Pike survived a lethal injection execution on Wednesday. She was sentenced to death for the 1995 killing of her classmate, Colleen Slemmer.

Christa Pike, the woman who survived an execution attempt in Tennessee earlier this week, is on a ventilator as she receives care in the hospital, her lawyers said in a new statement Friday.

“Christa remains critically ill and is receiving medical care for the devastating effects of Wednesday night’s events,” the lawyers’ statement said. “She is critically ill, unconscious, intubated and receiving breathing assistance through a ventilator.”

The statement said she is being treated for “the serious effects of the pentobarbital administered during the execution attempt, including significant injuries to both arms.”

top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 48 points 1 month ago (2 children)

so what's the plan? nurse her back to health (long painful recovery) and then execute her after another 10 to 15 years?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 month ago

    They're also freely giving her better medical attention and coverage than an abhorrent percentage of the rest of the population. They're giving her care that an insurance company would do their damndest to deny, and as soon as she's conscious, they'll try to kill her again.

    The state is probably pissy though because now they have to do paperwork to get another death warrant signed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 97 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (65 children)

    Maybe don't execute people then.

    If it was wrong for her to do it then it's wrong for the state to do it.

  • source
  • hideshow 65 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Yeah like, if she recovers what are they going to do, kill her again?

    I'm against capital punishment and the way they do it in the US is barbaric. But at this point it would be more humane to pull the plug or hit her with a hammer or something

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    This case is going to be in textbooks and history books on the subject of capital punishment in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago*

    You really have to ask yourself what was the point? The crime she did is beyond words, but what is gained by killing her now? She's been on death row for over 30 years. If she was on a 25 year sentence she might have been up for parole. Is she really a danger to society? Ok, refuse her parole and move on.

    Do you really think the 18 year old who did the horrendous crime gave a shit that the punishment was the death penalty? Will it stop the next 18 year old from killing? It doesn't prevent crime at all, it's just retribution. Is that really something necessary for the public good?

    Establishing the premise that killing someone is ok if it's because they did something wrong might be dangerous if your entire society is armed and has strong moral opinions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    I doubt she will recover fully. Her liver, kidneys and other organs will be fried. It's very possible she might still die from this, just over a long period of time.

    I think she will likely win a legal appeal for clemency and the state is unlikely to really fight over it because the family could claim damages for the unnecessary harm.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 1 month ago (59 children)

    The only time I can agree with the death sentence is if the subject of it has proven to be 1, incorrigible and guaranteed to repeat offend 2, have an offence so vile that they cannot be risked a release into the public, either intentionally or accidentally 3, whose guilt has been established in irrefutable manner.

    Think absolute menace serial killer psychos. Child rapists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 59 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    This comment implies the motivation is to protect the public from particularly dangerous offenders.

    Life in prison without the possibility of parole is similarly protective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -23 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    No it isn't - see "accidental" (unintentional) release.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    So the incompetence of prisons is what makes you in favor of executing people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    No. The possibility of a murderer, who tortures and kills people for fun, escaping and torturing and murdering even more people makes me to consider it for the worst of the worst.

    99.999% of all incarcerated can be rehabilitated - sure, some might never understand why it was wrong to kill, but at the very least you can get to a point where they won't do it again - given the appropriate treatment and effort.

    It's the remaining 0.001% - the once a decade psychopaths, the Dahmers, the Lecters, and so on - whom are not rehabilitable, whom cannot even be in a regular prison, who require isolation and constant watch, who cannot be allowed even the chance of escaping.

    Why? Because I value the multitudes of lives of the potential victims over the singular life of someone who clearly doesn't care about others'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    No. ... escaping

    So you say 'no', but you explain 'yes'.

    The rest of your fiction doesn't hold water either. You will never be able to separate the 99.999% from the 0.001% with a 100% of certainty. I for one think a girl that committed a gruesome murder at the age of 18 has at least a non-zero percent chance of rehabilitation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago

    Your reading comprehension is lacking, and it's showing.

    And I think I very specifically pulled her example out as someone who CAN be rehabilitated. She doesn't deserve the death penalty, arguably not even the life sentence (probably 20 years would be fair).

    Prison should not be about punishing someone for what they did, but to ensure that 1, they don't do it again once released 2, they understand why what they did was wrong.

    Therefore the death sentence should only be applicable to those who have committed an egregious enough crime AND have proven to be impossible to rehabilitate.

