They ought to use a 50/50 mixture of helium and nitrous in the gas chamber. Quick, painless, and you get to see a guy zonked on laughing gas talking like Alvin the Chipmunk for a few minutes.
So…when they do a lethal injection, do they really first swab down the skin with alcohol before sticking in the needle?
…and if so, why do they do that?
The Master speaks: When someone is executed by lethal injection, do they swab off the arm first? - The Straight Dope
Because medical people are trained to do it that way. Always, automatically, so they never forget. (Which I happen to think is a good thing.)
I rather like this and had a similar idea which involves putting a dead-man’s switch in the condemned’s hand and taking bets on how long he can hold the button down before blowing himself up.
Doesn’t the Hippocratic Oath also prevent the doctor from giving a woman an abortion or the means to do one herself (RU486)? IIRC, the the 1980s, only one medical college in the US still required the Hippocratic Oath anyways.
Yes it does. It also prevents doctors from performing surgery. I’m pretty sure it’s been updated a few times over that last couple millenia (or have doctors been swearing to Apollo the whole time :D)?
Why not the Michael Jackson drug? It killed our hopes and dreams, surely it’s potent enough for real criminals like child molesters and murderers?
OK but… it’s an injected drug. So go directly to jail, do not collect $200.
Why have states gotten away from using gas chambers?
The problem is they use the wrong gas. They use cyanide because it’s quick, but the guts foam out the mouth. A simpler method is to replace the oxygen with nitrogen. When people inhale pure nitrogen (it even warns this on the canister), you can pass out without realizing there’s a problem and you’re dead in a couple of minutes. But no scientist ever wrote law, apparently.
[QUOTE=HorseloverFat]
A lot of governments accept injection as the most humane method of execution.
I am curious if anyone actually knows this or it is just easier on the people watching.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve heard that depending if there isn’t a knockout component or it isn’t used properly, it’s supposed to be horribly agonizing; the poison will burn the skin and does the same inside the body ( as user_hostile mentions ).
The argument over the “humaneness” of executions is mostly really an argument over what form looks the least brutal IMHO. As long as the paralysis works and they don’t start writhing and screaming lethal injection is mild looking.
If we actually cared about humaneness, we’d use something like a high powered gun to the head; something guaranteed to destroy the brain immediately. But that would be very messy, and it would look like what we are actually doing; killing someone.
Why not the Michael Jackson drug? It killed our hopes and dreams, surely it’s potent enough for real criminals like child molesters and murderers?
Bolding mine.
Hehehehe
I’m absolutely against the death penalty but the impression I get (admittedly from popular culture) is that Britain had the rope lengths worked out properly from the 1890s onwards.
The drop lenghts were originally calculated by an English executioner named William Marwwod and were later expanded on by James Berry.
In the begionning the figuring only involved one variable - weight. Eventualy it was discovered that two 160lb people could have very different body types and thus requirements for ropes.
If memory serves the rule of thumb for calculating rope length to ensure severance of the spinal cord but not decapitation is 1200 divided by body weight.
For anyone interested in the history and development of execution I highly recomend the book Lord High Executioner by Howard Engel. Chock full of interesting info and grisly woodcuts.