Nine months after Kenneth Smith’s botched lethal injection, state attorney general has asked for approval to kill him with nitrogen

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m against the death penalty but if I ever murder a load of people then I’d like to be able able to freely choose death by nitrogen over a life in prison

    • derf82@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      52
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know what else is cruel? People killing other people. And the former continuing to live despite their cruelty.

      The only rub against execution to me is the risk of executing the innocent. But that is not the concern here. There is no dispute this guy is guilty.

      • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capital punishment is government sanctioned killing. Outside of war, the government should not have the power to kill anyone.

        Let them rot in prison. It’s cheaper anyway.

        Abolish capital punishment.

        • derf82@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except them rotting in prison is cruel and unusual punishment. No, they get shelter, 3 meals a day, healthcare when they need it, and even recreation.

          And I’m anti-war. It’s ok for innocents to fight and kill each other, but not to kill murderers?

          • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The government shouldn’t be sanctioning killing. Period.

            Other than Japan, the US is the only Western country left with this primitive, revenge-based way of looking at crime and punishment. Yet, the US continues to be the most violent country of them all and the murder capital of the Western world.

            Usually, when something doesn’t work, we try something else. Time for the US to try something else.

            • derf82@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              The US is likely more violent due to a combination of corrupt capitalism and lead poisoning.

              We do need to try something else, but that something else is in terms of economics, infrastructure, and healthcare, not punishment.

              • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                do need to try something else, but that something else is in terms of economics, infrastructure, and healthcare

                I definitely agree there, especially in healthcare. What an awful mess in the US when you look at how successful other countries are with universal healthcare.

                But I will just never accept capital punishment. It’s such an awful way to seek revenge. It’s especially surprising that conservatives love the concept of government power extending to killing its own citizens. And evangelicals who are commanded by Jesus himself to turn the other cheek and seek forgiveness. I know they are backward on many things, but this seems particularly egregious.

                • derf82@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  See, you are assuming it’s about revenge. No, it is just acknowledging that what is done is so awful, you have to take the consequence to the next level.

                  And while I get wanting to call out evangelical hypocrisy, the Bible should have nothing to do with policy. Besides, the most famous supposedly anti-death penalty account was likely added years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

                  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes, I definitely assume it’s about revenge, because, to most people, it’s about revenge. You might call is “justice.” I call it revenge. It’s an eye for an eye. It’s old testament, and Jesus specifically pointed it out as wrong many times. Not only in the story you mentioned. Yet, here we are.

      • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only rub against execution to me is the risk of executing the innocent.

        Right, so why is that not a total disqualifier then? Even if the risk is fleeting small, there is no taking it back. If it came out later on, dead is dead. Combining that with the fact that executions are obv a psychological cluster fuck for everyone who deals with it, especially the one executed, and the fact that it takes a lot of resources every trial because it’s such an unusually cruel punishment, the arguments for it are dwindling.

        Also

        You know what else is cruel? People killing other people.

        Right but we’re not voting someone in office who can eliminate all homicides in the United States. Things are different for execution.

        We could also talk about how this “well tough shit” opinion always fucks over positive and healthy change, but that’s probably the least impactful argument for the folks who still bank on executions as some sort of greater good.

        • derf82@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Read the rest of what I said. There is no doubt here. I do think the death penalty should require a higher standard of guilt. But some people, through their actions, simply have forfeited their right to live.

          • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Glad to have it straight from the moral arbiter of the universe, someone who feels they can personally determine, from a safe distance, whether someone has forfeited their life. Otherwise I’d be seriously worried the state was carrying out a horribly immoral practice that regularly results in murder of innocents in order to deliver, at best, the short-lived false victory of vengeance, for the low priceof permanently extinguishing of a human life. Which I’ll remind you doesn’t bring back their victims.

              • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I know, me pointing out that the pompous way you phrased your opinion made it sound like you thought you were expounding on universal truths isn’t going to stop you. It wasn’t intended to. Maybe if you don’t want pushback next time, avoid the phrase “have forfeited their right to live.”

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know what else is cruel? People killing other people.

        Then why aren’t you advocating for executing those that execute killers? After all, they kill people. But I’m going to assume that you think those killers are okay.

        • derf82@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Executions are generally set up so no one person is responsible for the person’s death. And they generally volunteer.

          How are they different from a war veteran that killed somebody during war?

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Executions are generally set up so no one person is responsible for the person’s death. And they generally volunteer.

            Okay. Why not kill all those who might be the killer? If not, why allow the spreading of the responsibility? If two guys beat someone up and kill them, would you be as lenient, considering we don’t know which one actually killed them?

            How are they different from a war veteran that killed somebody during war?

            In war often there is no choice (at least if you’re defending - I don’t condone wars of aggression). With death row inmates we do have a choice! You understand the difference, right?

            • derf82@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              As I said elsewhere, because they are doing their duty. We empower people to do otherwise illegal things all the time. If some random guy demanded your tax records and wanted a percentage of your income, they would the charged with theft. When an IRS auditor does it, it isn’t illegal.

