TranscriptAlabama suffocated a man to death in a gas chamber tonight after starving him so he wouldn't choke on his own vomit as they did it. And this was deemed perfectly legal by multiple courts in the vaunted American legal system.
That's what happens when you value institutions over people.
Bluntly, choking on your own vomit is probably a really terrible way to die. If I recall correctly he was put in a chamber where the majority of the air in the room was replaced with nitrous oxide, asphyxiating the subject. If he had choked on his vomit, it would have been closer to drowning than suffocating in the manner that was intended.
By asphyxiating him in this way, his suffering was effectively eliminated during the execution; but if he had vomited and choked on it.... Well, I don't know if you've ever found yourself short of air in a body of water, but it's a pretty unpleasant experience. It only gets worse as you get closer to death when drowning (from what I've heard/understood from people who have nearly drown).
The intention of not giving him food so he didn't vomit, was a humane decision, not intended for additional suffering and cruelty.
Twisting the intent like this is doing a disservice to the entire process. You can dislike capital punishment all you want, and I may even agree that it shouldn't be done, but the fact is, this statement is misleading at best. I'm all for a healthy discussion on it, but let's not conflate the issue with these misconceptions.
There's no evidence that it's painless and there is evidence that you stay awake and aware of what's happening to you for several seconds after you are beheaded.
We have no means by which to determine that death by beheading is not painful.
We do, however, have plenty of examples of nitrogen hypoxia, it's effects and the sensations associated with it as you die, by people who were either revived or recovered from situations caused by nitrogen hypoxia.
Personally, I would be okay with death by nitrogen hypoxia, if I either wanted to, needed to, or were forced to die before the end of my life naturally. I presently have no desire to die, nor any need to, nor have I been sentenced to death (or any sentence) for crimes (of which, I have not committed any).
So my opinion is just that, an opinion. I would vastly prefer to continue living at the moment; so I'll just stay out of trouble with the law by doing the same things I always have, and hopefully my health doesn't cause the situation to change.
Death by beheading doesn't sound very nice, but bluntly, it's hard to screw up with something like a guillotine. Since law enforcement (specifically those in charge of executions), seem to be inept, the guillotine may be a better option, since it would be much more difficult for them to do in a way that's so incorrect that it causes more suffering than what is normal for that process. IMO, that's the only significant merit to something like the guillotine. It's so basic they would have to try, in order to do it wrong.
Nitrogen hypoxia sounds more humane, indeed if done correctly. Otherwise the explosive taped to the head sounds pretty foolproof as well like some people suggested. Perhaps a bit disturbing though.
But I agree, the first step should be to not get into a situation where you're facing this in the first place. But if we have to choose, good to have some options in mind.
Probably the most painless, foolproof method would be an explosive, just strong enough to turn the entire head into a fine mist, placed right at the base of the neck. The explosion propagates faster than neutron activation can happen, so by the time it would be possible to feel anything, the brain no longer exists.
Think about how a guillotine works. It cuts off your head from your neck.
Think about how your body works. All of “you” exists in the head. You are dependent on everything below the neck to keep the head alive.
The guillotine doesn’t kill you. It separates “you” from the system that keeps “you” alive. It cuts off oxygen and energy from the brain. It is essentially suffocating, but without the muscles to suffocate.
So you are likely fully awake and aware of your surroundings. You are, in effect, holding your breath until you die, but also aware that “you” are in a tiny basket, separate from the things that keep “you” alive.
No thanks.
You know this smug motherfucker?
That’s Antoine Lavoisier, 18th century French chemist. Brilliant man. This is the guy who named oxygen. One of the founding fathers of the fucking metric system.
He was executed by guillotine during the French Revolution for adulterating tobacco. In reality, he had invented a process for curing tobacco in a way that made it more difficult for retailers to cut or modify tobacco, and the retailers really didn’t like that. He was an aristocrat prior to the revolution and, well, you can see how that ended up.
Anyway, he told his buddy to count his blinks right after his head was cut off.
His buddy counted 12.
Lavoisier was exonerated a year and a half after his death.
"La République n'a pas besoin de savants ni de chimistes; le cours de la justice ne peut être suspendu." ("The Republic needs neither scholars nor chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed.") Judge Coffinhall, who sentenced Lavoisier. He himself was executed three months later
"Il ne leur a fallu qu'un moment pour faire tomber cette tête, et cent années peut-être ne suffiront pas pour en reproduire une semblable." ("It took them only an instant to cut off this head, and one hundred years might not suffice to reproduce its like."). Mathematician Joseph Louis Lagrange on his death.
I heard that story as well; not sure what to make of it though.
If I understand it correctly, the pressure of your blood is gone right away, circling you in an unconscious state. Blinking could be a reflex of the last thing you were doing. But even if you do stay focussed, 12 seconds seems a lot better than 20 minutes. To be fair though, we don't know how long it 'feels', perhaps longer than the actual seconds.
A grenade bound to the head would be more humane then perhaps. If you don't care about the body. I'd go for that if it was offered.
Bluntly, choking on your own vomit is probably a really terrible way to die. If I recall correctly he was put in a chamber where the majority of the air in the room was replaced with nitrous oxide, asphyxiating the subject. If he had choked on his vomit, it would have been closer to drowning than suffocating in the manner that was intended.
