“Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total.”
Pretty compassionate way to kill a person.
Once again, the Law in the south is brutal.
They cannot do it humanely with a method that requires the person to breath normally to work. If they can hold their breath it will always be inhumane because they will still be struggling and have the same impending doom and physical reaction as waterboarding.
It does not matter if the chemical properties are different when the person has a working brain and doesn’t want to die. Or if it is being implemented by incompetent people who couldn’t even kill him with lethal injection in 2022.
A person who is doing it voluntarily for suicide would not be struggling against impending doom and would be breathing normally. The context here is execution against someone’s will.
the impending doom is coming in either scenario, either you play it up, fight it, and die trying, or you just follow through with it.
That’s a conscious choice people are capable of making in that scenario.
If you don’t want to struggle, you just breath normally.
So what method would you suggest, assuming you must choose a method?
I’m completely against the death penalty. It’s no longer an option over here in the UK. However, if it must be done, do it as humanely as possible.
I reject your premise. Alabama’s government could have just said “we can’t get the drugs for lethal injection, so we’re not doing the death penalty any more.” Instead they said “we’re going through hell and high water to kill this guy.” Fuck them. The death penalty is morally wrong because it puts every member of a democratic society in the position of being a killer.
I will not choose a method because all options require a trained an licensed medical professional to implement humanely, and nobody who qualifies will participate because they have ethics that prohibit causing harm to be licensed medical professionals. That includes putting someone to death against their will.
Picking a method is agreeing with the assumption that we have to put people to death.
The thing is, all of the humane ways to kill someone require the person to be a willing participant in the process. Nitrogen works when the person is relaxed and breathing normally for example.
So you’d rather have someone die in agony, rather than make a decision?
I’m asking that if an evil must happen, should it be a different, lesser evil, or a normalised greater evil? The whether the evil should happen at all is a separate debate.
As I said, I agree with you on the latter. The death penalty shouldn’t be a thing. I’m asking about the situation until you (as a society) actually get that far.
All options do not require a medical professional to administer. It does not take someone with a doctor’s knowledge or skill to make an airproof chamber. It won’t take a doctor to set up a system to add air to the chamber. You don’t need to be a doctor to rig a way to flood the chamber with another gas and remove the oxygen. Non-doctors can wheel him in, strapped to a bed. Then the regular pre-PhD’s can operate the system. Now the scientists and engineers to design this death trap may have doctorates, but they don’t need medical licenses. Design it well enough and a chimp or small child can operate the chamber controls. You will need a medical professional to declare death, though.
Locked in a box, with a cat, a flask of poison, a radioactive source, and a Geiger counter.
Except when the Geiger counter gets a hit, it sets off a nuclear bomb inside the box so I’m instantly vaporized.
It only truly works if you can isolate the room completely. That’s quite hard to do with a nuke involved. You’ll definitely know when they are dead!
Unfortunately, I believe any use of nuclear weapons is prohibited by treaties. Might I suggest a giant acme hammer or anvil? Instant meat paste, assuming they aren’t a cartoon character in disguise.