              So you are ok sending the innocent to die, but refuse to condemn the guilty? I am sorry, I do not like the other choice. When someone kills someone else and we can prove it beyond any doubt, that murderer should not get to be housed, fed, and cared for for life. I get that it may even cost more, but that’s where I’d rather spend money.

              • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                As I said elsewhere, because they are doing their duty. We empower people to do otherwise illegal things all the time. If some random guy demanded your tax records and wanted a percentage of your income, they would the charged with theft. When an IRS auditor does it, it isn’t illegal.

                So people killing people is okay if the right people kill the right people?

                So you are ok sending the innocent to die

                No, defending yourself is different from “sending the innocent to die”. If the choice is to die peacefully or to die fighting, the latter is the better option, since you might not die.

                but refuse to condemn the guilty?

                Where did I say anything about not condemning the guilty? Is killing other people the only way to satisfy your dismay for them, even if you’ll kill innocent people this way?

                I am sorry, I do not like the other choice. When someone kills someone else and we can prove it beyond any doubt, that murderer should not get to be housed, fed, and cared for for life. I get that it may even cost more, but that’s where I’d rather spend money.

                Then why do states with the death penalty keep killing innocent people, even though this is supposedly already the standard? You’re the one who wants innocent people to die.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t ‘people killing other people’ include the state killing people? I don’t see how vengeance for a murder solves anything.

            • derf82@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because they are carrying out a judgement. We don’t toss prison guards in jail for false imprisonment. We don’t send IRS agents to jail for theft.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No. It’s killing people either way.

                    Do they survive in either? Did they die of some natural disaster or disease? No. They were killed. I don’t even know why you think this is arguable unless you don’t know what ‘killed’ means.

    • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      58
      ·
      1 year ago

      Opinion 👆.

      Fact: it’s necessary to remove certain people who are prone to violence and incapable of rehabilitation. If you have such a problem with execution, then volunteer your time, money, and home to accommodate a violent psychopath with you forever.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fact: when we sentence people to death we get it wrong one time in three

        Fact: executing someone is more expensive than keeping them in prison for life

        • TopShelfVanilla@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah, but it doesn’t have to be. There’s lots of inexpensive, humane ways to dispatch a human. How methods like electrocution and lethal cocktail injection were decided on is difficult to understand. Nitrogen, though, is probably the nicest way it could be done. Relatively cheap too, and with zero chance of failure.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not the method that’s expensive, it’s the appeals process, supposedly to stop innocent people from being executed. And even with all of the appeals, innocent people have still been executed.

          • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Human medical experimentation on prisoners is cruel and unusual in and of itself. However well you personally think execution by nitrogen would go (and I doubt you’d volunteer), people on death row have a right to know we’re not trying novel execution methods on them. Maybe if what we’re doing doesn’t actually benefit anyone more than prison would and is considered so barbaric that European manufacturers won’t supply us with the drugs we need to do it, we should stop.

            The mania for execution led Arizona to refurbish its gas chamber and reverse-engineer a Zyklon B equivalent.* That’s not the kind of country I want to live in. How about you?

            *https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/28/arizona-gas-chamber-executions-documents

            • TopShelfVanilla@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s no experiment necessary in proving nitrogen as a silent and painless killer. Scuba divers have done all of the experiments for us, mostly by accident.

              Imprisonment is barbaric.

              If someone has done something so bad that they should be locked up for life then they should be dispatched not kept as some kind of morbid pet of the state. If you murdered a bunch of people (mass killing of serial style) you need not waste any more of our air. If you rape you should be killed too. If you’ve gotten yourself on death row fuck your rights.

              • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you imprison an innocent, they can be freed. Execution takes away that possibility. And we have absolutely, provably, executed innocent people. I hope that never happens to you, but if life were a play, it would certainly make for some dramatic irony.

                • TopShelfVanilla@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you kept an innocent man imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life then you were a thousand times more cruel than had you executed him. I would prefer death over rotting in prison hoping to find the last shred of decency in the american judicial system that had already imprisoned me. All of your arguments are romantic and foolish.

                  • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Romantic? Ffs…

                    Would you accept giving someone a choice between life in prison and death?

                    If you think prison’s worse than death for an innocent person, feel free to ask people who were exonerated after decades in prison if they’d rather have been killed.

      • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Shitty take. There are more than two options here, and suggesting otherwise is using an either-or fallacy as a bad way to try to win an argument.

      • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Opinion 👆.

        Fact: punishments can be reversed, if the punished stays alive. Any percentage of unjust executions is irredeemable. Also, there is a lot of evidence that abolishing the death penalty either does not affect the crime rate, or it has a positive effect (see link below).

        More opinion: executions have no place in a society that highly values human rights because killing people is the exact opposite of humane. If you think prisoners are monsters and you could never end up in there, watch a documentary about it. If you see what some ppl went through, you know how easy anyone can end up there.

        https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ACT50/015/2008/en/

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s as silly a comment as “if you think Native Americans were wronged, give your house to one,” something else I’ve heard people say. Societal wrongs are not solved by individuals.

        Somehow all the countries that don’t allow capital punishment find ways to deal with extremely violent people and don’t have murderers running amok.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Kinda funny that you label the comment you replied to as opinion and then proceeded to dress your own (shitty) opinion up as fact.