    But please let's continue nitpicking because that's totally going to resolve this debate...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Just a heads up that Lecter is a fictional character. There are plenty of real-life monsters to list that you don't need Lecter -- Gacy, Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, Green River Killer, BTK...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Just FYI but most international readers won't know half the people you listed.

    Hannibal Lecter on the other hand, thanks to the prolific media franchise built around his character, is incredibly well known.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Not most, maybe (c'mon, Gacy and Ted Bundy are unknown outside of the states????), but certainly they'd know Jack the Ripper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I disagree with you, but I disagree more with the people who are downvoting you for sharing your opinion.

    You're engaging in conversation and debate respectfully, and people shouldn't be downvoting you for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    downvoting is just expressing a disagreement then? Is it disrespectful to express than an opinion is wrong using the tools this platform is built around? really strange way of thinking

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    The "netiquette" for platforms with these kinds of functions has been that downvotes are for comments that don't contribute to discussion, are rule-breaking, needlessly adversarial, etc.

    It makes sense, because downvoting hides comments from other readers. Doing that to respectful contributors who you disagree with will turn this into a platform filled with circle jerks and groupthink.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    It's because they're arguing from a position of emotion, not facts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    That may be why you're downvoting, but I'd wager most people are downvoting because they disagree with what that person is saying. Besides, do you downvote arguments you agree with when they aren't backed by factual evidence? Do you think the others do too?

    And it shouldn't matter if their arguments come from emotion rather than facts -- shouldn't discussions of ethical matters take subjective things like emotion into consideration? They're engaging and contributing to discussion in good faith. Downvoting that kind of stuff is how we end up creating circle jerks and groupthink.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 1 month ago (37 children)

    guilt has been established in irrefutable manner

    Since this is impossible, I'm firmly against the death penalty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    Not necessarily in favour of the death penalty, but would you say that the crimes of Donald Trump qualify as having been "established in an irrefutable manner"? I certainly would, and his irrefutably proven crimes include treason, admitted rape, financial crimes in the billions of dollars, suborning genocide, and a myriad of direct war crimes. Are these sufficient to convince you that some place like the ICC in the Hague should have the death penalty as an option, since so many of the war crimes and crimes against humanity are irrefutably proven? For instance, should Benjamin Netanyahu face the death penalty, should he ever be brought to the Hague? Just genuinely curious about the implications of your take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    There's certainly enough evidence to convict him, but I wouldn't think it deserves the death penalty even if I wasn't completely against the death penalty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    That answers my question, thanks! I was trying to figure out if that incontrovertibility was actually the mitigating factor, since he's personally responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes against hundreds and hundreds of innocents, all of which his own statements effectively admit, and is also clearly guilty of treason, which is one of the few crimes that is regularly punished with death, so I figured that would neatly delineate it, and it did. I guess, then, that it's not because crimes can't be fully proven that you oppose the death penalty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago*

    It's one factor.

    I'm not going to say I'm 100% against the death penalty in any and all circumstances, but I can't think of any cases where I would want the person put to death. Like even if you had the most open-and-shut case, like someone went up and murdered someone on the street in cold blood, with mountains of evidence and completely unrepentant, no psychosis or brain tumor or anything, I don't see what good putting them to death would do. Put them in prison and forget about them.

    So because of that it's easier just to be against it in general rather than look for the tiny sliver of corner cases that I might agree with it.

    Edit: also generally I'm against it because it can't be taken back if it comes out we were wrong. And because it can be abused by malicious actors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -20 points 1 month ago (30 children)

    No it isn't impossible.

    Objective, irrefutable evidence exists. Video recordings that clearly show one's face, with further supporting evidence to ensure its not mistaken identity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    How do you prove the video hasn't been tampered with?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    Forensic analysis can already do that. Yes, even AI tampering can be proven.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago

    I feels like you're missing the point. There's a tons of cases where innocent people get prison time despite no hard proof on them(via coercion or the lack of alibi), then there's guilty people who hired a gang of lawyers to throw out hard evidence one by one(by finding every minor mistake by the prosecutor). It's incredibly hard to proof people are beyond reasonable doubt that they should be executed, especially when the guilty can just play innocent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    For now. At this point, it doesn't matter much if the AI economic bubble collapses, research will continue, potentially at a lesser pace, and could still outpace, even if temporarily, detection methods.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Yeah, uh, no.

    It might avoid free eye detection (still doesn't, AI content is still incredibly easy to spot), but FORENSIC analysis is a bit more thorough than that.

