At this point it's trite to say that if this had happened in any other country, there would be incessant media outcry about it. That goes without saying. What I think is interesting is the nature of these experimental execution methods (god what an awful phrase). Who are they for? What is the purpose of this?
We can clearly see that it's not to make it painless for the inmate. It's also not to make it more efficient and quick, the guy choked and thrashed around for ten minutes. So what is the point of even experimenting with ways to kill a person? Is it merely supposed to be bloodless, to make cleaning up easier after the fact? A firing squad is quicker and relatively painless, because the person dies in a couple of seconds, rather than minutes, but it does make a mess.
I just don't get it. If that person should die, then why go through all this fucking trouble when you can just shoot them, or alternatively shoot them up with enough fentanyl to kill a horse? Bullets and fentanyl are cheap. Cheaper than nitrogen gas, I presume. Sometimes it feels like the sadistic fucks in charge of this theater (and it is a theater, curtains and all) are just trying some new shit to see what it will do. Experimenting for its own sake.
Firing squad is messy, fentanyl I’m guessing being a controlled substance/opioid makes it a no go. I remember reading a few years back that the EU was ceasing the export of the chemical traditionally used in lethal injections in the U.S. so my guess is they’re experimenting with a replacement they can source easily.
I think the point OP is making is that the state doesn’t appear to be interested in quick and affordable executions. If it were then it would seek to amend or change laws/regulations in order to do so. But instead the state pursues these experimental executions that are slower and crueler.
It is also, ironically, because of a failure in the market.
A lot of drug manufacturers are reluctant to have "used by the Statesville Department of Corrections to execute people" on the Wikipedia page for the drug they are trying to to sell. Having your drug used to put people to death makes it harder to sell to people that want to stay alive. So even though there is an open market for these chemicals, it is harder and harder to convince manufacturers to supply that market. Even where it's not explicitly prohibited like companies operating out of the European Union.
Also, the whole killing people thing kind of antithetical to most medical codes of ethics. Even outside of bad publicity, there are moral considerations, most doctors do not want to put their name to an execution method, it kind of goes against the whole "do no harm" thing. This is why they normally have some random first-year nursing student set the IV. And also why so many executions have failed in spectacular fashion because they couldn't find a vein, or the IV pops out or whatever.
so my guess is they’re experimenting with a replacement they can source easily.
This is precisely it. The reason lethal injection is so commonly fucked up in the US is because there is no standardized cocktail of drugs used. It varies literally prison by prison, and doesn't even need a physician's approval. I can't remember where I read it, but I recall reading about one state where the drugs chosen were chosen by the prison warden solely by vibes
Never gonna get a physicians approval since physicians take an oath not to kill people. That problem comes up a lot, as soon as the people giving you the drugs find out you’re using it for lethal injection they go “What the fuck what’s wrong with you no you can’t have more”
Not only can they not easily source the chemicals, they can't get doctors and nurses to administer the shots, so lethal injections tend to be administered by cops who don't know what they're doing which is why the previous attempt to kill this inmate failed.
Firing squad ruins the veil of civility, and it also makes the pigs get PTSD from THINKING they killed a man. So instead we have to play Mengele to give it some kind of civil and scientific legitimacy
We can clearly see that it's not to make it painless for the inmate.
I think it was actually. As I described in my main comment in this thread, inert gas asphyxiation is painless. So I think the intent was indeed to make it painless.
They just didn't take into account that the person might hold their breath, causing them to experience normal asphyxiation from the remaining CO2 in their body. Or they did take it into account by just telling him not to hold his breath or something, as if that would stop him from doing so.
Gas asphyxiation is often painless/quick because you dont know its happening. Kind of impossible to do though once you tell someone your gonna smother them in a room and they wont try to save you. Who wouldn't get a panic attack and hyperventilate over that?
Inert gas asphyxiation is painless because it doesn't cause a build-up of CO2, instead replacing both the oxygen and CO2. Your body only responds to a build-up of CO2, not a lack of oxygen. And the gas itself, being inert, doesn't directly do anything to your body. Hyperventilating would probably just help speed it along.
Holding your breath however completely defeats the point because you burn through your oxygen, it becomes CO2, and it doesn't leave the body because you're not letting it.
Not that the blame is on him for holding his breath, I completely understand. It just shows that while this method would be great for euthanasia, it's not so good for execution. I hope it isn't demonized and banned for use in euthanasia because of this.
Absolutely horrific.
