Science of execution

[AgeGap]

Last night on BBC Michael Portillo presented a Horizon episode about finding a humane method of execution. Humane deemed to be not gory, quick and relatively pain free. The conclusion of episode was that hypoxia brought on by breathing an inert gas was the most humane solution. Politics aside, does anybody have a view on this. For the US this may appear as a Nova episode.

[Big Les]

(Assuming a pro-death penalty society), from my limited knowledge of physiology but boundless morbid nature, that sounds about right.

But, whatever method is used could surely be rendered "humane" by application of general anaesthetic though, couldn't it?

[AgeGap]

The lethal injection is a modified general anaesthetic. Knock the patient out, paralyse them and give them a big hit of potassium to stop the heart. All done by technicians.
Humane deemed to be not gory, quick, relatively pain free and not needing medics to perform. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.) Hippocratic oath stops docs getting involved.
I am anti death penalty, due to too many cases being messed up and innocent people jailed.

[athon]

(Assuming a pro-death penalty society), from my limited knowledge of physiology but boundless morbid nature, that sounds about right.

But, whatever method is used could surely be rendered "humane" by application of general anaesthetic though, couldn't it?

I'd imagine 'risk' is also a factor. The more complicated the procedure, the greater the chance of screwing it up.

Breathing something like nitrogen would still allow C02 to leave the body. Since its build up of this gas which is uncomfortable, and not deprivation of oxygen, you'd simply nod off.

Athon

[Rolfe]

I just posted a fairly long post on this in an already-open thread in the social issues section. I hope the mods won't mind me copying it here, as I really don't have time to re-type and reformulate it. Here it is.

There was a Horizon documentary last night about methods of execution. (Damn, that programme is going downhill, I haven't seen anything really quality and challenging on it for years, and this one wasn't any exception.) Mind you, the presenter was Michael Portillo, a former Conservative cabinet minister once tipped for Prime Minister, and seeing him suffer had its points.

The detailed explanation of the lethal injection convinced me it was invented by someone not thinking. The three-drug cocktail is based on an anaesthetic regimen, where the whole point is that the patient is required to wake up. Whyever not look at how vets perform i/v euthanasia? Different barbiturate (pentobarbitone, not thiopentone), which is much longer lasting, and you just give a big overdose of the single agent. Or as someone else said, use diamorphine. (I'll tell you the one person I would not have baulked at seeing executed that way, and that's Harold Shipman. If his crimes showed nothing else though, they did show that i/v diamorphine overdose is a viable means of euthanasia.)

The main problem with any i/v method was that the venepuncture had to be performed by a technician, as doctors would not become involved with executions. This was seen as an insuperable obstacle, as these people were not getting it right. My first reaction to this was, come on, it's not that hard at all, anyone with half a brain can be taught that specific technique. However, when you consider that you may have a kicking, struggling and perhaps biting victim, I can understand the reservations. Anyway, injections were ruled out on that basis.

Hanging was investigated, but rejected on the grounds that people's anatomy is so variable even at comparable weights that it's a toss-up as to whether it goes as planned. Apparently, getting the drop high enough to be 100% certain of an instant kill carries a high risk of decapitating the victim, and for some reason this was seen as a bad thing. Squeamishness of those left alive seems to be a big consideration here, which is a bit odd if you think about it. I mean, it's OK to kill the guy, but we mustn't make a mess?

Electrocution was just a disaster. They used a pig carcass to show how it was done, and frankly it's beyond barbaric.

They used CS gas to simulate cyanide gassing, and again, it was barbaric.

Michael then set down some ground rules. He stipulated that the process shold be painless, it should be quick, it should be practical even with a struggling victim, and it should not be "gory".

Now I'm not clear about the reason for the last stipulation. If it's concern about spreading any infectious diseases the victim might have, then he certainly didn't say so. I think it was just squeamishness. But because of that he implicitly ruled out the most successful and widely-used veterinary euthanasia method for larger animals - the single shot to the head. In fact the pig carcass used in the electrocution experiments had been shot, you could see the bullet hole - or perhaps it was a captive bolt. Anyway, that one is definitely viable, and in fact not especially gory at all, but it simply wasn't discussed.

Something else not discussed was getting the victim to drink something lethal, as is done with human euthanasia. This was on the grounds that any method had to allow for an unco-operative victim. However, they could have mentioned the possibility of giving the victim a choice - either drink this down voluntarily, or we'll use something else that might not be so pleasant.

After some waffling around the subject of "hypoxia", including a couple of trips in flight simulators (high-G and low pressure), Michael finally interviewed someone at Bristol University (I think the vet school) who is researching gaseous means of slaughter for food animals. He has devised a mask system which delivers nitrogen. It's fast, effective, and not only painless, it apparently induces a sense of euphoria. The researcher showed that pigs given access to a nitrogen-filled box containing apples were not only happy to eat until they collapsed, the first thing they did when they came round was go back for more! (This is contrast to some other gases which induced marked avoidance behaviour.)

