Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Oklahoma to use nitrogen gas for executions


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

There are just as many studies that say the death penalay is a deterrent, they just don't get as much press time.

Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) _ what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory _ if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they have such a hard time killing people. Mix a morphine heroin mix, and inject enough to create a massive overdose. Its cheap, humane (as far as killing people goes) and effective.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2018 at 0:37 PM, Why not said:

The optics of a firing squad might be just what we need. The threat of death as punishment does not seem to be much of deterrent these days.  Just as public hangings back in the day must have really made people think twice about doing anything that would have gotten themselves swinging from the gallows pole at high noon.  I know that sounds pretty rough.

The concoction of expensive and hard to obtain drugs used to carry out the death penalty in most states has a history of problems and out right screw ups. I have said for years that the states should just use heroin and over dose the person. It's cheap and more powerful then ever these days. It would also be a very humane way of carrying out the sentence. The person basically loses consciousness and the body forgets to keep breathing.  Hell, it kills 10's of thousands of innocent people very fast each year. It would be very hard to botch an execution this way. 

 

 

Using a guillotine may be the best answer.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2018 at 6:36 AM, preacherman76 said:

I don't understand why they have such a hard time killing people. Mix a morphine heroin mix, and inject enough to create a massive overdose. Its cheap, humane (as far as killing people goes) and effective.

I've heard that nitrogen (as well as helium) tricks the brain into thinking you are breathing fresh air.

You pass-out, suffocate and die without feeling any pain... is what I've heard... sometimes used also in human "assisted suicide"

Edited by pallidin
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2018 at 11:29 PM, Piney said:

:blink: Why don't they just bring back firing squads....It would be less painful.

No, as Pallidin said, nitrogen asphyxiation would be about as painless as it comes. (Wikipedia's page on nitrogen explains the process.)

Not that I'm a supporter of the death penalty, though. I'd invite everyone to watch this article from the Australian ABC's TV show "Planet America": http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-09/the-death-penalty-in-america.-on-the-way-out/9417420

It's just over four minutes long and it shows a bunch of problems with the death penalty, at least as it's used in the USA.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 4:08 AM, Dark_Grey said:

Look at car accidents as an example. The threat of death never stopped anyone from doing 130 through a red light. The threat of killing someone else doesn't stop speeders, either. Taken on it's own, death is not a deterrent. You know what is? Cash and freedom. People will slow down when they see a Cop because they are afraid of jail and financial loss. What that says about priorities could fill a book.

More precisely, I'd say the best deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. For example, when it comes to speeding, people usually slow down for permanently positioned speed cameras...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 8:40 AM, Why not said:

I don't know about "right after the verdict". I believe there should be a reasonable amount of time for an appeal, but not more then a couple years. 

The one thing I would agree with carrying out the sentence right after the verdict would be if there was irrefutable video evidence of first degree murder. Especially if it was agenst a child. I have zero compassion for anyone who hurts a child and would let the parents stone the SOB to death.

And who gets to decide which cases out of a group of murder cases are the irrefutable ones?

Look, I have children of my own, and if someone killed one of them I'd probably want to be first in line to execute the person convicted of the murder.

But...

The underlying problem with the death penalty is that the legal system which administers it is imperfect, and in many cases dangerously so. Pretty much every country has its list of people who were wrongly convicted of murder, whether because of police errors, evidence errors, mistaken witnesses, defective legal representation or overzealous judges. And then there are all the other problems, as listed in the Planet America clip I linked above.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Peter B said:

No, as Pallidin said, nitrogen asphyxiation would be about as painless as it comes. (Wikipedia's page on nitrogen explains the process.)

Not that I'm a supporter of the death penalty, though. I'd invite everyone to watch this article from the Australian ABC's TV show "Planet America": http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-09/the-death-penalty-in-america.-on-the-way-out/9417420

It's just over four minutes long and it shows a bunch of problems with the death penalty, at least as it's used in the USA.

