Alabama inmate opposes being ‘test subject’ for new nitrogen execution method
apnews.com
An Alabama inmate would be the test subject for the “experimental” execution method of nitrogen hypoxia, his lawyers argued, as they asked judges to deny the state’s request to carry out his death sentence using the new method.
In a Friday court filing, attorneys for Kenneth Eugene Smith asked the Alabama Supreme Court to reject the state attorney general’s request to set an execution date for Smith using the proposed new execution method. Nitrogen gas is authorized as an execution method in three states but it has never been used to put an inmate to death.
Smith’s attorneys argued the state has disclosed little information about how nitrogen executions would work, releasing only a redacted copy of the proposed protocol.
We should not be executing anyone. Hypoxia is well documented so he would not exactly be a test subject.
Note: if I were to commit medically induced suicide it would be by nitrogen hypoxia. By alla counts it is the best way to go.
1000% and I hope to have the right to die via this method some day.
Do we not have the right to kill ourselves?
What about n2o hypoxia?
And alla is seldom wrong about these things
The test is not of the efficacy of hypoxia, but of the state's competency.
Going to guess it is significantly easier to be competent enough to kill someone with hypoxia rather than a cocktail of multiple constantly changing drugs administered by someone who had little training.
You know you live in a third world country if you have discussions about how to kill your citizens. There is no need for the death penalty but a twisted and false sense of justice.
I understand you POV, but I disagree.
There are people that are beyond rehabilitation, and life in prison is just a waste of time and resources.
What we should do is try to understand what is making people commit crimes and avoid it before it happens.
People on death row are more expensive than on life sentence. You could have them work without making it slave like but talking about the U.S. prison system in general just makes me want to throw up. Its no wonder that people would argue for killing if they dont view inmates a human beings. I guess there is a special flavor of "humanism" in the U.S. I can tell you the european countries are doing quite well without enslaving and killing their inmates.
European countries dont have shooters or rapists like in the US.
Apparently it's a hot take: there are people who exist that we would all absolutely be better off were they dead.
This guy was someone who was paid to kill another person for a thousand dollars. This is not just "a citizen" unless you're saying it makes sense to keep people around in society that will fucking murder someone for less than a months pay.
Counterpoint: Given the number of people in government who said government should murder me because of the rainbow pin on my lapel, I don't want government to have the power to murder anyone even if we all agree they deserve it. What makes you think that this is the one thing the government is competent at?
But bro, it doesn’t affect me now so why should I worry bro man bro dude?
Dude bro man guy?!?
/s
The government is just fine at murdering people, innocent, guilty, it's all the same. They'll even fight to kill people regardless of overwhelming evidence of innocence. Sometimes they have to try a few times to kill the person, but if they murder them in the street, its a great way to get a paid vacation.
I never said this is a person that society needs to keep around.
I do not believe that living is a right that can be earned or unearned. It is a right everyone has. If a person is unfit for society they need to be seperated from society. If that means having them in prison for live than that is what we should do. Killing them is done for one purpose mainly: Because it gives some people a sense of justice. This sense of justice however is false as the only justice would be to undo what was done.
Congratulations, the laws of reality disagree with you. When authoritarians are knocking down your door to tear your life apart, remember: you decided to let them live.
It's like you didn't even read what he wrote.
Nice. If someone disagrees with you they are diasgreeing with reality? Sure makes sense. And nobody told me i personally can decide who is going to live. Damn man, now i feel bad about all those executions i could have stopped.
Nobody serving a life sentence is going to be anywhere near my door.
Don't delude yourself – revolution isn't a lawful action, regarless of one's intentions.
That's what they say, even keeping him locked up for life would be cheaper. Also how do you decide what's gruesome enough to justify killing people, what about wrongfully convicted people they do exist and they got murdered. There are so many good arguments against and do few if any for the death penalty it's mind-blowing to me how any more or less democratic society doesn't abolish it.
TL;DR: No, there are plenty of good reasons why the death penalty should exist. The problem isn't the penalty, it's the people pointing it at innocents because it's harder to prove guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. THAT is what needs reform, not the penalty. Otherwise you're successfully putting more people into slavery when they just shouldn't be consuming resources anymore, period.
This person isn't wrongfully convicted, he's been fighting his death penalty for years. He quite literally confessed, and his confession drove the man responsible for the hiring (it was through a third party) to kill himself.