At this point it's trite to say that if this had happened in any other country, there would be incessant media outcry about it. That goes without saying. What I think is interesting is the nature of these experimental execution methods (god what an awful phrase). Who are they for? What is the purpose of this?
We can clearly see that it's not to make it painless for the inmate. It's also not to make it more efficient and quick, the guy choked and thrashed around for ten minutes. So what is the point of even experimenting with ways to kill a person? Is it merely supposed to be bloodless, to make cleaning up easier after the fact? A firing squad is quicker and relatively painless, because the person dies in a couple of seconds, rather than minutes, but it does make a mess.
I just don't get it. If that person should die, then why go through all this fucking trouble when you can just shoot them, or alternatively shoot them up with enough fentanyl to kill a horse? Bullets and fentanyl are cheap. Cheaper than nitrogen gas, I presume. Sometimes it feels like the sadistic fucks in charge of this theater (and it is a theater, curtains and all) are just trying some new shit to see what it will do. Experimenting for its own sake.
It's some Mengele/Unit 731 shit
Arizona plans to use Auschwitz gas Zyklon B on death row inmates
Firing squad is messy, fentanyl I’m guessing being a controlled substance/opioid makes it a no go. I remember reading a few years back that the EU was ceasing the export of the chemical traditionally used in lethal injections in the U.S. so my guess is they’re experimenting with a replacement they can source easily.
I think the point OP is making is that the state doesn’t appear to be interested in quick and affordable executions. If it were then it would seek to amend or change laws/regulations in order to do so. But instead the state pursues these experimental executions that are slower and crueler.
It is also, ironically, because of a failure in the market.
A lot of drug manufacturers are reluctant to have "used by the Statesville Department of Corrections to execute people" on the Wikipedia page for the drug they are trying to to sell. Having your drug used to put people to death makes it harder to sell to people that want to stay alive. So even though there is an open market for these chemicals, it is harder and harder to convince manufacturers to supply that market. Even where it's not explicitly prohibited like companies operating out of the European Union.
Also, the whole killing people thing kind of antithetical to most medical codes of ethics. Even outside of bad publicity, there are moral considerations, most doctors do not want to put their name to an execution method, it kind of goes against the whole "do no harm" thing. This is why they normally have some random first-year nursing student set the IV. And also why so many executions have failed in spectacular fashion because they couldn't find a vein, or the IV pops out or whatever.
This is precisely it. The reason lethal injection is so commonly fucked up in the US is because there is no standardized cocktail of drugs used. It varies literally prison by prison, and doesn't even need a physician's approval. I can't remember where I read it, but I recall reading about one state where the drugs chosen were chosen by the prison warden solely by vibes
Never gonna get a physicians approval since physicians take an oath not to kill people. That problem comes up a lot, as soon as the people giving you the drugs find out you’re using it for lethal injection they go “What the fuck what’s wrong with you no you can’t have more”
Not only can they not easily source the chemicals, they can't get doctors and nurses to administer the shots, so lethal injections tend to be administered by cops who don't know what they're doing which is why the previous attempt to kill this inmate failed.
Critical support to our doctors and nurses, who realize that "do no harm" includes participating in state sanctioned murder.
can confirm as a burgerian that this is indeed what is happening
Firing squad ruins the veil of civility, and it also makes the pigs get PTSD from THINKING they killed a man. So instead we have to play Mengele to give it some kind of civil and scientific legitimacy
I think it was actually. As I described in my main comment in this thread, inert gas asphyxiation is painless. So I think the intent was indeed to make it painless.
They just didn't take into account that the person might hold their breath, causing them to experience normal asphyxiation from the remaining CO2 in their body. Or they did take it into account by just telling him not to hold his breath or something, as if that would stop him from doing so.
Gas asphyxiation is often painless/quick because you dont know its happening. Kind of impossible to do though once you tell someone your gonna smother them in a room and they wont try to save you. Who wouldn't get a panic attack and hyperventilate over that?
Inert gas asphyxiation is painless because it doesn't cause a build-up of CO2, instead replacing both the oxygen and CO2. Your body only responds to a build-up of CO2, not a lack of oxygen. And the gas itself, being inert, doesn't directly do anything to your body. Hyperventilating would probably just help speed it along.
Holding your breath however completely defeats the point because you burn through your oxygen, it becomes CO2, and it doesn't leave the body because you're not letting it.
Not that the blame is on him for holding his breath, I completely understand. It just shows that while this method would be great for euthanasia, it's not so good for execution. I hope it isn't demonized and banned for use in euthanasia because of this.
Interesting. Thanks