• Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because executions are things you want to “experiment” with.

    Goddamn fucking ghouls.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 month ago

      They’re fucking it up on purpose, the issue they’ve been having is the mask is a closed loop so there’s a build up of CO2 and it ends up more being a nitrogen augmented smothering than death by true nitrogen asphixiation. Its a very basic issue and I think cruelty is the point, either directly or by falsely discrediting an otherwise humane method of execution (not that any execution is good)

      • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 month ago

        At this point I’m really wondering if that’s the real intent. This should be so simple and so hard to fuck up. Grab an oxygen mask from the medical bay, and hook it up to a nitrogen tank at 50l/min. Prisoner will breathe in 100% N2 and whatever they exhale will just go into the room.

        The human body does not react to that. There is no feeling of suffocation or panic. People who go into low oxygen environments have passed out and died without realizing they were even threatened.

        The feeling of suffocation is caused by CO2 build up. If you don’t waste his exhaled air, if you make him rebreathe it, you’re going to create that reaction and a very painful execution.

        Anyway there’s one of two situations happening. One is the intentionally want to create an unpleasant execution, or two they are all idiots who don’t know how to use Google, and nobody who isn’t an idiot wants to help.

        That second one is I think equally possible. I know I could write a completely bulletproof execution protocol that would be 100% painless, but I wouldn’t do it even if they offered me a million dollars. I don’t believe in the death penalty, and I certainly don’t believe in the way it is often applied in the US, with people being put to death even when there is serious doubt of their guilt. I have no desire to legitimize that in any way shape or form. As such, I have no desire to remove the defense that the state cannot guarantee a painless execution.

  • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Nitrogen asphyxiation should be effective and painless, but not if the person fights it. Which means it’ll be hard to use as an execution method (unless you surprise them with it somehow)

      • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 month ago

        My understanding is that we can’t detect oxygen deprivation, but we can detect CO² buildup which is the idea behind nitrogen asphyxiation. Wouldn’t regular suffocation (like, something obstructing your airflow) be quite agonizing then in comparison due to CO² buildup?

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          Complete tangent, but I don’t think superscript numbers are a good choice in chemical notation. You’re trying to use them here to stand-in for subscript numbers, but superscript numbers have a meaning in chemistry as well. They denote ions.

          So, I think CO2 is more accurate than CO², since it could be confused as carbon monoxide with some sort of ion of charge 2 (unclear of positive or negative).

          • stoneparchment
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I want to warn anyone thinking of trying this: don’t.

            Obviously there’s the don’t commit suicide part, and that’s the most important part. But also, as someone who has unfortunately spent time considering various methods, I can tell you: don’t even consider doing it this way.

            Genuinely sorry to be contradictive, but you absolutely would have been in a painful situation if you’d continued. The only explanation is that you didn’t get to the point that your body 100% takes over from you and forces a desperate, painful, writhing attempt to get air.

            You would die of increased CO2 concentration in your blood long before you actually ran out of oxygen. That increased CO2 would be very painful. Like, lizard brain stem absolutely taking over, full panicking levels of painful. Don’t try it!

            • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 month ago

              You DON’T GET the CO2 concentration in proper nitrogen suffocation. Most people that are in oxygen-free environments don’t even realize that it’s happened; they get lightheaded, short of breathe, then black out and die. Any gas that’s heavier than air and isn’t CO2 can cause that kind of suffocation in an enclosed space, which is why SCBA equipment gets used in a lot of industrial applications. For instance, welding in enclosed spaces? The argon or nitrogen can easily kill you before you realize you’re in any danger.

              If you, for instance, connected your CPAP mask to 50# nitrogen tank, and cracked it open, you’d be breathing in straight nitrogen, and exhaling CO2. There would be zero CO2 buildup. As a result, zero panic. The problem is when you try to displace oxygen, but not CO2; you need to be displacing both so that you’re not rebreathing your own CO2.

              • stoneparchment
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                Yes, this is true. Using an inert gas doesn’t cause CO2 toxicity, but rebreathing atmospheric air does.

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      You could give them a sedative. They pass out and can’t hold their breath, then you administer nitrogen. You could probably even find an acceptable oral medication so you wouldn’t require a doctor to administer it. I’m in no way saying this is acceptable, but it isn’t that difficult.

      • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Thought experiment:

        Put them in a small sealed room with airflow you control. Using a randomly generated number to pick the start time (within some maximum that’s deemed appropriate), you then throttle up the nitrogen and throttle down the oxygen.

        The time spent in the room would still be pretty terrifying so I doubt it’d be much better than the mask… Maybe the room is their cell and it’s a randomly chosen day within an execution “week” where you make sure they’re asleep first?

        Probably best just to not kill people of course, but if you’re gonna do it, do it the most humane way possible.

  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    You know there’s a simple and humane way to do it.

    Heroine executions.

    I realize now the spelling error I made, but I’m keeping it this way.

  • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It’s both cruel and unusual. -Until states keep “trying” it. Then it becomes just cruel, and that will make it constitutional.

    Cruel as usual.

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m amazed they even go to that much trouble, or that condemned have a choice in the matter. Just a single bullet to the back of the head should suffice. No need to get creative or prolong any suffering.

    If the state feels like it must kill someone, do it with a quick and effective method. This just feels needlessly cruel.