188
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Nine months after Kenneth Smith’s botched lethal injection, state attorney general has asked for approval to kill him with nitrogen

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jpj007@kbin.social 59 points 1 year ago

First off, I am against the death penalty. I suppose there are hypothetical scenarios were there may be some remorseless person who committed horrific crimes and for whom there is absolutely no doubt of guilt, and maybe then we can justify removing them from the world permanently. But in the real world, the death penalty is not limited to such scenarios. Innocents have been and continue to be executed. This is unacceptable.

But, if we aren't going to eliminate it, at the very least we can avoid unneeded suffering during it. As I understand it, nitrogen asphyxiation is a comparatively peaceful way to go. So this headline smells of bullshit to me.

[-] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

It’s experimental. No institutional review board in the country could ethically ask this guy to volunteer for such an experiment, simply because of the coercive power dynamics inherent in asking such a thing of a prisoner. But the government can, by fiat, decide to experiment on him, and you’re ok with that? Even if “nitrogen asphyxiation is a comparatively peaceful way to go,” human medical experimentation qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment; otherwise, what’s the point of banning cruel and unusual punishment?

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

The only experiment is doing it to humans. It's used to kill chickens by the thousands. Because it causes them less stress, leading to better tasting meat.

[-] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Right. So it’s human medical experimentation on a prisoner. Which, ask any social scientist, is some seriously fucked up, unethical shit.

[-] Mindlight@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

So the method has passed animal testing... What are the next steps in your opinion?

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Someone who meets euthanasia standards in a state volunteers to do it.

If I was terminal, it's something I'd consider. For science.

But I don't think I'd do it so they can kill people with less remorse.

Talked myself into a corner there. But a bloodless, mess-less, painless way to die could be useful to people who want to die with dignity.

[-] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

In my opinion, the only morally acceptable next step is abolishing the death penalty. But, if I objected solely on the basis of the medical experimentation angle, an extensive formal review of the body of evidence by a panel of actual medical experts, plus not using as a subject a guy who already underwent one botched execution, at the very least?

[-] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

It's only experimental in that it's never been done before, everyone knows exactly what's going to happen and it's been closen because it's more humane than exciting options.

[-] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

“It’s only experimental in that it’s never been done before…”

Why yes, that’s right. Which is what “experimental” means. Assuming you know what will happen before trying something is deeply unscientific.

[-] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

It's not like it's unstudied new science, experiments on prisoners are such a well known bad thing because people did cruel experiments which treated the subjects as objects - this is choosing what's known to be an effective way to painlessly die over a more painful and less effective method.

And yes we know what's going to happen, nitrogen isn't a new thing and people have asphyxiated due to it before (over a hundred people in the US in the last thirty years), just not when it's been purposefully administered in a prison.

[-] ashok36@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It isn't experimental is the way the word is normally used. We know what the effects of nitrogen asphyxiation are. People are accidentally killed by it all the time. If were going to have a death penalty (and I would argue we shouldn't) then we should seek less cruel ways to do it, which nitrogen asphyxiation is.

this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
188 points (87.0% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2634 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS