cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/14097254
Smith’s execution by “nitrogen hypoxia” took around 22 minutes, according to media witnesses, who were led into a viewing room at the William C Holman correctional facility in Atmore shortly before 8 pm local time.
After the nitrogen gas began flowing, Smith convulsed on the gurney for several minutes. The state had previously said the nitrogen gas would cause Smith to lose consciousness in seconds and die within minutes, according to the Associated Press.
“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, a journalist who witnessed the execution, told the BBC’s Newsday programme.
The most important data point here is the convulsions and pulling at the restraints. This points to the possibility of pain. I see no conclusive data saying he would be absolutely unconscious during this.
You admit to the possibility or even likelihood that they implemented the method wrong, resulting in a higher possibility of pain.
If it was implemented correctly you’re “pretty confident” it was “as painless as they could make it”. You’re confidence and opinion is irrelevant here. You’re certainly not an expert, and there’s enough info to doubt how humane this is. If they ever implement it “correctly” maybe we’ll get more data.
I feel like I’m just repeating myself. The counterarguments are all there.
Personally I’m strongly against the death penalty as I hope is obvious. Even if actual experts say it was done perfectly, and there was absolutely no pain. Well that’s certainly better but the convulsions are still gruesome and as others have pointed out the suffering can be the lead up to the execution. Also if future inmates are going to be executed similarly and are made aware of the convulsions they could be afraid of the possibility of pain regardless of what they hear from experts or people like you and your confidence.
Does this apply equally to you?
Are we allowed to make statements to one another based on our understanding? Or not?
What opinions am I providing? I’m simply Rejecting yours based on the data in the article.
You said “convulsing for several minutes is suspect” and “This points to the possibility of pain.” Those are both affirmative statements I’d disagree with.
I’ve looked over enough data at this point that I’m pretty firm in my conclusions; my top-level comments reflect my sources and thinking on it. You’re free to think whatever you like.
In that case you are wrong, and probably incompetent.
Your sources say nothing about convulsing without pain. The convulsions are a data point that is enough to question if pain was involved. Full stop.
You’re [sic] confidence and opinion is irrelevant here.
Edit: Honestly dude, even in jest I feel a little bad applying this statement even though you did to me first. I actually don’t think this - I was swayed enough by the “I was wrong” possibility to look into it for quite a while. If you were open to hearing why, I’d be happy to talk about it, but it sounds like you’re explicitly dismissive of the idea of listening to anything that challenges your existing views. So, good luck, all the best.
Ok.
Show me some evidence that the convulsions aren’t a data point to actually question the efficacy of this example of execution being humane. It creates the question of whether there was pain or not. Additionally, the possibility that this example wasn’t performed correctly adds more data to support my questioning of your assertion that it was painless.
I have not implied any objective statements as if I know what occurred definitively. I’m simply saying based on what happened and how it was carried out, I can reasonably question whether this was actually humane.
This might surprise you, but I’m not obligated to continue this conversation or convince you of anything. Like I say, I’ve laid out what I think and why in other comments.
You have absolutely layed out what you think. And I’ve proven very easily that you’re wrong and have very poor critical thinking skills. See ya.