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
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.
I’m against capital punishment as well, but this is how I’d plan to go out.
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