I figured it would be like "the bends" which my brother had once. He was in some pain. 

I agree with you about the death penalty on all points though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 8:56 AM, Dark_Grey said:

Yes and no...prisoners are expensive and the cost of keeping someone alive indefinitely multiplied by how many people on death row at any given time? Few things are more tragic than killing an innocent man but some people deserve to die rather than be kept alive on tax payer dollars. This would be an easy choice if we had a fool proof way of convicting people

It's more expensive to execute people than to keep them in prison for life: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#36d46b6e664b

Some US states have stopped applying the death penalty on economic grounds: http://theconversation.com/the-death-penalty-is-getting-more-and-more-expensive-is-it-worth-it-74294

And as for deserving to die, even the worst murderer/rapist/whatever still has value while they're alive. They may, for example, be able to give evidence about other unsolved cases.

ETA: And then there are the cases where people are coerced into pleading guilty in order to avoid the risk of the death penalty. The case of the Norfolk Four is a notable example.

Edited by Peter B
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Peter B said:

More precisely, I'd say the best deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. For example, when it comes to speeding, people usually slow down for permanently positioned speed cameras...

If people can get away with it, they will. See: looting during riots.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2018 at 11:13 AM, Dark_Grey said:

That...does make sense. I never really thought about why they stopped using bullets

Why use a firing squad? Just shoot murderers in the head at point blank range if there must be capital punishment. I'm against it, but the crazy approach to the subject baffles and puzzles me in that the execution methods seem like mere formalities because they all have the same results: a fast death (in the majority of cases). Why not use a single bullet to make it even faster?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

If people can get away with it, they will. See: looting during riots.

Well, I'd put it as "If people think they can get away with it, they might."

Consider the number of looters in the London Riots a couple of years ago who were later caught by police.

Plus, there's a difference between looting and murder - if only because police are generally going to put more effort into solving murders than break-and-enters. On top of that the amount of evidence available to police is steadily growing: consider that these days things like CCTV and DNA evidence are both very useful in solving cases, yet both weren't much available even 20 years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 6:56 PM, Paranormal Panther said:

Why use a firing squad? Just shoot murderers in the head at point blank range if there must be capital punishment.

A headshot at point blank range isn't as guaranteed to be quick (or fatal) as you might think 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who decided who gets to kill, and who is justified? Who decided that their decision to kill was legal and righteous while the judgement of those who felt the need to kill others was at fault? Is this to say we do not believe in redemption for all?

I sure hope you don't believe in reincarnation. Where would they go? 

I sure hope the lawmakers and leaders are not as religious as they pretend. What hope is there for the salvation of those who cage, kill and extensively  torture those accused of imposing upon the will and comfort of others. It's horrendous the torture people are undergoing on a mass scale. Some well deserved and some for ridiculous reasons. I just don't understand how they can often cite god as if they truly believe they have the right to impose thier will and vengeance on others and call it for our protection. Who believes that they have been bestowed the right to judge the fate and righteousness of his fellow men? And carry out the sentence? Not a real Christian because they believe only God can judge, right? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2018 at 5:36 AM, preacherman76 said:

I don't understand why they have such a hard time killing people. Mix a morphine heroin mix, and inject enough to create a massive overdose. Its cheap, humane (as far as killing people goes) and effective.

Apparently - or bring back the gallows? Rope is reusable and env. friendly.

In all seriousness, the death penalty should only be used when there is 100% certainty of the persons guilt. But when there is,  the execution should happen right after the trial. No decade or two of appeals.IMHO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

A headshot at point blank range isn't as guaranteed to be quick (or fatal) as you might think 

Take more than one shot. The outcome is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2018 at 3:39 AM, Bavarian Raven said:

Apparently - or bring back the gallows? Rope is reusable and env. friendly.

In all seriousness, the death penalty should only be used when there is 100% certainty of the persons guilt. But when there is,  the execution should happen right after the trial. No decade or two of appeals.IMHO.

