“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.
Pro Life!
“Pro-life” is just the label they put on it to seem pious. It’s not pro-life. It’s anti-women. With conservatives the suffering is the point.
I wonder how long Elizabeth Sennett struggled to live after Kenneth stabbed her to death. May she and her family rest in peace knowing justice has been served.
removed by mod
2edgy4me
Wouldn’t a firing squad machine be so much faster and more effective? Have 3 people push buttons only one button works. It’s all a horrible mess, regardless of the method.
Look I can’t help but feel deceived.
Every single time the death penalty was brought up, nitrogen asphyxiation was touted as a humane alternative. There were always claims that it would be painless, and that the process itself was extremely well understood. It was usually further implied that the reason states don’t do this was because death penalty advocates wanted the prisoner to suffer as long as possible.
Yet the second nitrogen asphyxiation became a viable option, the very same people touting it lined up against it. Suddenly it was completely unproven. Suddenly it was wholly inhumane and inflicted suffering.
It’s so incredibly obvious that the push for nitrogen asphyxiation was at least in part a bad faith argument by people who are philosophically opposed to the death penalty.
Being philosophically opposed to the death penalty is a valid opinion, but the dishonesty makes me much less inclined for me to take these people seriously.
I don’t think I’m unique in that regard. Nobody likes being deceived or lied to.
Come on, isn’t this america? Why don’t they just shoot prisoners?! It’s quick, cheap and they love shooting, don’t they? Coming up with so many twisted ways to kill a person just to do it differently than the Nazis. If even Belarus is still officially shooting their people, why isn"t the greatest country in the world?
/s because I can’t handle thisAnyone still want to use the cool nitrogen based suicide pods from Austria?
I don’t know anything about this other than the guy most have been pretty terrible to be on death row but even a brutal killer should have some rights nobody deserves to die like that
Says his religious advisor, who is against the death penalty.
I’m not sure what you think that has been added here.
But a 22 minute execution is torture.
I am against both the death penalty and torture.
22 minutes of drifting slowly off to sleep isn’t torture.
Yes, I too, can be described as ‘struggling for my life’ while peacefully drifting off to sleep….
And as I said, you are listening to a very biased witness.
Were you there? You haven’t shared your 1st hand witness account.
How do you know that he drifted slowly off to sleep though?
They don’t. They’re just an asshole on the Internet.
And one of the reporters who was there:
One of the five members of the media transported to Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore to witness the execution told the BBC it was unlike any other he’d witnessed in Alabama.
“I’ve been to four previous executions and I’ve never seen a condemned inmate thrash in the way that Kenneth Smith reacted to the nitrogen gas,” Lee Hedgepeth told the BBC’s Newsday programme.
“Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total.”
Has anyone offered an account that contradicts this? Because I know the state of Alabama didn’t.
Gruesome.
I’m not convinced the death penalty is worthwhile except to feed someone’s wrath.
What if, (and hear me out,) we did for corrections the sort of thing that countries with low recidivism do? Like, not use for-profit prisons with incentive to turn out re-offenders, and not use prisons that turn out hardened criminals that aren’t equipped to function in the world without resorting to crime, and actually take the ‘corrections’ or ‘rehabilitation’ parts of their nomenclature seriously?
If all we do with our prisons is punish and humiliate (and squeeze slave labor out of) convicts, we’re just creating future crime and all that’s left at that point is killing convicts at industrial pace unless you can figure out that crime is more driven by poverty than anything else, and the USA just doesn’t want to figure that out because it just doesn’t want to solve poverty or crime, it wants to make money creating and punishing both.
The state tells you murder is illegal. Except when the state does it. You can’t expect people to follow, “do what I say, not what I do.”
It’s cruel, it’s a reflection of our morals. The death penalty is not a deterrent for murder. The death penalty is hypocrisy. The death penalty is for an unserious society.
But the death penalty is just a symptom of a greater chronic illness we suffer from. We’ll just continue to kill ourselves until we find a cure for the disease.
Edit: I see many do not like my wording for state sanctioned murder. If you are reading this and don’t understand, imagine if listening to George Bush (can’t remember which) tell the tv America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. He’s drawing a moral line in the sand with terrorism. That’s my point. We need to figure out where our moral line in the sand is with the death penalty, because right now it’s all over the place. Do I think outlawing the death penalty will solve our societal woes? No, I do not. The people will demand it until it is reinstated. For me I ask what is the purpose of the death penalty? Does it serve a greater good for a society? Obviously it does not. Americans are murdered all the time, so it serves no purpose.
Seriously, fuck USA.
Youre just jealous pal. You wish you could be an American. /s
Ok, I do. The idea that I can endure something like this is the bollocks. And also you can meet people that can’t read. What a greatness!
He was unconscious and not experiencing any form of pain that he was aware of. Therefore his death was PAINLESS.
Therefore his death was PAINLESS.
Except for the 22 minutes of struggling to breath. Unless you’re discounting those by saying he was unconscious the moments before his death. If that’s the case, most forms of what we consider painful death are after at least a few moments of unconsciousness.
You have absolutely no evidence that this is true, you’re just parroting after-the-fact propaganda while entirely ignoring the good science on offer in this thread.
Those boots must be real tasty, huh?
Ignoring science? Nope. If They implemented it correctly there would have not even been a struggle nor a groan as the oxygen would have been replaced by nitrogen in the blood and death would have been without a whimper. As it was even without the correct implementation since it seems the nitrogen was mixed with some oxygen or unconsciousness would have been within seconds, he was aware of no pain at the time of death as he was unconscious. Unless you are trying to claim that he was supernaturally aware of pain through some other means than his consciousness.
Right, but they clearly didn’t as they suffocated over 20+ minutes.
I’m not sure what your point is.
“If”
That is the science in this thread, if you could be arsed to read and comprehend it. But you’d rather waste your time with nonsense so whatever.
Which boots?
The bootlickers are the ones supporting the death penalty without the lack of suffering.
Seriously whose boots are getting locked here?
I think their point is you’re buying a version of events that very much goes against reality as they slowly suffocated for 20+ minutes.
A little bit different than bootlicking don’t you think?
Bootlicking is giving in to authority without question.
No one here has any authority
Read the article:
"We didn’t see somebody go unconscious in 30 seconds,” said Red Hood. “What we saw was minutes of someone struggling for their life.”
How does the delivery method here differ from the euthanasia setup in Switzerland?
the swiss method is automated, and calculated.
sounds like there was a guy here goin ‘should i have turned the air off?’
Active euthanasia is illegal in Switzerland (administration by a third-party), but supplying the means for dying is legal (assisted suicide), as long as the action which directly causes death is performed by the one wishing to die. Source
Nitrogen gas would be administered through a facemask while the person is restrained (essentially suffocation) … so hardly a peaceful death by choice.
People who are being euthanized are doing it voluntarily and will breathe intentionally to get the peaceful effects of losing consciousness and drifting off. They won’t be panicking, or trying not to die.
I assume they also have the option to stop at any time, so they are fully in control of the process.
IIRC, Switzerland used a hood over the patient, or an airtight pod, that was flooded with nitrogen. It pushed out all other gases so the patient just fell unconscious due to hypoxia without the discomfort caused by CO2 poisoning.
The execution method used a mask, like a rebreather. The nitrogen delivery was inadequate and the convict was able to breathe in some oxygen, either from less-than-pure nitrogen gas, or gaps around the mask.
The person who chooses euthanasia will also be choosing to breathe normally so they don’t get a buildup of CO2 from holding their breath.
Ah yes, state sanctioned… murder… great…
That is the purpose of states and of nations, to hold the monopoly on legitimate violence.
That is a really bad idea
Welcome to government.
Okay. What do you believe the purpose of states and nations is?
To represent the interests of the people on an inter and intra national level. Not to have a monopoly on violence. If only the cops/military have the ability to enact force both legally and practically, it will be abused. We can see that all over the United States and the world.
Representing the interests of people is the purpose of governments, not nations.
Has there ever been a nation without a government?
Perhaps not, but there are governments without nations. The EU or the UN, for instance.
Very Christian of them…
Yeah, God would rather you bash their head against rocks as they’re still babies
You’re right brother. At times like this, I remember Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 22:24 and Genesis 9:5-6.
That’s old testament and old covenant. You should listen to Jesus and the new covenant instead. E.g. Matthew 5, 38-42.
While you’re at it, read though verse 48. Would suit a lot of Christians better if they didn’t conveniently skip over those verses on a regular basis.
Sorry, I forgot. Give me a list of the parts of the Bible I’m supposed to ignore. I want to make sure I’m paying attention only to the parts of the Lord’s written word that are correct.
As far as I know, you’re not supposed to ignore anything. But there is a new covenant and an old covenant. For example, that’s why you probably know Christian women with short hair. Same thing with capital punishment.
For example, that’s why you probably know Christian women with short hair.
I know Jews that eat shrimp… doesn’t make it any more kosher.
It’s funny (“funny”) because they ignored the part of Matthew 5 where Jesus explicitly says that he didn’t come to abolish the law, and that not a thing about it will be changed until the end of time essentially (verses 17 & 18)
Tells you to read parts of Matthew 5, but skips the part of the chapter that directly contradicts their point.
Typical Christian rationalization.
No fan of Christianity, but it is pretty consistently stated that the old testament is basically the old religions book.
Kinda like how Islam and Christianity have a common origin, but don’t follow the same religious text.The story being that the deity of the abrahamic faiths has issued a series of different holy books and prophets for different eras, with the new one obsoleting the previous one.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism. Each says the previous was valid, but they get the new word of God and the old ones were true, but now the old rules are gone.So it’s actually internally consistent for a Christian to say the Torah doesn’t apply, which is basically what the old testament is. Similar to how we don’t latch onto Islam saying the old and new testament are obsolete, and only the Quran is true now.
There are plenty of examples in each of the chunks to point out the cruelty inherent in all of them without having to fall back to the “old canon”.
No it’s not internally consistent. Sure, that’s what many modern Christians who recognize just how problematic their god and religion are and want to selectively ignore the parts they don’t like, will try to tell you. But it’s bullshit.
As I said to another Christian in this thread…
Jesus himself stated:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
That’s Matthew 5:17-18, and if you ask me it’s very clear
In context and less shit translations, it’s pretty clear that he’s saying he’s fulfilling the prophesies and the promise of the old covenant, not that literally he’s changing nothing.
In the same context, you have him saying that the entirety of the law is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.Or, more bluntly from the same story:
Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
I have now googled more Bible shit than I care to to cite my dim recollections of religious history studies.
Tldr, Jesus supposedly came to fullfil the promise of the old testament via a vis the relationship between man and God, and to replace that covenant with a new, more chill covenant with less shellfish and more love.And, this is important to your point, a lot of flaying people alive for failing to obey their slave masters or properly worship God. You don’t have to cite the old bit of the book, that they believe is obsolete, to find gnarly shit that makes it not look great.
It doesn’t feel too ridiculous to me that religions that came about in the same area would reference each others texts, but aren’t beholden to be responsible for their content. 1000 years of telephone was not kind to that translation.
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Matthew 5:17-18
That’s Jesus speaking, by the way.
Seems very clear to me, guy.
I like that you reference Matthew 5, yet seem to completely ignore a big part of the chapter.
Sucks right? You can’t be a Christian and still distance yourself from the horrific things that occurred in the Old Testament. Your god is a petty, jealous, slavery-promoting, genocidal piece of shit.
It may not be Christ-like but it is very god-like. The Christian god made man in his own image, and god killed over 2 million people in the Bible.
These are more fans of the Old Testament stuff where God was metal.
Yeah nothing more “metal” than a supposedly all-powerful being that openly describes itself using such petty human emotions as jealously.
Nothing more metal than an insecure god that has a tantrum if people don’t worship him above all else.
He got more easy listening in the later years but lost his edge.
Yet these people are Jesus freaks but without the compassion and anti materialism. Good old “religion buffet”.
That ain’t just murder… that’s 25 minutes of panic and fear…
With a tiny bit of torture and inhumanity thrown in for good measure
