this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
130 points (76.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4335 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 93 points 10 months ago (6 children)

So, the Swiss suicide pod lets you kill yourself with nitrogen gas, and apparently that's absolutely fine and painless.

Alabama thinks about using nitrogen gas, and it's cruel and unusual?

WTF am I missing here? Or is it all just the BS hyperbole of US politics?

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Well clearly the difference is the Swiss suicide pod is for suicide, and in Alabama it is state-sanctioned murder.

I can understand disagreeing about the death penalty but the difference between choosing to do this to yourself vs it being done to you regardless of your feelings is a dramatic difference, is it not?

[–] smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 24 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You're forgetting that this person is going to die by the State's hand regardless of the method. Given that, how is nitrogen asphyxiation more cruel than lethal injection?

I'm not condoning the death penalty, just confused why someone would say nitrogen asphyxiation is cruel and unusual when in another context it's desirable.

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm not forgetting that, not really. I was just breaking down the comparison between assisted suicide and the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty but if we are going down that route nitrogen hypoxia seems the sanest and safest way to me.

[–] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

In one situation: A person that wants to die chooses to do so.

In the other: A person that wants to live is tied down, with a mask over their face, possibly holding their breath until they can't take any more, knowing that they will die shortly after their next breath.

I can hold my breath for about two minutes, maybe more if it I knew it was my last breath. I don't know if I could make myself breathe if I knew it would kill me. That sounds like an absolutely terrifying way to go.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, you're literally making up the procedure, but fear monger all you want. People are already tied down and injected with painful chemicals. I'd much rather a painless, odorless gas than lethal injection any day, and you're insane if you think it's less humane.

If you're against the death penalty in general, ok then, but don't project that so far as to deny people a peaceful death. That is pathetic and should obviously be the less moral choice to deny the less painful option.

[–] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

I'm missing the part where being suffocated while you are conscious is peaceful. It's true I don't know the exact procedure, but I don't need to know more than that it involves being forced to inhale nitrogen until death to imagine it is anything but peaceful...

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

First off, I'm 100% against the death penalty, this is only an argument of pragmatism. Nitrogen is by far the most simple and humane method at the states disposal to perform executions. The rapid hypoxia will leave the victim unconscious within a minute and death will happen shortly after. It requires minimal equipment and essentially no training to be effective with this method. People who perform lethal injections receive no training and fuck it up way too much for it to be considered safe. If the state is going to execute people (which they shouldn't) they should seek to limit the amount of suffering and margin for error and inert gas asphyxiation is a good choice for both of those. If they wanted to make us easier on the victim they should consider giving them an oral sedative like versed shortly before the execution. Regardless, they'll be out in under a minute so it still minimizes pain and suffering

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Even if breathing Nitrogen is the most humane way to be killed, you can’t disregard the delivery. If someone is fighting to hold their breath to live longer, to knock off their mask to live longer, or a doctor can’t intervene in case it goes wrong, those those are possible arguments against even the best murder method

I’m against capital punishment so won’t agree with either side but you do have to insider whether the delivery method is also humane. This is also the big difference with the suicide pods where the patient is willingly cooperating with delivery, vs state sanctioned murder where they may not be

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Completely agree. I'm also against capital punishment but all things considered I think if they're going to do it nitrogen is the most "humane" way to do it. Not to diminish the fear and suffering that the victims will still experience, which they certainly will. It will just be quicker. Whether they pass out from holding their breath or pass out from hypoxia, they'll be out in a minute or so, which is much quicker than other forms of execution in use today

[–] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're disregarding the fact that the idea that breathing will kill you, while you are tied down with a mask over your face, would likely lead to more than a couple terrifying moments of holding your breath and holding on to life for as long as you can.

Nitrogen asphyxiation as a suicide method is painless as far as we know, yes. But try holding your breath for as long as you can, and imagine you are tied down and will die shortly after your next breath... doesn't exactly sound quick or peaceful to me.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not forgetting that aspect of things, as horrible as they are. But they are a significant improvement from the pain and suffering caused by lethal injections. If I were on death row I would beg for nitrogen over lethal injection. The people administering injections often receive no training and screw it up often enough for it to not be a viable method in my eyes. Additionally, the compounds they use cause a burning sensation in your veins. Throughout your entire body. Id rather panic and pass out for a minute than be set on fire from the inside for several minutes until my lungs fill with fluid enough for me to pass out from pain and suffocation that's more akin to drowning or strangulation than regular ole hypoxia.

I don't think it's necessarily peaceful, but it is quicker and less painful and that's about all we can ask for if we're going to be executing people.

[–] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

To be fair, lethal injections also sound absolutely horrible (and for the record I agree fully that nobody should be executing anybody in the first place).

Still, to me it sounds so absolutely terrifying to be in a situation where I know that my next breath will be my last, and having nothing but willpower to stay alive for however long I can. It sounds quite similar to torturing someone while leaving them a gun so they can end it when they can't take anymore.

At least with other methods you aren't forced to pull the figurative trigger yourself.

To me it really just underlines how barbaric and inhumane these death penalties are...

[–] underwire212@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yup I agree. We don’t refer to certain suicides as “cruel and unusual”.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's because suicides aren't a method. Stabbing is.

[–] Jagger2097@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

They are, however, illegal in Alabama.

[–] lemmylommy@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago

The authors argue:

  • Nitrogen execution forces prisoners to participate in their own death, which they consider cruel

  • Delivery by mask is unproven and could lead to problems (like CO2 buildup).

  • the protocol is heavily redacted and many other executions have been botched before, which does not inspire confidence.

  • a lack of oxygen can lead to convulsions, which can prolong the execution if the airways are affected

  • in case of a failed execution the prisoner is entitled to medical help. This could be difficult or even dangerous to administer in an environment of little to no oxygen

  • mice did show a fear response when executed with nitrogen

While I do agree with those points and oppose lethal punishment myself, I would not expect the arguments to make a big legal difference. All of them do apply to other execution methods as well, and usually much worse. Personally, I would prefer a death by nitrogen to any other method on offer, if there is to be an execution.

[–] hOrni@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You are missing the willingness to participate. One wants to die, the other does not. It's the same difference between a boxing match, and beating someone up.

[–] smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am not, it's not relevant. The inmate is going to be murdered by the state, that is a fact. The only choice here is method. How is using a method that has been chosen for suicide cruel?

Again, not condoning the death penalty, just don't see how the change of context for the method changes its nature.

[–] Jagger2097@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The state could just not murder people...

[–] Fades@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

If you actually read the fucking article you would see that it is NOT about the willingness to participate at all.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

When you call things whatever you want, you open the door to abusing the law however you like!

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 months ago

Alabama people against it are just retarded is what you're missing. It's probably the most peaceful way to kill someone. No taste, no needles, bullets, or guillotine. You just get sleepy and that's it.