Yes yes yes, "but what ifs" are very nice for people that don't actually want to make hard decisions. The bottom line is bad people exist and should be killed. This man doesn't deserve rights beyond those afforded to people who are sentenced to death.
The expense of the death penalty is related to the trials that are held, almost always in opposition of the ruling. If you were to compare the actual cost of the penalty itself to the cost of keeping someone in slavery, you would find that the numbers don't support you.
The reality is you don't have a problem with the death penalty, you have a problem with the people proposing the death penalty because not enough preparation goes into it. Which is perfectly rational, because if they are not proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be guilty then the death penalty should simply not be on the table.
The problem isn't the sentence, the problem is people not treating human lives with enough respect when giving the sentence. Both things can be true. Literally point to any fascist/ authoritarian and suddenly the death penality doesn't seem so bad. No one cried for Bin Laden being obliterated, no one would cry for a convicted hitman being killed.
Three counter points:
Those are some wild statements you make. Yes I have a problem with the penalty bc I think it's wrong, simple as that. But I live in a country where punishment is fundamentally based on the idea of rehabilitation. And that often even applies for murderers. So I think that's part of why I'm so opposed to the death penalty.
I doubt we can convince each other from our standpoints. So all I can say is have a great day.
I have a problem with your ridiculously vague statement of
The bottom line is bad people exist and should be killed
What makes a bad person? That they committed a crime (which crime, how bad is bad), that they show no remorse, that they are incapable of change (were they born evil or a victim of circumstance)?
You only have to look at how quickly decisions of law are changing (roe v wade for better or worse, definitely worse) to realise deciding on life ending 'justice' based on a human court of due process (where even confessing can be flawed) is fundamentally flawed.
How does it impact your day to day if we choose to incarcerate them instead?
But also, a little extra compassion in life would do you zero harm.
Thats simply not true. I myself would very much rather have seen Bin Laden in Jail (and of course a due process beforehand), likewise Saddam or even Hitler...
Even if you're right, that doesn't mean we should actually kill them. People are people, they should be treated as such. We can throw them in jail far easier, and to the rest of us, it's equivalent to them being dead.
Here's the thing though.
I agree 100% that the world is probably better off without this asshole in it.
But I don't think we should be doing that. For every one of these guys, you'll have another guy who got railroaded by a crooked prosecutor, or who will later be proven innocent with better DNA testing. There's just no way to be sure every one is 'good', and I'd rather let bad people live than accidentally kill good people.
government shouldn't be allowed to kill its own people
America is so fucking stuck in stone age, it's schocking at times!
It's way better than an electric chair.
Moat likely, but since qualified people don't participate in executions it will probably end up being done wrong and he will suffocate to death with carbon dioxide and suffer horribly in a different way.
Unlikely, unless the nitrogen flow rate is way too low. Even then, it would take a considerable amount of time.
They keep fucking up injections, do you think they are going to get airflow stuff right?
Should just be opening a valve. There's no mixture to get right like with the injection. Just 100% nitrogen.
You would think so, but the people who are fucking up injections are making even more basic mistakes than the amount of chemicals. They are extremely likely to mess up the seals, the equipment that has the valve, and a ton of other steps that would make the process work successfully.
One third of executions in 2022 were botched. Why would a new method have a higher success rate?
Why would you assume a new method would have the exact same success rate as different methods?
Because I assume the same incompetent people will be trying something new and therefore more likely to fuck it up.
Heuristics sure are fun. Unfortunately they are often wrong and thinking things out is better. Maybe don't broadcast strong opinions for things you don't know anything about. It's a lonely life here on Lemmy but there are other ways to get attention and validation than instantiating some opinion that you've held long enough to type it out.
Because it's extremely simple.
You can still think executions are wrong without making up nonsense to justify it.
This is interesting, and I personally feel he is fighting it only because it buys him more time. In a different article (linked in this one), where they announce Alabama's plan to use nitrogen it says:
So he literally asked to use nitrogen, they said "ok" and now's he's saying "how dare you try to use me as a guinea pig"
Shocking news: man on death row does not want to die.
More at 11.
"I think something should be available" is not the same as "I volunteer to test it out".
For example, I think ejection seats should be available on all fighter jets.
The correct analogy would be you refusing to get out of a fighter jet except via ejection seats, them refusing to be ejected lol. This guy apparently wasn't saying it should be available in general but that it should be an option for him.
That said, I am in principle against executions.
