News
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.
view the rest of the comments
The execution could hardly be considered a success. The mask wasn't sealed properly to his face and allowed oxygen to be inhaled as well. Nitrogen-execution requires a complete lack of other trace gasses to effectively asphyxiate without pain. This man suffered the equivalent of drowning for 22 minutes.
this is so unacceptable and quite frankly makes me wonder if it was intentional by someone like corroded who wanted suffering. inert gas is the easiest way to have death without suffering.
They have had a long history of misadministering the lethal injection method, making that "painless death" inconceivably painful. It's why the medical community refuses to be a part of producing or helping the death penalty machine perform lethal injections anymore.
It's also why a mechanical "painless death" is being so propagandized now. Those supporting executions will find a way to make criminals suffer with any death penalty. The cruelty is the point, which is unconstitutional.
Why do people keep speculating on the reason it took a reported 22 minutes? It's more likely that asphyxiation regardless of the method implemented is a poor way to execute people. I'm aware of the science behind using this gas but it's never been used in this specific way. Now we are trying to say the mask wasn't sealed around his face? What about the small traces of oxygen already in his lungs? What happens when his body switches over to anaerobic metabolic functions to try to keep the body alive. Probably the seizure like convulsions they saw. Acting as if this is a sound way to kill people but it "just needs to be done properly" is laughable at best. First, states that love executions don't really care about getting it right. All the other forms of execution were said to be painless and quick when done "right". Second, the humane execution came about for the executioner not for the condemned. The person turning on the gas wants to go home and think they just made the person slip into death peacefully. But the reality is killing is killing. Humanity only knows of one fullprof way for a painless death. Severing the brain instantly.
there have been plenty of accidental inert gas suffications and use with animals to know how it works and yes it was the mask. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation
This will inevitably come out to be not accurate for human executions. And it's sickening to think about the number of victims will be tortured before the courts put a stop to it. Once again theirs a difference between none sentient animals unknowingly asphyxiating or a terminally ill person who's on other drugs to make the transition easy. But go on. This idea is no different than what was found about lethal injection, the electric chair, and the first gas chamber. (people were adamant about those being quick and painless until the glaring evidence became to large to wave off by animal experiments.) Sad to see so many people not have a sceptical eye on how the government chooses to kill people.
The accidents were humans. it was the mask with the prisoner for sure in this case. don't get me wrong. executions just should not happen but this is as humane as you get. this is how I would go out to avoid the end stages of a horrible disease.
Except the more you resist it, the more you suffer. If you hold your breath there is not enough time to displace the gas contents of you lungs and bloodstream. Your body will be full of the toxic and suffocating co2 gas and you will drown for 22 minutes like the guy executed clearly did.
If I recall correctly, he was holding his breathe as long as he could. That would tend to make you behave this way.
This guy stabbed an innocent women to death for some cash.
I hope each of those 22 minutes was pure torture.
Stop allowing others' choices to impair your judgement.
My judgment is not clouded. Good people deserve to be happy, and bad people deserve to suffer. If you brutally murder someone for financial gain, you're a bad person, and you should endure suffering. Yes, that's inhumane, as it should be. In this case, the punishment fits the crime.
You are looking for retribution not justice. "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
This kind of thinking is immature and underdeveloped and reflects poorly on your character.
Retribution is justice.
The world isn't fair. Good people are starving, individuals are sitting in prison because they sold a harmless plant, women are forced to have children because they live in the wrong state or country, countless Americans go into crippling debt because they don't work for an employer that gives them good medical insurance. These people deserve help, but in many (most?) cases, they're not going to get it. Many of these people are "good" people, but life hasn't given them what they deserve.
On the other hand, you have Kenneth Smith who murders a woman and ends up on death row. He does not deserve the same human rights afforded to people who treat their fellow humans with kindness. Why should he have a peaceful death; his victim didn't. A prolonged and painful death is fitting to his crime, and it's what he deserves based on his actions. It doesn't offset the suffering of others who don't deserve to suffer, but it helps to restore the balance.
I strongly disagree with the idea of "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." That assumes that the individual who's serving justice (the executioner in this case) is doing something wrong. They're not; they are ensuring that someone receives the treatment that they deserve. Justice is served, and there's no "eye for an eye" to give in this case.
We may never agree on this, but I do not believe that my thinking is underdeveloped or immature. People who live a life that doesn't cause harm to others should have every advantage in the world that they can; if I can do something in my own life to help achieve this, then I'm certainly willing to. People who live a life that causes pain and suffering to others should receive the same treatment, and while it's not in my power to make this happen, I'm certainly happy that others can.
and this is precisely what the underdeveloped me of years past would have said as well.
if personal development is some sort of continuum, with the me of now being different from the me of the past, then I hope the me of the future is wise enough to forgive the me of the now for my errors, seeking correction, not retribution - and empathetic enough to apply this same wish to others.
My life experience has been the opposite. When I was in my 20's and even my early 30's, I very likely would have agreed with you; I probably would have even argued against the death penalty when I was a young adult. The older I get, the more I realize that some human beings are just pure trash, and they should be treated as such. Everyone should be afforded human rights, and everyone should be treated with kindness and respect, until the point that their actions cause harm to others.
As part of your own personal development, I hope that at some point you learn to take off the rose-colored glasses that you use to look at humanity and realize that while the world can be a beautiful place, it can also be a cesspool, and that punishing the people who actively try to make the world into a cesspool is simply the right thing to do.
You're a bad person for this opinion, does that mean you should suffer?
bad people do not deserve to suffer as suffering has no point. They deserve to be cleared from the board to avoid suffering for others.
I would be so happy if I could be this ignorant.
Either way you’re a shitty person.
His wife and lawyers watched him be tortured for 22 min (likely was longer as the time of death was called 15 min after the curtain was pulled.) are you saying they deserved to see that as well? And before you say, "they chose to be there." it's important that they were to ensure the condemned persons constitutional rights were honored. And spoiler alert, they weren't.
The condemned person in this case should not have constitutional rights. They should not have any rights. They gave up these rights when they decided that ending a woman's life by brutally stabbing her to death was an acceptable action to take in order to make some money.
If only their was supreme court judgments that Already decided this. Stop acting as if you know what you are talking about