    Though I really love these kinds of comments. I at least used to work in the field some 15 years ago, so I have some awareness of what's going on. Meanwhile the group of people here who saw flashy AI demos and two-three episodes of CSI think they know best.

    For example, here's a fun fact: camera sensor pixels aren't equal. Even on the same sensor, there's a subtle level of difference in sensitivity between pixels, pixel blocks, and so on. The built in ISP also has its own unique signature. Hell, there's even a unique signature in the variations of the variance between key frames! All of which can be extracted - much like a hash - but would take immense computational power (we're talking quantum computing levels, since it IS essentially reversing a hash or cryptographic key) to properly break.

    This kind of fingerprinting alone could verify if a video was tampered with nor not. There's been whitepapers about this kind of verification since at least 2012. Yet I bet none of you who oh so confidently downvote, knew about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago*

    Humans will still be behind the "forensic science", and humans are fallible. There was just a DNA forensic analyst who was found guilty of evidence tampering. She was overworked so just... Made stuff up.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colorado-crime-analyst-manipulated-dna-data-sentenced-rcna596722

    Also as someone who currently works in the legal field, expert witness testimony is not the slam dunk you assume it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (6 children)
  • [+] -11 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Ask a forensic analyst? I am not one so my knowledge of it is cursory at best.

    However recent hardware now includes hardware level attestation in the image files that cannot be reproduced, so validity of video and photo evidence can NOW be established easily. If the signature is there, easy, the video wasn't manipulated. If it is missing, the evidence is no longer attested, therefore questionable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    How do you know the attestation key hasn't been compromised, allowing me to sign any video I want?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Because the attestation isn't single step, isn't a singular certification/signature.

    Go read up on how Google and Apple are handling it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Being able to prove a positive doesn't imply being able to prove a negative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Except you wouldn't need to prove a negative. If someone claims the evidence is AI generated, they have to prove that, not you that it isn't AI generated.

    And that's what forensic analysis does - it looks at the video (incl metadata, pixel level analysis, and so on), compares other, known good evidence (say, the attestation of the sensor, or, as I mentioned, the sensor-unique pixel patterning), and confirm the authenticity by that.

    Just because you're unable to comprehend how thorough such analysis can be, and how well AI artifacts can be detectef if you really look at it, doesn't mean that scientists whose day job is literally doing that, don't have the methods.

    And then we haven't even talked about e.g. SynthID, something that I suspect will soon be regulation to be embedded into any visual genAI model.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Where is the line between "objective and irrefutable" and "room for reasonable doubt"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago

    Where is it today?

    If there's no contradictory evidence, then there's no room for doubt. At that point it is up to the jury to make the decision - including if the death penalty should be applied, if the person truly poses a danger to society justifying their death.

    Again, in my opinion, the death penalty is 99% antiquated. The only time it is ever justified if the person's existence in itself poses a threat to the public. A simple murder, no matter how grievous, like this case, is definitely not death penalty worthy. The likes of John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer. Of whom there's maybe one every decade or so.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    The words you're using have rules. I don't mean this in an adversarial way, but you are wrong.
    Irrefutable evidence does not prove the claim, it just proves that you can't refute the evidence. Video evidence can be misleading or fake. DNA evidence needs context to prove anything.
    Anyway, like I say, these things have rules. The only things in the entire human domain that can be positively proved are mathematical statements. This is why gravity remains a theory, even after 350 years. One single counterexample disproves it. There are numerous examples of this happening in the context of the death penalty, where a jury was so convinced of guilt they condemned someone who was later executed, then, later still, new information emerged which proved them to be innocent.
    Just by the pure first-principles of logic, the death sentence is a bad idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    The death sentence is a bad idea.

    And in 99.9999% of the cases, I agree with you. Including this case. This woman doesn't deserve to die, especially not in this botched manner (and especially not when people whose decisions are directly responsible of the suffering and death of thousands - the UnitedHealth CEO for example would sooner deserve this kind of execution, not the quick death of Luigi's bullet).

    And, again, I repeat, there's maybe one or two individuals every decade that are truly so gruesome and irreparably incompatible with society that they would deserve to die - and even then, I'd tie their death sentence to rigorous examination of all evidence to completelt exclude the potential of them being innocent; thorough psychological evaluations to confirm that they're incorrigible and irrehabilitable, and extensive security advisory that confirms the danger they'd pose to society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Again; it is not possible to completely exclude the potential of them being innocent. That is literally beyond the wit of man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    No it isn't... but please let's keep pretending it is so all you idiots can keep downvoting. you clearly get off to it and who am I to stand in the way of your pleasure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    Yes, it is.
    You're not being down voted by idiots. You're being down voted by people who have learned how logic works. Maybe you could, too? It takes minutes/hours.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    You claim to be applying logic yet failing to do so even at this one query.