This guy is apparently saying that he wants to know how they are planning to use nitrogen gas, and the state is refusing to tell him.
So the correct analogy would be you refusing to get out of a fighter jet except via ejection seats. Then someone says, "Okay you can get out via 'ejection seats', happy now?". Then you say, "Hey what's up with the air quotes around 'ejection seats'? What exactly are you planning anyway? How does this ejection seat work?". Then they say, "Don't you worry about the details buddy. You'll be 'ejected' from your 'seat', LOL! Now shut up and get in the plane".
Fair point!
If you think his inconsistent argument is ridiculous, you don't understand the legal system. It's okay, that's why there are lawyers. (1) Alternate pleading is a thing, (2) the State pulls the same shit except 1000% worse, (3) the judiciary, especially the GOP judiciary that is elected on a "tough on crime" platform (got to love politicized justice), is ABSOLUTELY the most inconsistent, as their goal is to accept any argument of the State that leads to speedy execution. It goes all the way up to the SCOTUS - former Chief Justice Rehnquist was absolutely a shining star of the death machine, regardless of actual innocence. EDIT: the thing that really pisses me off is when the media covers alternate pleading without context. It's terribly biased reporting designed to give people justice boners and pump up support for the State. EDIT2: I might be slightly off with my terms of art - I'm in transactional law, not criminal law, and it's been a hell of a long time since law school or anything involving criminal law beyond a traffic ticket.
A glib reply would be "What's the worst that could happen?, they'd die?" but a far worse outcome is that they remain conscious but in constant pain for an unnecessarily long time. I'm personally against execution of any form but if it's going to be done let's make sure it's humane.
well what you describe is how Normal executions go. Doctors won't do it so it's done by prison guards with no medical training and is often so disgusting the witnesses need counseling
I am against capital or even corporal punishment.
But if I were to pick my way of dying, nitrogen hypoxia is the way I would like to go
Nitrogen is the most common thing you breath, almost 80% of air being nitrogen.
You don't feel like you are being choked, because that feeling does not come from less oxygen, but when other gasses like carbon dioxide is at a too high level. Foreign liquid, or even being unable to expand your lungs. There is no too low oxygen sensor in your body that is used to send pain signals.
You gradually lose your cognitive faculties, including feeling pain or self preservation.
I am against captial or even corporal punishment, even for heinous crimes.
If you are thinking about ending your life, seek help with health care professionals, everyone deserves a chance to have a better life.
All that said, I think nitrogen hypoxia is the most humane way of ending a life. I would even wish that my chicken nuggets got the least painful end to their lives
I support giving convicts with death sentences the right to choose the means (within reason). Nitrogen hypoxia is probably more humane than most of the methods we've tried, although I personally prefer bringing back the guillotine. If we're willing to kill a man for justice, we ought be willing to reject childish euphemisms (putting him to sleep) and make a bloody mess of it.
Personally I've been advocating for the "shitload of explosives" method. It doesn't get much more humane than being blown to a red mist in milliseconds, and the audience would love it.
Medicalized death sentences like the lethal injection seriously creep me out. Even a murderer deserves to face death with dignity, not strapped to a table and injected with poison.
Lmao who would love to see that? In videogames when you are fighting the bad guys, sure. But irl?
Alabama really shows itself to be one of the most savage states when it comes to their treatment of prisoners. Fucking monsters.
And may the head worthless POS of there burn in hell with abott and the other worthless shiteheads
I'll take it if he doesn't want it.
I was gonna say they could test on me, but I don't want to support the death penalty.
Unless they're pedophiles!
To make the same point in a less sarcastic way, it is a problem that just throwing the term pedophile at someone immediately ostracizes them and society is willing to condem them to effective death.
It's so bad that a jury doesn't even really need evidence to indict. Because apparently seeing one, potentially censored image is enough to cause PTSD?
I've seen people being decapitated without getting PTSD. I've seen horrible things from the Holocaust. I don't think one image is going to cause permanent damage. (I fully believe dealing with this stuff every day for years can be an issue. That's different.)
We need to drop just a bit of the hysteria.
A while back round where I live a guy was burned to death by a mob of his neighbours because people were saying he was a pedophile. Turned out he had only been taking photos of kids vandalising his garden. Oops.
Link to that news article?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi
Thanks for sharing, but, at the same time, I really wish it wasn't true.
They should've given the people who did it a life order with all chances of parole chewed up, spat out, burnt up and the ashes shot into oblivion before being buried 900 feet underground.
