It is true that the only reason this method is being tested is because the places that made the chemical cocktails used before stopped making them, in part because the demand for execution drugs is...basically just bits of the US and Japan and like maybe two other countries, and they're expensive to make.
It's not worth it, and instead of going "huh, maybe we should wonder why that happened", these places went "okay, we'll just do human testing of new methods."
Firing squad does seem like the better option here if nitrogen is still failing to make these deaths quick. But I guess the issue is that in rare cases they might not hit a lethal shot and then the person's left bleeding out slowly. And it lingers on the executioners' minds.
Waiting 35 years to execute someone is unacceptable, though. Death penalty cases should really be more expedient. If someone has done something so abhorrent/they are such a danger to society they need to be put to death then it should be done as quickly as possible.
Oissu!![]()
Uhm, isn't the reason why death row convicts spend so many times in prison before their execution specificically because of appeals etc, i.e. a result of actual due process?
"Speeding up the process" would mean chipping away at that, which would very much be to the detriment of the convicted, especially how even with everything in place right now, there are STILL people being wrongfully convicted and executed.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Jan 26th 2024 at 7:14:18 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from history![]()
On an emotional level, I think there would be many people to agree, there are some people that you want dead, same with Nazis.
The problem are all the innocent people caught in the crossfire.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianThis is a non-argument. "But what if it's not done as well as guillotine executions?" Well, in that case, you try again — having caused no real physical harm in the meantime. But botched guillotine executions were horrific and you don't get a clean do-over when someone's neck is partially severed.
But all of that is besides the point, because if you can say "but what if it's worse?" then I can just say "but what if it's better instead?". Until you actually give any reasoning or evidence in support of the conclusion that nitrogen executions are more likely to be done improperly, you haven't actually made an argument.
If you want to argue that we should conduct executions without informing the condemned beforehand, that's an entirely different argument and fraught with all sorts of problems of its own. Frankly, it's tangential at best to the question of whether nitrogen execution is preferable to alternatives like lethal injection.
Thankfully, the one nitrogen execution that has been conducted didn't have that problem.
Yup. One could argue that court proceedings should be faster, but honestly I don't know what degree of these kinds of delays are purely bureaucratic (eg, a judge doesn't have time in their schedule to oversee proceedings) vs time used by the lawyers on both sides to actually, you know, gather evidence and make their cases.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.And yeah, the people who work as executioners have a lot of mental health problems too. The difference is that when a lethal injection is done correctly, it's not extremely messy. A lot of people who have done multiple executions tend to dehumanize really hard and it can very easily spill over into everyone else. They stop seeing other people as really human, because that's the only way they can handle it.
Killing someone is really bad for your mental health. The same pattern can actually be noticed in people who handle killing livestock in meat plants. They have to stop seeing the animals as real in order to handle it...and it can very easily make it really hard for them to relate to anyone else. (There's a lot of stories of people who handle killing animals on a regular basis doing something really awful and not realizing it until they seriously traumatize or upset someone else)
But the impact on "execution by gunshot" executors was so extreme that even people 200 years ago were like "...maybe we should try doing this differently."
Edited by Zendervai on Jan 26th 2024 at 2:20:42 PM
Heck, one of the most infamous examples was the "Holocaust by bullet" perpetrated by the Nazis in Eastern Europe - which they switched away from because the people carrying out the shootings were actually breaking down psychologically. And this was after the regime had spent years dehumanising their victims as much as possible.
Which ultimately led to the industrialisation of mass murder in an attempt to "distance" the killers from the actual act of killing as much as possible.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Jan 26th 2024 at 8:25:47 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyFor crimes that are so serious they warrant putting someone to death, appeals should be limited. You get a very small number of tries and that's that, and the appeals should only be allowed if there's proof of innocence of the crime they've been charged with.
But then I am a person who is 100% on board with killing serial killers, rapists, and sexual sadists (especially the ones who abuse children) and who believes if you commit a crime like that, you've forfeit having a place in society. I also don't see the point in a life in prison sentence. What will that achieve? Just put them to death at that point.
I'm kind of surprised we don't have shooting machine that could fire a lethal shot. But at the maybe that's not a good idea either with how badly AI can malfunction at times.
Edited by PhiSat on Jan 26th 2024 at 1:54:58 PM
Oissu!Why should innocence be what needs proven as opposed to guilt? There's a reason for standards of reasonable doubt or equivalent.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Jan 26th 2024 at 3:59:22 PM
My musician page
Which is why nobody executed was ever wrongfully convicted. Nope, nobody at all.
Seriously, courts make mistakes all the damn time. This is why the whole procees takes as long as it does - to make sure they don't end up executing somebody wrongfully.
And yet it keeps. Bloody. Happening.
What you're arguing for is to basically just increase the chances of innocents being killed by the state.
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyI'll just provide this Wikipedia list of exonerated death row inmates
. The US section is quite long.
Yeah, while locking up an innocent person for is hardly ideal, killing them is even worse. Prison takes away a part of your life, but the death penalty takes all of it away. I also firmly believe we should only kill people who present an immediate threat of death or serious harm to others.
Frankly, that is dismissive of human life.
Edited by Risa123 on Jan 26th 2024 at 10:15:55 AM
![]()
Which is pretty much one of the reasons why I'm against the death penalty in general.
There's not really an objective argument for it and morally speaking, it's repugnant.
You're not even neutralising a threat to society, you already did that by putting them in prison in the first place.
It's ultimately just revenge - a person caused death and suffering, so we bring death and suffering upon them (except we try to pretend we don't do the latter because something something "humane methods").
I firmly believe society should hold itself to a higher standard than "I want to see this person dead".
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Jan 26th 2024 at 10:21:38 AM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyThis is also why civil court has a lower standard of evidence. All civil court can do is fine you, if it was found out have made a mistake, you can get your money back.
If you were wrongfully convicted of murder and executed, the court can’t take that back. You’re just dead.
Basically, yeah. The courts are really fallible, executing someone has a really negative effect on mental health of the executioner and observers, it costs a ton (because of the constant appeals) and it’s completely useless as a deterrent because no one thinks they’re gonna be caught.
It’s worthless as a concept.
Edited by Zendervai on Jan 26th 2024 at 4:22:33 AM
Once again, I do get where this is coming from.
Take people like Anders Breivik or Brenton Tarrant for example (not American, but still, let's just act as if they were, for the sake of argument).
It's as clear-cut as it can get, we 100% know they did it, there is visible proof, they admit that they did it. Would any of us shed a tear, if a mass-murdering Neo-Nazi is immediately put to death, without any delay or appeal process? Probably not.
But the problem is, the Law does not work that way. Justice is blind for a reason. You cannot make exceptions for certain cases, it's either all or none of them. So if two Neo-Nazis living out the rest of their days behind bars is the price for dozens, if not hundreds of wrongfully convicted people (many of them minorities) eventually getting a chance to overturn their wrongful convictions before they are robbed of that chance forever, no matter how slim that chance is, that is the price I am willing to pay, 100%.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian

For now, we can't be sure this "done properly" will happen as often as, say, the beheading with a guillotine was done properly. But I doubt this - those new methods are mostly done for the benefit of the executioners and the public, rather than the victims (not that the old methods were often intended to benefit the victim, but at least they sometimes put an emphasis on efficency and speed).
(And of course the firing squad is at least as long, I mean single-shooter executions, which can (and sometimes were
) done by surprise (or at least quickly
), leaving the victim little-to-no time to react.)
Edited by Smeagol17 on Jan 26th 2024 at 9:01:22 PM