1. What's the formula for determining 100% certainty?

2. Guilty of which crimes? Murder isn't just one sort of crime. Is there any sort of mitigation for things like self-defence, or mental incapacity, or the level of culpability?

Many murder cases seem to revolve around arguments about the heinousness of the crime, not whether it happened. These are subjective issues, which means the jury gets to be swayed by the persuasiveness of the lawyers arguing the case rather than the facts. For me that makes for dangerous territory to decide whether someone should be imprisoned or executed for the crime. In particular, is it fair that one jury calls for someone to be executed for a given crime, while another jury calls for someone to be imprisoned for a seemingly more heinous crime?

ETA: Oh, and no appeals? How did you arrive at the idea that capital trials are inherently fair and always arrive at the right decision?

Edited by Peter B
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Peter B said:

1. What's the formula for determining 100% certainty?

2. Guilty of which crimes? Murder isn't just one sort of crime. Is there any sort of mitigation for things like self-defence, or mental incapacity, or the level of culpability?

Many murder cases seem to revolve around arguments about the heinousness of the crime, not whether it happened. These are subjective issues, which means the jury gets to be swayed by the persuasiveness of the lawyers arguing the case rather than the facts. For me that makes for dangerous territory to decide whether someone should be imprisoned or executed for the crime. In particular, is it fair that one jury calls for someone to be executed for a given crime, while another jury calls for someone to be imprisoned for a seemingly more heinous crime?

ETA: Oh, and no appeals? How did you arrive at the idea that capital trials are inherently fair and always arrive at the right decision?

100% guilty? Caught in the act. Aka the florida shooter, etc. There are cases of murder when there is no doubt about the guilt whatsoever. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the UK we used to use a method of execution called long drop hanging. The most important thing here is to gauge the length of the drop, which you did using a chart. The prisoner was weighed, by eye I believe, but I might be wrong. Afterwards the drop needed to sever the spinal cord was as simple as looking at the chart. Done right the prisoner died due to a broken neck, severed brain stem, and constricted jugular vein. It wasn't an "instant" death, but the condemned was in a very deep coma. They did not strangle or suffocate. Also in the UK we didn't bother reading the charges, law, and death order out. Our hangmen were proud of their speed. 14 seconds from STAND UP in the cell to "WHAM" in the death chamber next door was the fastest recorded. On average it was easily less than a minute; if the condemned cooperated. Afterwards in law we had to leave them for an hour. This went back to the medieval days. The US did not do this in the 20th century I think. However I'm English and I apologise if I am incorrect.

The only other quick kill method I can think of is a multiple gunshot to the head, or tying explosives to the neck. If so perhaps the final test of the condem's mettle would be to give him one of two trigger buttons and see if he has the guts to do it himself. If not then he dies the death of a yellow stinking sobbing p*** saturated coward in front of witness. Possibly even at the hands of the victim's relatives

What I can't believe is the length of time it takes America to execute their prisoners. To me it often sews an element of doubt into the whole affair. Under English law if there is doubt we are instructed by the judge to give a not guilty verdict.

As for an alternative I was wondering instead of execution perhaps we could give them some sort of underground hard labour. Say in an old deep uneconomical mine where they also live out a life sentence. They never see the sun, you could vary the day length using the lights, and if the prisoners on the whole have been good, christmas could come twice a year. I mean the result of execution often gets the accused under the ground anyway doesn't it. So why not put the corpse to work out of view of the decent people and have the funeral later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bavarian Raven said:

100% guilty? Caught in the act. Aka the florida shooter, etc. There are cases of murder when there is no doubt about the guilt whatsoever. 

Sure there are.

And then there are cases where some people say there's 100% certainty of guilt and others disagree. What do you do then?