Holy fucking shit. It never once occurred to me that lynching was a thing in the modern UK. Mass stabbings? Sure. Getting mugged and beaten by gangs of teens, okay. But straight up lynching? Fuck.
I have seen some horrible shit too. Like that girl and her male cousin rapping in a bathroom with a gun, and she winds up accidentally killing her cousin and then killing herself after she realized what she did. Yeah, never going to forget that. Don't have PTSD from it, but definitely was traumatic.
I agree with you when it comes to the ostracizing problem. I would just like to remind you that not everyone is psychologically identical to you. Some (perhaps many) people CAN get PTSD by looking at a picture of a terrible crime.
I don't think a bunch of people got PTSD from 4chan 2004.
Ah yes, 4chan, full of normal, well-adjusted people
I don't think willing participants count ;)
When I was 11 I saw a whole 40 minute documentary from 1945 about it and I haven't gotten PTSD from it.
WoO stupid take
Why?
Pedophiles usually don't want to be pedophiles and won't act on their desires; they're just quietly suffering from mental illness and just their existence shouldn't change someone's stance on the death penalty.
Yeah, I'm talking about the pedophile who do act on their desires.
Sorry that needs to be spelled out for you.
Glad we can both agree they deserve the death penalty.
I agree that there are some crimes so horrible that the offenders no longer deserve to live. The trouble is that I don't trust police and the courts to correctly identify the guilty all of the time. Until there's a system that can prove guilt with 100% accuracy we shouldn't have a death penalty.
Yeah. Look at I think it was either south korea or taiwan but one of them went and grabbed a dude for murder and then killed him, came out a few months later he was nowhere fucking near the crime and was completely innocent. They grabbed another dude and did the same. Wrong. Again. They never even found the actual killer.
Right? Why aren't suicide booths a thing yet?
The capitalist owners could make more profit off it, and that's literally all human civilization values. And bonus, the people the Capitalists and their doting peasant sycophants consider "lazy, socialist commies" would largely opt out, leaving them to count their shillings in peace, unopposed.
Is it about needing a homeless population that can't (easily) opt out to scare the other peasants into continuing to show up for their purposeless jobs? Or just the last thin fig leaf of the capitalists deluding themselves into believing themselves less than monstrous?
Because being trapped in this labor camp of a civilization isn't mercy. It's the opposite of mercy. Not legalizing escape isn't the same thing as valuing life, and we clearly don't. It's the same thing as an anti-abortionist claiming to value human life while opposing social programs to help the newborn and mother.
Capitalists make portable suicide booths called guns! They love them
Last time a new method of execution was made, lethal injection, it was developed by a veterinarian who vaguely described how it might work and then it was administered by non-physicians because no doctor would ever touch this. I wonder who developed this new method.
Actually it's pretty well understood.
The human body reacts to CO2 buildup with a 'gasping for air' sensation. Nitrogen however, not at all. The air we breathe is 80% nitrogen 20% oxygen, so we aren't sensitive to nitrogen at all. Breathing air with little oxygen is something well understood as it can happen to pilots of unpressurized aircraft. Here's a funny example of what happens when pressurization fails. Once ATC figures out he has hypoxia, they order him to descend to 11,000' (which is usually the point hypoxia starts to kick in) and he's fine. But while he's hypoxic, he happily admits he has no control over his airplane and is totally unbothered by that fact.
There's a thing called a hypoxia chamber- the oxygen % of the air is reduced (not eliminated) to simulate what it's like being at high altitude without pressurization. Always funny videos there, grown men with oxygen-starved brains playing with a children's puzzle trying to put the square block in the round hole.
Execution by 100% nitrogen is the most humane death I can think of. The gas is odorless, and as it takes effect the prisoner would experience a euphoric feeling before just falling asleep and dying a few minutes later.
That said, I'm sure they'll fuck this up somehow- most civilized people have concluded that execution is barbaric and unnecessary, so whoever builds the nitrogen gadget is probably not going to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
And that's what a botched execution would look like- if you shut off the nitrogen too soon or don't ensure a high enough nitrogen concentration, the prisoner will be left with brain damage but not dead.
I saw a video, I think on YouTube shorts, explaining how our bodies response when suffocating is from an abundance of CO2 rather than a lack of O2.
Maybe whoever suggested this method saw the same video?
My position: no government should be given the power to kill its citizens under any other circumstances than to protect other people from imminent violence, i.e. the same circumstances that would qualify as self-defence by a private individual.
