manifesto and confesses to the crime, I think we could use “beyond any doubt” pretty safely here.
My bigger concern is that people would still abuse this though. They’d say they had no doubt about cases where there weren’t any witnesses, the accused is denying it, etc. They’d be giving the death penalty to innocent people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time because they had absolutely no doubt the person did it.
So yeah, there are cases where beyond any doubt would make perfect sense but I’m still against capital punishment because I’ve seen what one crooked police officer or racist judge can do to a person’s whole life.
Person on camera was a black male, 5’2" to 6’6" wearing a dark hoodie. The suspect certainly fits the description. There was a written manifesto, but the suspect says he didn’t write it. He says he only signed the confession after being tortured by the police for hours.
Your proposal is exactly the system that exists now, and it’s unjust.
“Beyond any doubt” - Parkland high school shooting. Multiple people identified the shooter. Caught with weapons. Admits to crime.
When a person is apprehended in the act in front of multiple witnesses - that’s beyond any doubt. In any case, the standard of proof should be higher than “reasonable doubt” if the penalty is death. There are too many cases where that standard has failed and innocent people were convicted.
You’re describing “beyond reasonable doubt”. There still exist “unreasonable” doubts, such as, there’s a conspiracy against this suspect which the entire police force, the judge and the jury are part of. Or “aliens did it”, or anything.
You might think I’m being pedantic here, but being pedantic about language is a lawyer’s bread and butter. The problem is that “reasonable” is open to interpretation, and that’s the actual reason innocent people have been put to death…
There’s no way, weird as it may sound, to definitively prove anything except mathematical expressions, it’s a fact of life. That’s why gravity is just a theory. It only takes one piece of evidence going the other way and it’s proved wrong, just like in cases where the judge, jury and everyone else were so certain of guilt that they convicted someone to death, only to find out later they should have acquitted. It’s not their fault, they were acting on the best information available to them. But it’s impossible to be sure.
That, for me, is enough to render the death penalty unworkable. It would be nice to be able to delete the worst people in society, but it’s a fantasy. It’s just not possible to do it without sacrificing innocent people on the way.
So many arguments in here are basically “I don’t like the orphan crushing machine, but I guess if we have to have it, I’d rather the machine be on the fastest setting.”
There’s no “execution method” argument that can exist with an anti-capital punishment opinion.
do you compromise your morals and throw the switch, killing only one person, or stick to your moral convictions and allow it to kill five by your inaction?
Ah yes, life imprisonment, the greatest way to empower a murderer to kill… i guess other people in prison… who should be killed… so they wont kill each other… or…?
well actually i meant was choosing harm reduction is better than tossing your hands up and doing nothing when your ideal isn’t an option but if you want to pretend that’s what i meant that’s fine. par for the course on this instance.
Harm reduction? You put together a poorly worded argument and want to pretend people are misconstruing what you’re saying. Currently, effectively, most if not all lethal injections are on hold. Care to explain what “harm reduction” you’re supporting so people “dont pretend you mean what you don’t mean.”
the problem isn’t that people want those scumfucks to live a life in prison, it’s that we don’t have equal law enforcement in this country, so any capital punishment - esp death - would not be applied equally, which is pretty much what we see today.
Don’t mistake, I’d prefer rapists and molesters get deleted, but until we can be 100% sure every time that the person being punished is the criminal, it ain’t worth it.
Ignoring that… The point is to be a deterrent. The fact that people still commit capital crimes shows that it’s not. Nobody commits a crime thinking they will be punished
Innocent people are killed by the state, is the problem.
Most people aren’t willing to sacrifice innocent lives in order to be able to sacrifice guilty ones.
What ridiculous reasoning! They are required to participate … by breathing normally? Year somehow participating by your heart beating is ok?
They are against it because they don’t want to set a precedent allowing it. Death penalty opponents have come as close as they ever have at abolishing it by lobbying drug makers to stop providing standard drugs. Nitrogen gas, however, is cheap and easy to obtain. Right now the only argument against it is that it’s “experimental” (despite plenty of accidental deaths providing ample data), but once successfully used, that argument is gone.
Also, nitrogen is not poisonous. You asphixiate in about the same amount of time regardles of whether you breath, so participation 100% not required. It is just more comfortable to participate.
My God this article is full of stupid, awful arguments. Seriously some sort of agenda behind it. I hate the death penalty. However, if they’re going to do it anyway, nitrogen hypoxia is definitely the most humane method.
Is it humane to spend those resources on a prisoner instead of redirecting the funds to a social program? We’ve already decided we’re going to remove these people from society. The Internet says it costs about $100 a day to house a minimum security prisoner, or around $3k a month. That could feed 20 people for a month.
It’s a lot more humane than killing them and later finding evidence that the conviction was a mistake. Unless you know a necromancer, keeping the most heinous offenders in prison for life is the most we can do.