What about cases where there's no doubt of guilt, but there are mitigating circumstances? Do these people deserve the death penalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, cyclopes500 said:

The only other quick kill method I can think of is a multiple gunshot to the head, or tying explosives to the neck. If so perhaps the final test of the condem's mettle would be to give him one of two trigger buttons and see if he has the guts to do it himself. If not then he dies the death of a yellow stinking sobbing p*** saturated coward in front of witness. Possibly even at the hands of the victim's relatives

What I can't believe is the length of time it takes America to execute their prisoners. To me it often sews an element of doubt into the whole affair. Under English law if there is doubt we are instructed by the judge to give a not guilty verdict.

As for an alternative I was wondering instead of execution perhaps we could give them some sort of underground hard labour. Say in an old deep uneconomical mine where they also live out a life sentence. They never see the sun, you could vary the day length using the lights, and if the prisoners on the whole have been good, christmas could come twice a year. I mean the result of execution often gets the accused under the ground anyway doesn't it. So why not put the corpse to work out of view of the decent people and have the funeral later.

Just hypothetically, if you were sentenced to death for a crime you didn't commit, how would you behave at your execution?

As for judges' instructions, sure, find the defendant not guilty if there is doubt. But prosecutors are no doubt well aware of this and know plenty of tricks to try to remove that doubt from jurors' minds. In this regard they've been assisted in plenty of cases by somewhat more underhanded tricks, such as not passing exculpatory evidence to the defence lawyers.

As for the last suggestion, yes, I don't have a major problem with this. As I've said before, living prisoners can be useful to society no matter what crime they've committed. Also, if they're still living they can be released and compensated if they've been found to have been wrongly convicted.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew two guys in high school. Somebody killed a few people and everybody knew who. But for some reason other people got accused of two of the murders. One got life and one got death. The justice system is way too flawed to make decisions this big. The police there had accused me of things before and in their mind came up with a whole nonsensical story proving I did it when I had nothing to do. It's their job they are pressured to pick a suspect and make up a story for somebody.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NicoletteS said:

I knew two guys in high school. Somebody killed a few people and everybody knew who. But for some reason other people got accused of two of the murders. One got life and one got death. The justice system is way too flawed to make decisions this big. The police there had accused me of things before and in their mind came up with a whole nonsensical story proving I did it when I had nothing to do. It's their job they are pressured to pick a suspect and make up a story for somebody.

This.

And given how many cases seem to involve District Attorneys up for re-election, my concern with the American version of justice is that too many factors other than simply determining a person's guilt or innocence can be at play in a given trial.

Now this is not to say that justice here in Australia is perfect. Far from it - there are plenty of cases of people found guilty who were later exonerated. But at least without the death penalty these people were still alive to be released from jail.

Then there's the other part of the problem - if you go and charge and convict (and maybe execute) an innocent person, then that means a guilty person is probably still at large in the community, someone the police have no reason to pursue as they've already solved the case.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/03/2018 at 10:29 PM, Piney said:

:blink: Why don't they just bring back firing squads....It would be less painful.

actually Piney.. firing squad will be more painful..

nitrogen will not allow your brain to register that you are not getting any oxygen.. within about 30 to 60 seconds you fall unconscious.. within about 10 minutes you suffocate and die.. the body does not panic.. 

honestly the best thing they could do is keep it up for about 30 minutes or more.. because if they do survive they will have extreme brain damage.. 

researched this when i was feeling just a little depressed.. I was going to go for the nitrous  oxide.. as it was easier to get.. does the same thing..  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DingoLingo said:

actually Piney.. firing squad will be more painful..

nitrogen will not allow your brain to register that you are not getting any oxygen.. within about 30 to 60 seconds you fall unconscious.. within about 10 minutes you suffocate and die.. the body does not panic.. 

honestly the best thing they could do is keep it up for about 30 minutes or more.. because if they do survive they will have extreme brain damage.. 

researched this when i was feeling just a little depressed.. I was going to go for the nitrous  oxide.. as it was easier to get.. does the same thing..  

I've been shot several times. I never felt it. Just noticed after. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.