For the sake of argument: if you really wanted a painless and humane death what could be better than a carefully modulated dose of opioids?
I'm guessing the answer is if they get high on the way out then it isn't justice because only fear and suffering will assuage those with a vengeance boner.
No, it's because opioids aren't 100% effective at a painless death either. At this stage, no death we know of is truly "painless". Well, that we can prove anyway. They've had patients hooked to brain monitors when they've died in their sleep, the brain goes through severe stress at the moment of death. Drowning is meant to be okay, but for obvious reasons, we can't prove that.
There's no way drowning is the way to do it... There's a reason waterboarding is an "effective" means of torture.
Waterboarding isn't drowning. It's like mega drowning. Here's one of many studies done on drowning that shows many people found it kind of calm as they neared death.
i could never live with myself if i put anyone to death, regardless of how horrific an act they committed.
That's why apparently the execution squads are told that at least one of them has blank bullets. And why two doctors do the lethal injection procedure simultaneously, but one of them is injecting saline. This way everyone can legitimately think "maybe it wasn't me who killed them". I think I read in in "Behave" by Robert M. Sapolsky.
Meanwhile, medieval executioners simply wore a hood so nobody knew who they were.
Yeah but I think my answer was not about "I wouldn't want anyone to know I killed someone" but more about "I couldn't live with myself knowing that I killed someone".
Nitrogen Execution?
They're gonna freeze him and
striketap him with abaseball bathammer?Then deploy a bunch of Roombas to clean up the human icicle shards?
That would be the liquid nitrogen execution.
Jokes on them when the shards melt, and begin to reform, to continue his inexorable pursuit of John Connor
That’s liquid nitrogen, bro. This is nitrogen gas which in a confined space will consume all of the available oxygen and thus induce asphyxiation (suffocation).
Some might even consider this a kink 👀👀
It doesn't consume oxygen. Gaseous nitrogen is very stable.
However, if there is a higher concentration of nitrogen than there should be, then you take in proportionally less oxygen in each breath.
What an idiot, he's just turned down the most humane and painless way to go. You don't notice nitrogen suffocation, because your body ignores nitrogen in the air and determines you're suffocating by a build up in CO2. Instead, you pass out in blissful hypoxia.
I'm against the death penalty as a rule of thumb, but if you have to do it then it should only be done via nitrogen suffocation. Anything else is just a refelction of the vindictiveness of the people administering or pushing for the punishment - it doesn't achieve anything, it doesn't deter future crime, it's just you getting your own back and trying to say it's ok to harm others in this instance. If the goal is to remove them from society such that they don't harm or cost society anymore, then this should be done without the kind of harmful intent that the criminal themselves demonstrated.
Tbh though I imagine this is just the guy's lawyer trying to do anything he can to delay the execution. There's some small chance that the state could do something wrong during the hearings that leads to some benefit for the prisoner. However I can only imagine the regret the prisoner might feel as he's on the receiving ends of one of the other methods.
How the latest execution method is always humane, while the last one was barbaric:
Yeah the difference is this method is actually promoted by the scientific community, rather than commercial interests. Nitrogen suffocation is used for assisted suicide.
I just wish we'd use it for pork. However because it's so hazardous to humans (boiling nitrogen releases gas that expands very quickly and expells all the oxygen in the room) we just stick with CO2, which is very easy because it's heavier than air so you just have walkways to protect the people. With nitrogen, they'd require much more expensive safety measures to protect people working nearby. Also, CO2 causes a feeling of suffocation, leading to the pig lashing about and suffering, and possibly spoiling the meat somewhat.
Electrocution is perhaps the worst. They actually limit the current, meaning it kills you a little more slowly or maybe not at all, because if they went full power they would literally cook the person and that would smell unpleasant for everyone else. Lethal injections aren't much better, typically they paralyse the person first so they can feel themselves dying but not move to show any sign of it.
I'm certainly keen to learn of any further downsides to nitrogen, but as far as I'm aware it's the best thing going (out of a horrible bunch of ways to kill). Like I said before, I'm against the death penalty as a rule, but if you're going to do it then it should be as painless as possible.
Why people are so obsessed with finding more and more intricate ways to execute? Hanging or shooting in the head works just fine.
