politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If you read this article, start from the halfway point. The first half is absolute fluff.
Arguments against:
Author also argues that since other states don’t use this method, it shouldn’t be used… which feels more like a chicken and egg problem.
The thing is, we already know exactly how nitrogen affects humans, and we know due to industrial accidents.
I'll preface this next part by saying that I don't think the death penalty should exist at all, and that when you give the State the power to kill, that power will be abused.
So, addressing the author's "concerns";
You can only hold your breath for so long. The stress of doing so would be no worse than the stress of knowing you're being executed. You can make the exact same stress argument about any form of execution.
Ill fitting masks are a concern, but nitrogen by itself is not a concern in a well ventilated room. The prisoner dies, not because of the nitrogen itself, but because the nitrogen displaces oxygen. Normal air is about 78% nitrogen. Any other concerns can be alleviated by having oxygen sensors in the room.
Saving someone from nitrogen hypoxia is actually pretty easy if you get to them quickly. And again, a well ventilated room means that it will be completely safe for everyone (except the guy wearing the mask)
Mice are not humans. Humans cannot tell when there's more nitrogen than there should be. That's why nitrogen is so dangerous in an industrial setting.
Basically, the author comes off as having failed every basic science class they ever took.
I don’t know enough about the finer details of this topic to say what is right or wrong, but I was hoping to be educated by the article… which felt like it was just thrown together without proper due diligence… or editing.
Yeah, the author seems to be a complete dipshit.
Yes, you can argue that the death penalty is bad. I often do just that.
I don't make up bullshit that's so easy to disprove in order to push my point.
The author is doing more harm than good here.
Since it has never before been used for state sanctioned murder, we should be careful about how we apply it, and make all efforts to avoid mistakes
I think that holds true whether or not it’s been used before. So, I agree.