41–50 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or carbon monoxide?
Carbon monoxide is an awful way to die, as it triggers the hypercapnic alarm response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnic_alarm_response Inert gas asphyxiation would be a more "humane" way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you know, literally, just a gun to the head. Out of all possible execution methods that were tried in the last century, the lethal injection seems to be one of the most horrific ones, possibly beaten by the electric chair.
Why the electric chair? My father was accidentally electrocuted (and fortunately survived). He says that he felt nothing.
In the chair you are looking at a minimum of about 90 seconds of agony, which some taking in excess of 10 minutes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to make that generalization, you should have some good sources to back it up. Do you have some stats saying that e.g. 99% of pro-death-penalty people want the accused to "suffer"? Otherwise you're just throwing shade on people you disagree with, and that doesn't make you look good.
I saw a documentary on the subject where that was acknowledged in this particular case, the suffering being an important factor. I can't remember the documentary title, but the example was given of humane, even pleasurable, similar method to use instead of injection etc and it was dismissed angrily by pro campaigners for those honest and believable reasons. That's not to say it's a majority opinion - so I agree with…
It seems fairly common these days to throw shade on people we disagree with, and it bothers me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the electric chair? My father was accidentally electrocuted (and fortunately survived). He says that he felt nothing.
Accidental electrocutions are brief. In the chair you are looking at a minimum of about 90 seconds of agony, which some taking in excess of 10 minutes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to make that generalization, you should have some good sources to back it up. Do you have some stats saying that e.g. 99% of pro-death-penalty people want the accused to "suffer"? Otherwise you're just throwing shade on people you disagree with, and that doesn't make you look good.
I would say this is one of those very rare examples where sufficient social activity suffices where a study is absent. I have not met a single human being who believes in execution but only humanely. I have met in excess of 50 people who simply conflate suffering and death and simplify the justification
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say this is one of those very rare examples where sufficient social activity suffices where a study is absent. I have not met a single human being who believes in execution but only humanely. I have met in excess of 50 people who simply conflate suffering and death and simplify the justification
Hey, nice to meet you. I believe there are crimes where a death penalty is warranted, but only humanely. AMA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that is astounding! Makes me think of not smothering out a smoldering wick let alone a vibrant living man. Written in 1931, wow.
> Written in 1931, wow. Indeed. I always assumed that people did not have sophisticated thoughts until at least 1960!
Leaving aside the moral question of the death penalty, the use of lethal injection seems insane to me. Why don't they just use nitrogen suffocation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PR concerns, they're worried about being compared to the Nazis if they use gases for executions.
You've, umm, never heard of "the gas chamber" being used for executions in the U. S.? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chamber#United_States