Those are not painless methods and they hearken to a sense of vengeance, not justice. If someone is truly so irredeemable that we cannot re-educate them to learn to be good citizens or at least non-offending citizens, then we should remove them from the ability to cause further harm. But we are not in the business of causing suffering, at least not on paper we're not. So we should give the person a civilized death with no pain, as causing pain is not justice, it's vengeance.
Why execute them then? We clearly have no issue incarcerating people for life.
I mean, I only believe in execution for people who are genuinely beyond help, extreme psychological damage or deficiencies, and that's because I don't believe in life incarceration either.
If someone can be reformed, reform them. If they can't, caging them like animals for the last of their days is almost worse than the death penalty for me too. A man who is sentenced to die in prison for his crimes due to the years he's sentenced, he should be able to opt out and go for the painless death. No forcing, no incentive, no coercion, death with dignity.
Honestly, with some prison reform I don't think we'd need 40-50 year life sentences as often because people could actually change. For those that can't, or who are too old to be able to change before their time served, the right to end it peacefully is something I think we all owe each other.
Personally If there's no chance someone will ever be released, I find that almost more cruel then a painless execution. As long as it's 100% without a doubt guilty I support this method of execution.
People would choose life in prison because deaths scares them, but spending 25-50 years in a box sounds worse to me than death does. Not only that, they have 25+ years to likely just wait to develop cancer and spend another 1-5 years dying slowly and painfully.
The death penalty is already about vengeance and not justice. Removing them from society completely is justice for harming society.
Removing them painlessly if they're not able to be rehabilitated, definitely what I would call justice.
Hanging, shooting, whichever other painful or 'old world justice' method, I'm hesitant to call that justice because it causes pain and suffering needlessly. Criminals treat people less than people. People must treat criminals like people, or we're all criminals.
Why would killing them be more justice than simple removal? Either way they're out of society.
Plus, if we accept that laws are not 100% fairly and correctly applied, we get the added benefits of not killing the innocent.
Removal being life in prison? I think that's whay you meant, so let me know if i misread thay.
That's not what I think justice is because prison is about reform and not punishment. If you're punishing them, okay, then that's a whole other topic. But if your intent is to reform, and they're too old to serve the sentence designed for reform or they're deemed mentally unfit to be capable of reforming (usually in the case of extremely violent but low intelligent individuals), then the existing prison system we have in the US would be cruel to just cage someone who can't change. The conditions US prisoners endure, especially when it comes to inmates on death row, is abysmal. Giving them the opportunity to take their own life without pain or suffering is my main "preference", allowing death row inmates to just sit and rot in those conditions sounds worse than death. Of course, I'd leave that opinion up to the inmates though.
I'm in full agreement that laws are not 100% fairly and correctly applied, so my preference would be to allow painless suicide as "time served" for death row. Stay as long as you think you're innocent, and hopefully we fix the conditions so they don't want to take their life regardless of innocence due to the psychological damage they might receive.
But I'm all in agreement when it comes to reducing the cost. I don't love the death penalty, I think it should be reserved for absolutely impossible cases, but it should be cheaper.
This isn't more intricate, it's significantly more efficient and foolproof. There are so many ways that hanging someone or shooting them can go wrong, it's unnecessarily complicated.
I don't know much about asphyxiation but it does not sound comfortable. Concerning lethal injection, it's not certain how much pain the paralyzed body feels as the heart is being stopped – have there been EEG studies?
I would prefer execution by firing squad.
The human body can only detect a buildup of carbon dioxide in the lungs, not a lack of oxygen. This is why it's uncomfortable to hold your breath for a long time. If you inhale pure nitrogen while being able to exhale, there is no build up of CO2 and therefore little to no discomfort.
Wikipedia cites a USAF text, saying: "Some individuals experience headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea and euphoria, and some become unconscious without warning."
If you want to try it at home, try inhaling the air inside a soda bottle
over holding your breath because they are both co2???
That just doesn't sound practical
yes. thus my confusion.
Better yet, try inhaling Nitrous oxide from whipped creme propellant.
It's supposed to be very painless. If I remember correctly your body can't tell the difference between oxygen and nitrogen so you don't have a feeling of lack of air, just continue breathing normally then fall asleep and expire.
Generally, the build up of CO2 is what triggers pain and panic of asphyxiation. Oxygen displacing gases certainly do cause fast unconsciousness and brain damage. Would seem very likely that nitrogen works well.
There's plenty of knowledge about the effects of nitrogen from it being a workplace hazard in a lot of places.