    No, it's not impossible to establish guilt without doubt. It has happened many times, and will happen with forensic sciences advancing. You claiming repeatedly that this statement is somehow false, does not make it so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I've also explained how it is false. I can only explain it to you; I can't understand it for you. Good luck mate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Video footage in the age of LLM is completely worthless as evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    No it isn't. Even the best LLMs are incapable of making perfect fakes.

    They might fool the average viewer, but forensic analysis can still easily pinpoint fakes.

    And beyond that, I've already mentioned two methods that individually key a video or photo to specific hardware that is nigh impossible to fake (aka it's mathematically possible, just not physically).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    A year or two they couldn't even fool the average viewer though. To prove a video is real you'd also have to prove there's no model out there in the world (including in private testing) that could create a good enough fake.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    Congratulations, you support the death penalty.

    Unless, you know, you can point to something death penalty supporters have said that’s any different from what you just said?

    In fact, you’ve taken it a step further by including child rapists, who generally aren’t put to death by the state- so not only do you support the death penalty, you support it being expanded.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 1 month ago

    What an unnecessary fiasco.

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 1 month ago (24 children)

    Who is paying for all this care? The attempted execution seemed like cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not in favor of execution, but if you're gonna do it, do it quickly and efficiently, as humanely as possible. We euthanize small animals all the time. Is this what they go through?

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Most pharmaceutical companies won't sell the state the drugs used to properly kill someone. Rather than stop executing people, the state tries to make do with whatever they can get their hands on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Why not just buy fentanyl in bulk from China and give them a hot shot?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I believe there are all sorts of restrictions on what sources they are allowed to buy from. This is also supposed to be "punishment" so they don't want the prisoner to feel good before they die.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    I had fentanyl administered by a professional once and I didn't feel good, I just lost consciousness within some three seconds. Probably the matter of right dose.

    On the other hand, death penalty supporters probably wouldn't want to take chances with the three seconds window.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Not nearly. I had to put down my dog recently, unfortunately and can share how it went.

    I'll start by saying it was time. She was over 15 years old, blind, and disabled. But rest assured that she had a very rich life full of friends and travel. We did everything we could to give her the best life we could afford.

    The vet warned my partner and I about how quickly it takes effect. The first thing they did was put in an IV catheter, which was probably the most discomfort she faced. But she was getting spoiled during it. After that it was two shots. The first one made her let out a deep yawn and knocked her out asleep. The second one ensured she never woke up from it, effectively an overdose. She knew the vet well, so from her perspective it was some discomfort followed by a nap.

    I miss her every day 💔

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Not in the slightest.

    The protocols for euthanizing small animals are written by doctors and veterinarians and scientists. None of those people want anything to do with executions, so the protocols for executions are generally written by people with little medical training, and the people conducting the execution are in a similar boat.

    The result is that execution protocols are far from optimal. Take for example the typical three drug cocktail- first drug knocks you out, second drug paralyzes you, third drug stops the heart. Only problem is the third drug is extremely painful so if the dosage of the first drug is too low you can be conscious for it but unable to move leading to one of the most torturous painful deaths you can imagine, which nobody on the outside has any idea is going on because you are unable to move.

    A much better execution protocol would be something like fentanyl or a single massive overdose of barbiturates. Either one you would just pass out and die quickly. Another option is nitrogen, the air we breathe is 80% nitrogen so the body doesn't react to it. Simply give somebody 100% nitrogen 0% oxygen, the brain is starved of oxygen, you get painless euphoric unconsciousness in under a minute and death in under 10 minutes. It's also cheap as hell because it's all around us.

    Thing is- speaking for myself, as a pilot and scuba diver I understand exactly how nitrogen hypoxia works and I could write a 100% bulletproof execution protocol that could be administered by a trained monkey and would lead to a rapid painless death every time. I won't do it. You could pay me a million dollars and I wouldn't do it. I don't have faith in our criminal justice system prudence to execute people. There are too many situations where innocent people have been convicted and executed and the system did not properly consider the evidence in their favor. As such I don't think it's ethical for me to help a system kill people when I don't have faith that they are always going to kill the right people and not the wrong ones.

    And the thing is, and not the only one. There's an awful lot of doctors and medical technicians in this country, and prison systems still have trouble finding ones to deal with executions. There's tons of pharmaceutical suppliers in the world and prison systems have trouble finding ones that will supply execution drugs at any price. The vast majority of people simply do not want to be part of capital punishment.

    And as for who pays, it's the taxpayer. Given the actual execution and all of the legal hurdles involved, it is a good bit cheaper to just incarcerate somebody for life. Which makes you wonder why some people are so dead set on having a death penalty when for less money we can just lock them up and throw away the key.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    They tried the nitrogen hypoxia

    Smith was strapped to a gurney wearing a full-face mask. His last words were said to be, "Tonight, Alabama causes humanity to take a step backwards. Thank you for supporting me. Love all of you."[2] The nitrogen gas was administered beginning at 7:57 p.m.[27] Some witnesses commented that Smith looked as if he was conscious for several minutes[28][27] and "thrashed violently on the gurney",[2] breathing heavily for several minutes before his breathing was no longer visible.[28] Smith appeared to lose consciousness at 8:02 p.m.[27] It appeared death occurred when movement of Smith ceased at 8:08 p.m.[27] The curtain to the witness room closed at 8:15 p.m.[29] He was pronounced dead at 8:25 p.m.[30]

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I saw that. Somebody seriously fucked something up there. My guess is whatever mask setup they use wasn't giving him 100% nitrogen, or possibly he was holding his breath and fighting it.

    I've also considered the possibility that he just didn't want to validate nitrogen as a form of execution, so he made a conscious decision to make it look as painful as possible. If so I say fucking good for him. One of the reasons I would never help write night an execution protocol, even though I could do it, is I don't want to further legitimize capital punishment in the US. And if there is an easy instant painless bloodless way to execute someone, that is one of the arguments against capital punishment that goes away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    I would never

    If you ever think you are going to question the decision to not write those protocols, remember pro-execution people will probably send you death threats, over trying to be humane.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    If they are going to argue that I or those like me should be compelled to participate in executions we have no interest in, then I would point out that all of their arguments for personal freedoms and liberties are not being upheld.

    I think a great many of the people you describe are just overall hypocritical and don't even realize it. IE, on one hand they demand the ten commandments be put up in schools, then on the other hand they push the death penalty which is very unlike the religion they claim to follow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    What?? No!

    I'm saying that people that want the death penalty are the, "cruelty is the point" people and they would be mad if someone seriously made the process more compassionate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I gotcha.

    The vast majority of those people seem to walk a tightrope between 'bad people should suffer as an example' and 'if you killed someone you don't deserve a painless death you deserve to suffer' and 'we support humane execution'. You can usually tell because they seem more interested in humane execution to shut down complaints than to be humane.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    A much better protocol is single massive overdose of barbiturates??? Like 5grams of pentobarbital perhaps?

    It's great how you criticize a bunch of yahoos who wrote the protocol, then propose the same thing they did in this exact case.

    Just ban the fucking death penalty.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Would you hypothetically share that bulletproof plan of yours to those seeking humane euthanasia?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    The issue with hypoxic mixis is that not all people react to it equally, it takes some time to actually do it thing in the range if minutes and you do remain conscious quite long.

    So there is quite a big time frame were the prisoner knows whats happening and that time is pure panic.

    Now if you simply would flood is cell with nitrogen im his sleep...thay would be stressless but anything else just leaves enough time for people to panic

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    You assume that killing animals goes well all the time.. its doesn't and we mostly dont kill them before we butcher them.

    Usually they are just stunned and the bled to death.

    Which if course works but.. not all the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The most humane way is probably the most gruesome way, which is beheading. Every other "humane" execution contains suffering for a bit, while beheading immediately overwhelm your brain with signals and you're very unlikely to feel pain. The other way is by hanging, which will likely snap your neck once you drop down and overwhelm your brain with signals, but the risk is if the rope doesn't adjusted to the right height you're gonna hurt your neck while suffocating.

    So get your guillotine now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, a cruel (or just incompetent) hangman would shorten the drop so that you die from slow strangulation instead of a quick snap. And given the cruelty is the point, I wouldn't trust Tennessee to do it properly.

    Guillotines are effective, but if not kept properly maintained, they can fail to completely sever the head. And there is some evidence that death is not instant.

    Personally, if I was to choose my manner of execution, it would be firing squad. But the most effective would be sedative overdose or nitrogen asphyxiation, again only if done properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago

    What exactly is the deterrent, anyway?

    There were pickpockets working the crowd at public executions in London when theft was a capital offence.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    2 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post