176
Alabama condemned for nitrogen gas execution: ‘They intended to torture him’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
176 points (100.0% liked)
politics
25084 readers
2134 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In this case, I responded to a comment that said all other methods were akin to torture, as if this one is not.
This article specifically states that the guy convulsed for several minutes before dying, as well as pulling on the restraints. It's certainly possible he was completely unconscious during these convulsions and felt no pain. But it's also possible there was some severe suffering, we just don't know. The long convulsions are simply another data point that this might not be as humane as was thought.
I see no other information from any experts or other data saying the convulsions were simple reflexes and he was perfectly unconscious. We simply don't know, and I have to assume the possibility that there was pain.
Hypoxia without elevated CO2 in the blood is painless until the point of unconsciousness; that's been long-established based on countless different types of deadly and non-deadly situations people have found themselves in. It's actually part of what makes certain types of situations (e.g. low oxygen on an airplane) dangerous, is that it's hard to even know there's a problem until it's too late.
I can easily believe that the state fucked up the methodology of the execution so that the CO2 he was breathing out was recirculating into his gas mixture. If that happened, then yeah, they tortured him for no reason and that's fucked up. If that didn't happen, I'm pretty confident in saying that the execution was as painless as they could make it. Do you have a specific reason for thinking that might have happened?
I could be wrong, for sure; I'm open to counterarguments, but just throwing "well you can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt" shade at me in an attempt to say I'm not allowed to have an informed opinion on it is not a counterargument.
The most important data point here is the convulsions and pulling at the restraints. This points to the possibility of pain. I see no conclusive data saying he would be absolutely unconscious during this.
You admit to the possibility or even likelihood that they implemented the method wrong, resulting in a higher possibility of pain.
If it was implemented correctly you're "pretty confident" it was "as painless as they could make it". You're confidence and opinion is irrelevant here. You're certainly not an expert, and there's enough info to doubt how humane this is. If they ever implement it "correctly" maybe we'll get more data.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. The counterarguments are all there.
Personally I'm strongly against the death penalty as I hope is obvious. Even if actual experts say it was done perfectly, and there was absolutely no pain. Well that's certainly better but the convulsions are still gruesome and as others have pointed out the suffering can be the lead up to the execution. Also if future inmates are going to be executed similarly and are made aware of the convulsions they could be afraid of the possibility of pain regardless of what they hear from experts or people like you and your confidence.
Does this apply equally to you?
Are we allowed to make statements to one another based on our understanding? Or not?
What opinions am I providing? I'm simply Rejecting yours based on the data in the article.
You said "convulsing for several minutes is suspect" and "This points to the possibility of pain." Those are both affirmative statements I'd disagree with.
I've looked over enough data at this point that I'm pretty firm in my conclusions; my top-level comments reflect my sources and thinking on it. You're free to think whatever you like.
In that case you are wrong, and probably incompetent.
Your sources say nothing about convulsing without pain. The convulsions are a data point that is enough to question if pain was involved. Full stop.
You're [sic] confidence and opinion is irrelevant here.
Edit: Honestly dude, even in jest I feel a little bad applying this statement even though you did to me first. I actually don’t think this - I was swayed enough by the “I was wrong” possibility to look into it for quite a while. If you were open to hearing why, I’d be happy to talk about it, but it sounds like you’re explicitly dismissive of the idea of listening to anything that challenges your existing views. So, good luck, all the best.
Ok.
Show me some evidence that the convulsions aren't a data point to actually question the efficacy of this example of execution being humane. It creates the question of whether there was pain or not. Additionally, the possibility that this example wasn't performed correctly adds more data to support my questioning of your assertion that it was painless.
I have not implied any objective statements as if I know what occurred definitively. I'm simply saying based on what happened and how it was carried out, I can reasonably question whether this was actually humane.
This might surprise you, but I’m not obligated to continue this conversation or convince you of anything. Like I say, I’ve laid out what I think and why in other comments.
You have absolutely layed out what you think. And I've proven very easily that you're wrong and have very poor critical thinking skills. See ya.