96
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 27 Jan 2024
96 points (100.0% liked)
News
29127 readers
3645 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh my. I didn't realise that it's actually horrible for the person. Imagine grasping for air for 15 minutes! It must be horrible! That guy had a good reason to be scared of going away like that!
... And it's totally not an act made to stop this type of execution. It's not like hypoxia is undetectable by the body, as the gasping reflex is driven by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the lungs, not the lack of oxygen. Nor is it like the subject had any beef against the type of execution.
Come on. This is just fear mongering at this point
Executions are barbaric period
Sure, but as far as methods this is considered the ideal to the point of being how most people advocate for legal assisted suicide.
If youre going to legally kill someone, this is the way to do so humanely.
Not this way, they had no method to remove the carbon dioxide from his lungs.
It would have been trivial if they used existing methodology, but they didn't bother to emulate it.
A pure nitrogen environment does not prevent the exhalation of carbon dioxide (source).
They just filled the air he was breathing with nitrogen instead of cycling it through his airspace.... They needed a larger volume of gas to keep the amount of CO2 low enough
I've seen this claim made multiple times but the articles in question make no mention of it - including this one, unless I'm blind. Do you have a source for this claim?
It's not a claim that needs sourced. You put out a certain amount of CO2. Breathing that into a larger volume results in lower CO2 density.
If you have a cup of water that full, pouring that into a swimming pool does not result in a full swimming pool.
Every claim needs to be sourced/proved, except axioms. Mathematicians had to prove that 1+1=2, and it was not easy.
Yeah, but you don't have to prove that, because it's already been done and is commonly accepted as truth. Similarly to how gas laws have already been proven, and as such don't really need to be sourced unless you're getting into something more specific than the basics of hows gasses work.
Gas laws have been proven, but every situation is different and there might be other circumstances here that could be affecting the results.
It's not the same breathing in open air, in a room, in a plastic bag or in a scuba rebreather, despite the gas laws being the same the inputs are different.
If someone asks for sources the polite thing is to give them or admit you don't have them.
I don’t know. The older I get the more I feel that locking someone a confined space with a bunch of other unintegratables, essentially indefinitely, is less humane. I keep thinking society needs to have some skin in the game making these decisions. Seems like there’s more of that with something decisive like capital punishment than locking someone in an out of the way cage and forgetting about them.
Maybe this was more of an !unpopularopinion@lemmy.world post tho.
From the Wikipedia article on Inert Gas Asphyxiation:
tl;dr - literally everything that happened in the execution was precisely as expected. Smith did not suffer and was not conscious after the first few minutes of the procedure.
So this would be fine, but he did have symptoms consistent with hypercapnia, as described in the link you provided
They needed a larger breathable volume to diffuse the carbon dioxide present to keep the man from suffering.
They botched it.
Considering both include convulsions and cardiac arrest can be accompanied by agonal breathing, I don't think you can definitively state this.
Smith also resisted breathing for as long as he could at the beginning of the procedure and I think that needs to be taken into account. I won't say they absolutely didn't botch his execution, but I've yet to see any compelling evidence to that effect.
Unless they published their methodology, which they refused to do, we won't have any compelling evidence.