454
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Move follows Alabama’s recent killing of death row inmate Kenneth Smith using previously untested method

Three of the largest manufacturers of medical-grade nitrogen gas in the US have barred their products from being used in executions, following Alabama’s recent killing of the death row inmate Kenneth Smith using a previously untested method known as nitrogen hypoxia.

The three companies have confirmed to the Guardian that they have put in place mechanisms that will prevent their nitrogen cylinders falling into the hands of departments of correction in death penalty states. The move by the trio marks the first signs of corporate action to stop medical nitrogen, which is designed to preserve life, being used for the exact opposite – killing people.

The green shoots of a corporate blockade for nitrogen echoes the almost total boycott that is now in place for medical drugs used in lethal injections. That boycott has made it so difficult for death penalty states to procure drugs such as pentobarbital and midazolam that a growing number are turning to nitrogen as an alternative killing technique.

Now, nitrogen producers are engaging in their own efforts to prevent the abuse of their products. The march has been led by Airgas, which is owned by the French multinational Air Liquide.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

If you murder a murderer, that makes you a murderer. Just because the state is the one doing it doesn't make it okay.

[-] quindraco@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

Same (faulty) logic used to tell the oppressed not rise up against their oppressors. If you're going to conflate all killing with murder, be prepared to get into weeds like self defense and right to die. If you're willing to admit killing humans is more nuanced than that, then and only then we can have a real discussion.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

There is a difference between reacting to a situation vs creating a new situation.

Very few people would argue against having to use violence to stop someone else from using it, in the moment where other options don't present themselves. However a murdered container in prison is no longer a threat. The state has the luxury of just keeping them there until time and nature does her thing.

Basically the rules for a crisis are not the rules for a non-crisis. Additionally, if it is required to use violence to stop violence at least the hope is something bad won't happen. Not the case for someone in jail. The bad thing already happened.

More broadly Ukraine has the right to defend herself. She does not have the right to burn down parts of Russia 40 years from now when the war is long over.

[-] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Sure. I can say that self defense (only in cases where there is an immediate threat of death) is fine due to it being a life or death situation. I can also agree to right to die being okay since there is consent, so long as the person is considered to be in a mentally healthy state.

Not sure about the rising up thing, though, but that is very nuanced. I believe in democracy, but most of the time, corruption makes it so that true democracy becomes impossible. Overthrowing a government is also a difficult topic, since often times, it is a movement that gets coopted by the powerful or by those who seek power instead of those who seek the government to serve all of its people.

[-] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If you bake bread, you are a bread baker. If you play football, you are a football player. If you murder someone, you are a murderer.

If you don't commit the crime of murder, you are not a murderer. Murder is a legal term. Administering a death penalty is not murder, since it is not a crime.

No matter how much batman says otherwise, there is nothing inherently not ok about death penalty for murderers. Of course, you can dislike it all you want. But don't go slandering people that disagree with you.

Arguably, the opposite is true: If I decide I really want to kill you, what should be the minimal punishment? Is it ok to just pay a fine? Is it ok to be in prison for a month? How about a year? What if I decide the slap on the wrist punishment is worth it? Why should the punishment be less than paying with my own life in kind? Why is your life worth less than mine when I am the murderer in this hypothetical?

[-] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

If I decide I really want to kill you, what should be the minimal punishment?

Life in prison.

Murder is a legal term. Administering a death penalty is not murder, since it is not a crime.

Murder is not exclusively a legal term; it is also used in ethical/moral discussions, like how I used it. A government can decide legallity, but it cannot decide if something is moral or not, although most governments attempt to do so. What is moral or not is also not universal, and can vary across different cultures and time periods.

But don't go slandering people that disagree with you.

You mean like what you just did with this comment?

Keep in mind, in the US, there is a ~4% false conviction rate for the death penalty. That means that ~4% of people who get the death penalty are innocent.

Source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1306417111

[-] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I do remember about the 4%. That is why I don't support death penalty.

I am just honest about the reason why I don't support it, instead of pretending I am somehow morally superior for refusing to kill.

As for life in prison, that is up to everyone's values, whether that is equivalent. In my view, it is not.

[-] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I am also honest about why I don't support it. I think killing people for any reason is wrong except for the case of a direct threat of violence (self defense). The 4% statistic is just another one of my reasons, but not my main reason.

[-] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

I mean, you are free to subjectively think that and conform your own actions to that. Refuse to participate in anything death penalty related.

But unless you have any rational basis for it, I don't see why anyone else should care about what you think.

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

If you don't commit the crime of murder, you are not a murderer. Murder is a legal term. Administering a death penalty is not murder, since it is not a crime.

The same way that the Holocaust was legal...

this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
454 points (98.3% liked)

News

23424 readers
1521 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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS