In terms of the ethics of testing it for the first time on humans, I think the standard would have to be informed consent,with the condemned being given the option of trying the new technique vs the previous standard and being informed of all possible complications of each method. Given that Smiths attorney’s are attempting to block this method it sounds like he definitely isn’t consenting. I suspect this may not so much be due to concerns about the procedure itself than it is an attempt to further delay his execution. But it would seem to me that he should be offered an alternative less experimental option.
It should be noted however that from a medical ethics in medical testing this thing raises just about every possible red flag terms of noncoercion and beneficence, but those are pretty much unavoidable given the nature of what is being tested. Still informed consent would seem to be an important yet theoretically achievable requirement.
So yes, there is a real fear that a more humane way of killing people will reverse or slow this trend. But that doesn’t matter much to the person being executed now, so despite my strong misgivings about killing people, I lean a bit toward at least doing it humanely.
Others might make the calculation that these people are going to be killed anyway, and the overall goal of ending it completely is better served by not making it easy. I don’t fault anyone for this opinion, but I hope people are honest in their arguments.
Not really. All the murderer has to do is wait for someone to get convicted and executed, and they’re home free. The case will never again be reopened.
Pretty easy, if you have the equipment. But it’s probably easier to buy the nitrogen itself than the equipment.
Why does everyone always say that? The Second Amendment, as currently interpreted, gives everyone the right to grab guns. The peaceniks are the ones who don’t want everyone grabbing guns.
The point being made is that when an innocent is wrongly convicted of murder and executed, the actual murderer at large is completely and permanently liberated by the wrong person being executed, because you can’t execute a second person for the same crime.
If you imprison the wrongly-convicted person, you can release them and pursue the full course of justice with the actual murderer when you catch up with them.
A prison cell has a door. A grave does not. If a convicted murderer is later exonerated by new evidence - which is the whole raison d’etre of the Innocence Project - the state can say, “Whoops, our bad” and release them.
Yeah. I mostly oppose the death penalty, but for practical reasons rather than ideological. It’s expensive and our justice system isn’t reliable enough for such an irreversible outcome.
But as long as we’re doing it, we should pick an effective technique. And one that reduces opportunities for games with drug availability or the like reduces my practical objections.
Agreed. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to make things difficult given a desire to reduce the total number as much as possible. But I don’t think that should extend to spreading inaccuracies about the technique.
My limited understanding is that once someone is executed for a capital crime, the case is closed. Post-mortem exoneration doesn’t allow you to go after another suspect.
But I would be glad to see a specific case to.the counter.
OK, that wasn’t clear from the article I read, and as I said it seemed his attorneys were arguing against that particular method was particularly unacceptable, so I assumed that the method wasn’t his choice But it was probably just his attorneys throwing everything they could against all methods.
I don’t think that’s entrenched in the law - but there’s little incentive for the authorities to pursue the real murderer. I tried googling this and had no luck.
Of course, which is why I pointed out that it raises just every red flag when tried to look at it from that point of view. But if the question is balancing the use an experimental procedure on a human subject vs all procedures being experimental the first time that they are used, starting with how this is answered in a medical context is a good place to start.
If evidence is found of someone else being responsible, they’d certainly reopen the case like a confession of an accomplice or something. Whether the wrong person is executed or serving life, the case is just as closed.
Well that’s certainly the general process if a crime is considered closed. But if future DNA can be linked to a murder then there’s nothing stopping a re-opening of the case and a hearty apology to the prisoner executed for it.
Nitrogen is sometimes used by people looking to take matters into their own hands. If random, untrained people can make it work with improvised delivery methods, I would think the method is simple enough that prison staff would be able to administer it in an effective manner. If I was the one being executed, based on what I’ve read, this would be my preferred method if I was given the choice.