I’m against capital punishment but you’re way off track here, missing the forest for the trees lol
you act like every case could go either way at any time. There are many where their crimes are unquestionable. In that case, is nitrogen more humane than keeping them locked in a box until they die? Sucking up funds that could help actual innocent people in need? That is the point being made here
It’s only cheaper because of the enormous costs and inefficiencies baked into our justice system. The costs of executing someone come down to court costs, not the tangible resources that the prisoner takes up.
Funny enough, a lot of these appeals and investigations only cost so much and go on for so long because of the initial poor quality of police actions.
It’s like being released after 20 years on DNA evidence that was never checked initially, or where someone was convicted of rape but never positively identified by the accuser. A procedural fuckup costs millions blown in court, prison, and settlement costs.
So your argument is that we should make state sanctioned murder faster and have fewer appeals? Perhaps those low quality Police officers should just be empowered to… oh fuck we already did that
in my opinion - and I’m just some guy - there is no humane way to kill anyone who doesn’t want to die. It is a contradiction in terms. Therefore regardless of the method, it is simply “not humane.”
This is why punitive justice is pointless. We need to rehabilitate criminals, not just warehouse them. Obviously some criminals are harder to rehabilitate and reintroduce into society, but the vast majority of these people are not sociopaths
Fine, then the authors should argue that, honestly, instead of arguing against the particular method and thus dishonestly implying there’s some other method they would find acceptable. It’s a bad-faith “control the conversation” tactic that has no place in legitimate journalism.
They do (in general) argue against that in the first and last paragraphs of the article where they list (separately) themselves as abolitionists. I believe we can take that as read.
I'd like to wonder how Nitrogen Asphyxiation, which I know from my LN2 safety training is extremely dangerous due solely to the fact humans can't tell it's happening until they faint and die, can't be used because it's inhumane and dangerous, yet lethal injections, electric chairs, and toxic chambers are perfectly fine to use.
I don't support the death penalty/capital punishment, but if the punishment is the death itself, torturing prisoners is plain unnecessary
It’s prolly the most humane form of execution and prolly companies that supply lethal injection that are kicking up a fuss. If I had to choose a way to go, nitrogen all the way.
All those companies refuse to make the “medicines” used in it, actually. In this rare instance, the private sector pushed back and effectively ended lethal injection as an option.
Hence AL looking elsewhere.
I’m with you guys tho, N asphyxiation is peaceful…but as we all know, the cruelty is inherent and fundamental to capitalism. Hence the propaganda campaigns.
Air forces around the world use nitrogen inhalation to simulate the effects of hypoxia caused by high altitude decompression for training.
From that we know for a fact that it is absolutely painless all the way to loss of consciousness.
We also know that it is perfectly safe to have people in the same room who do not participate in the exercise.
And we also know that you don’t need a perfectly fitting mask if the had mixture is supplied in it at positive pressure.
The author is reaching at straws for arguments so he makes them up. He’s imagining possible problems or downsides and calls them as immediately disqualifying without ever bothering to look for their validity or solutions.
I’m against capital punishment. But if it has to be done this seems to be the least cruel method to do it by far.
it’s hard to imagine complications with electricity or lethal injection as we all have electricity in our houses, and administer injections hundreds of times per second across developed countries - and yet a significant amount of times either are used in the rare cases of execution they are bungled causing distress, pain and delayed death of the condemned person to both the victim, the executioner and the witnesses.
I guess irony doesn’t travel online. If it’s easy to imagine complications there, why is it incorrect to imagine complications with execution via gas inhalation?
I guess my biggest question is if this only works well with someone who cooperates, why are they not allowed to put the person under with anesthesia first, then administer nitrogen as part 2?
Anesthesia needs a highly skilled resource to apply it correctly, and most of them refuse to be involved in an execution, for obvious reasons. This is one of the major cause of errors in lethal injection executions.
"We can't use nitrogen! Lethal injection and the gas chamber and electric chair are all way worse and more painful, like to the point of excruciating torture, and nitrogen is painless, but I just don't like nitrogen!"
"We can't vote for Biden! Look at all the..."
I see a pattern.
(Yes I know Biden's not "painless," it's a flawed analogy a little bit)
When you add in the non-death row cases, that number is actually larger. Because our criminal punishment system needs massive reform. I do not call it a justice system, because there is no justice in it.
But the point is, don't give out a power that will be abused. It's that fucking simple.
Do not give the government the power to kill its own citizens, and the government will stop abusing that power. I don't know why this is a hard concept to understand.
“For social order we need tighter reigns! Incarceration hasn't worked as a deterrent, I say we expand execution to include lesser crimes!” - Chief Judge Griffin, Judge Dredd (1995)
The government already has the power to kill people, what do you think happens in a war? The only difference is that they’re not killing their own citizens.
Yes, that's the power that needs to be stripped away.
The government should not have the power to kill its own citizens, not under any circumstances. This includes police. They should face actual, external investigation for every bullet fired, and if they kill, that's it. They're not a cop anymore. If the death was justified (a big ask) they can get free retraining and a small stipend for a few years. If not, they get a full trial for murder.
All deaths in prison should also get a full investigation, with murder charges possible.
Add comment