One example is anchor chain lockers on ships. That big iron chain that just came out of the salt water wants to turn into iron oxide so it absorbs all the oxygen making the environment extremely nitrogen rich. In several cases people have been climbing down into it and without warning go unconscious. I think one case had three dead at the bottom before the fourth guy comes along with some brains and thinks maybe I shouldn't go down there.
there have and it's horrendous.
In any case, displacing oxygen with nitrogen is one of those things that you'd never notice until it was too late. because your body bases it's breathing off how much air your sucking in, you don't even start hyper ventilating.
So put a bullet in his head and call it a day. Enough with this bullshit.
Seriously, who gives a fuck about boring legal motions when we're about to give the blood god his due?!
Sacrifice! Sacrifice!
We're so fuckin' horny for it!!
Skulls for the Skull Throne!
Milk for the Khorneflakes!
This comment was funny but your argument with this guy became kinda dumb.
This dude forfeited his life for crimes he absolutely unequivocally committed. How he is killed, he has no right to decide. We the people do. Original commenter dude has a rough take but it isn't that cruel, fuck murderers they're fortunate we the people dislike violence and actively seek humane executions.
But the US justice system has proven time and again that it is not to be trusted with killing prisoners.
We have literally thousands of examples of innocent people being killed due to faults in our justice system; how many innocent people are acceptable to kill to keep this failure of an institution standing?
Life in prison is both less expensive and leaves the situation open to remuneration in the case of wrongful conviction.
Don't disagree but does feel like a moment to point out America's war crimes and what we've done to the world. This isn't a wrongful killing and this isn't generations of cancer and trauma and ruined societies because of our country.
This particular person right here is guilty though and in this one instance, fuck him. Fuck this guy. He is not part of our society, he's not our friend or an ally or even deserving of humanity we treat one another with for how he treated one of us. It is decided he will experience the first version of this method of removal. He has no right to decide how, that is forfeit for him and allowing him to have that is injustice to the people he's harmed.
And homie above saying fuck it shoot him was bad taste but jeez it is a tasteless comment at best.
I won't lose sleep over a real murderer being killed.
My issue is the systemic failure of our justice system, not a guilty individual losing their life. So I'll ask again: how many innocent people is it worth sacrificing to get the ones who really have it coming, and why?
We know that innocent people will be killed via capital punishment. Why is the institution worth keeping when life in prison is cheaper and allows for remuneration when the justice system inevitably gets one wrong?
Well, it's not like we should treat 20 years in prison less lightly. And we certainly do.
Because unironically, shooting him in the head would be infinitely cheaper, infinitely quicker, and infinitely more fun for the executioner than any other method save for hanging (except for the quicker part).
It's also painless, the most expensive cost would be hiring someone to clean up afterwards.
Something else you have to keep in mind with people like this, we do not ask to be born into society, or as humans. Most of us enjoy who we are and love being a part of society for the most part, but killers often time do not feel human, they feel like it is the world and themselves, separate not the same. Whatever the case may be that causes this, including a condition or mental illness.
Yes, what has to be done must be done, but you should understand that it is not something that is done or should be done out of some kind of revenge hate fetish, it is something that is done to remove those people from our society because they are unfortunately too dangerous to be left alive, too dangerous to live even in a standard prison.
Once you start adding hate, anger, revenge, etc to the mix, you might as well just start throwing the zyklon b and burn pits in too, because that's what a society that kills with hatred does. Unless that person has specifically done something to you, your family, or your friends, you should harbor no hatred for them, only sympathy.
Make sure the pentagram is nice and even. Remember, the inside angle is 36 degrees.
Even those who defend murderers should learn to use a straight-edge and compass.
Where did I defend a murderer?
I'm thirsty for their blood just like you!
There's nothing more important than killing people who we've already removed from society; how else are we going to satisfy our horniness?
Still breathing our air. I guess those who defend convicted murderers enjoy breathing in what they exhale. Do you want to fluff up their pillow too?
You keep saying I'm defending a murderer when I just want to get my rocks off like you.
Unless fluffing their pillow makes you climax better? I'm into it if you are.
And fuck them for taking all of our air! We need that shit!
We do need that shit. luckily no matter what all the murderer defenders come up with, this asswipe is dead-man-walking.
I know, I'm so turgid right now!
Let's bag this guy and release some hormones! Enough waiting!!
I'm fairly congested too... enough talk. Let's just do it.
the state should just execute everyone who says it's okay for the state to execute someone