By asphyxiating him in this way, his suffering was effectively eliminated during the execution; but if he had vomited and choked on it.... Well, I don't know if you've ever found yourself short of air in a body of water, but it's a pretty unpleasant experience. It only gets worse as you get closer to death when drowning (from what I've heard/understood from people who have nearly drown).
The intention of not giving him food so he didn't vomit, was a humane decision, not intended for additional suffering and cruelty.
Twisting the intent like this is doing a disservice to the entire process. You can dislike capital punishment all you want, and I may even agree that it shouldn't be done, but the fact is, this statement is misleading at best. I'm all for a healthy discussion on it, but let's not conflate the issue with these misconceptions.
Wouldn't a guillotine be the most foolproof and painless method? The idea sounds a bit primitive, but it's fast and effective I'd say.
I'd take that as an option personally at least.
There's no evidence that it's painless and there is evidence that you stay awake and aware of what's happening to you for several seconds after you are beheaded.
We have no means by which to determine that death by beheading is not painful.
We do, however, have plenty of examples of nitrogen hypoxia, it's effects and the sensations associated with it as you die, by people who were either revived or recovered from situations caused by nitrogen hypoxia.
Personally, I would be okay with death by nitrogen hypoxia, if I either wanted to, needed to, or were forced to die before the end of my life naturally. I presently have no desire to die, nor any need to, nor have I been sentenced to death (or any sentence) for crimes (of which, I have not committed any).
So my opinion is just that, an opinion. I would vastly prefer to continue living at the moment; so I'll just stay out of trouble with the law by doing the same things I always have, and hopefully my health doesn't cause the situation to change.
Death by beheading doesn't sound very nice, but bluntly, it's hard to screw up with something like a guillotine. Since law enforcement (specifically those in charge of executions), seem to be inept, the guillotine may be a better option, since it would be much more difficult for them to do in a way that's so incorrect that it causes more suffering than what is normal for that process. IMO, that's the only significant merit to something like the guillotine. It's so basic they would have to try, in order to do it wrong.
Nitrogen hypoxia sounds more humane, indeed if done correctly. Otherwise the explosive taped to the head sounds pretty foolproof as well like some people suggested. Perhaps a bit disturbing though.
But I agree, the first step should be to not get into a situation where you're facing this in the first place. But if we have to choose, good to have some options in mind.
Probably the most painless, foolproof method would be an explosive, just strong enough to turn the entire head into a fine mist, placed right at the base of the neck. The explosion propagates faster than neutron activation can happen, so by the time it would be possible to feel anything, the brain no longer exists.
You're right. And you also probably meant NEURON activity 😉
Haha. Yes I did. Though if it would help, I also wouldn't object to reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. 😁
Agreed, that sounds the most foolproof.
Think about how a guillotine works. It cuts off your head from your neck.
Think about how your body works. All of “you” exists in the head. You are dependent on everything below the neck to keep the head alive.
The guillotine doesn’t kill you. It separates “you” from the system that keeps “you” alive. It cuts off oxygen and energy from the brain. It is essentially suffocating, but without the muscles to suffocate.
So you are likely fully awake and aware of your surroundings. You are, in effect, holding your breath until you die, but also aware that “you” are in a tiny basket, separate from the things that keep “you” alive.
No thanks.
You know this smug motherfucker?
That’s Antoine Lavoisier, 18th century French chemist. Brilliant man. This is the guy who named oxygen. One of the founding fathers of the fucking metric system.
He was executed by guillotine during the French Revolution for adulterating tobacco. In reality, he had invented a process for curing tobacco in a way that made it more difficult for retailers to cut or modify tobacco, and the retailers really didn’t like that. He was an aristocrat prior to the revolution and, well, you can see how that ended up.
Anyway, he told his buddy to count his blinks right after his head was cut off.
His buddy counted 12.
Lavoisier was exonerated a year and a half after his death.
"La République n'a pas besoin de savants ni de chimistes; le cours de la justice ne peut être suspendu." ("The Republic needs neither scholars nor chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed.") Judge Coffinhall, who sentenced Lavoisier. He himself was executed three months later
"Il ne leur a fallu qu'un moment pour faire tomber cette tête, et cent années peut-être ne suffiront pas pour en reproduire une semblable." ("It took them only an instant to cut off this head, and one hundred years might not suffice to reproduce its like."). Mathematician Joseph Louis Lagrange on his death.
I heard that story as well; not sure what to make of it though.
If I understand it correctly, the pressure of your blood is gone right away, circling you in an unconscious state. Blinking could be a reflex of the last thing you were doing. But even if you do stay focussed, 12 seconds seems a lot better than 20 minutes. To be fair though, we don't know how long it 'feels', perhaps longer than the actual seconds.
A grenade bound to the head would be more humane then perhaps. If you don't care about the body. I'd go for that if it was offered.
That’s really the tricky thing about the death penalty. Nobody alive really knows what it feels like.
Tough to get volunteers for a controlled study, too. At least under current ethical guidelines.
High explosives, easily the least painful way to die if it's very close to you.
You are right, that's better.
guillotines are probably the worst pain possible. you ever hear of phantom limb pain? try your entire body
Humane methods involve putting people to sleep, not violent destruction (which includes deliberate suffocation, for any retards about)
firing squad is i think the most commonly agreed upon method, beyond what we do for (legally consented) lethal injections and MAD.
lethal injection was a mistake, electrocution was a mistake. The british canon execution is ironically, probably the best option.