So, OK, this would work.

What were the reactions? The guy who originally developed the three-drug "lethal injection" was resistant to the idea of making the injection more reliably painless, because he had no sympathy with those being executed. Even worse was the reaction of another death penalty proponent, who, when told about the nitrogen mask, said "that's just a terrible idea". He was perfectly clear that he wanted the victims to die in pain, preferably in as much agony as possible. If he could have had these people tortured to death, I think he would have preferred that. The revelation that the nitrogen process appeared to induce a sense of euphoria had him spitting nails.

When we've got the the point where citizens are not simply in favour of killing other citizens, but are specifically opposed to any means of making this more humane, and indeed seem to desire that it should be as painful as possible, then we're in a bad way. The dehumanising effect of the death penalty is perhaps one of the main reasons for opposition (after the question of miscarriages of justice, of course).

We don't rape rapists, or torture torturers. Why not? Well, as I see it, a large part of the reason is that someone would have to do the raping and the torturing.

I believe the same applies to execution.

Rolfe.

[AgeGap]

Rolfe means this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102989)

[Fnord]

Modified Gas Chamber

1) Give the criminal a mild sedative.
2) Put the criminal in a sealable room.
3) Flood the room with Nitrous Oxide.
4) When the criminal is unconscious, or after 30 minutes (whichever comes first), flood the room with Carbon Monoxide.
5) After another 30 minutes, open a trapdoor and dump the body into a crematory.
6) 24 hours later, inter the ashes.

No-one touches the criminal once he's in the chamber. The process can be completely automated, and criminal dies in complete isolation.

[Rolfe]

Why is that better than nitrogen? Do you have any data on what the results of your regimen might be? I'm sure there's information somewhere on the effects of inhaling nitrous oxide - it wasn't superseded as an anaesthetic agent for no reason.

Rolfe.

[plumjam]

anyone volunteering?

[Big Les]

I can volunteer you, if you like. Might put a crimp in your day though.

[Nogbad]

Modified Gas Chamber

1) Give the criminal a mild sedative.
2) Put the criminal in a sealable room.
3) Flood the room with Nitrous Oxide.
4) When the criminal is unconscious, or after 30 minutes (whichever comes first), flood the room with Carbon Monoxide.
5) After another 30 minutes, open a trapdoor and dump the body into a crematory.
6) 24 hours later, inter the ashes.

No-one touches the criminal once he's in the chamber. The process can be completely automated, and criminal dies in complete isolation.

That seems rather long way for a short cut. It said in the programme that the nitrogen gave a sense of well being so no need for a sedative, death would occur quickly and painlessly. Trapdoors etc, optional.

That said I can't see any real justification for retaining the death penalty in the first place.

[plumjam]

I can volunteer you, if you like. Might put a crimp in your day though.

:D
it'll cost you a kfc family bucket, and 8 cans of heineken

(other fast food and lager varieties are available)

[Fnord]

Nitrogen causes death by asphyxiation, and has no anesthetic properties. Since our atmosphere is about three-quarters Nitrogen, you'd think that we'd all have gone comatose long ago, eh?

Nitrous Oxide suppresses the central nervous system directly -- the person falls asleep in a warm, euphoric state, never knowing what comes next.

Carbon Monoxide replaces any remaining free oxygen in the body, and induces full brain death within a very short time.

Granted, giving some mother-stabbing father-raper a warm, fuzzy death is not quite the idea that pro-executionists have in mind, but it still satisfies the conditions of "Executed criminal died quietly feeling no pain."

Oh, one more thing ... you can vent the exhaust gases of the chamber through the crematory. The Nitrous Oxide would burn off, and the Carbon Monoxide would convert to Carbon Dioxide. True, not exactly a "Green" method, but at least there will be one less criminal ... nothing's for free, y'know!

:D

[Professor Yaffle]

What were the reactions? The guy who originally developed the three-drug "lethal injection" was resistant to the idea of making the injection more reliably painless, because he had no sympathy with those being executed.

I missed the programme, but I remember reading an article in the Guardian some time back, and I'm sure it said that the guy that came up with the lethal injection idea was actually anti death penalty, but given it wasn't going to disappear overnight, he wanted to make it more humane. So he got together with someone else and they came up with this idea basically on the back of an envelope with not much in depth thought to it. And IIRC he regretted helping to bring it in because he realised that making it more humane helped make it more acceptable to people, and hence it would be harder to abolish.

If I have time I will see if I can find the article and check if I have rememered it correctly.

[Rolfe]

That wasn't the song he was singing last night, for sure.

Rolfe.

[Jimbo07]

I mean, it's OK to kill the guy, but we mustn't make a mess?

Preferably, just zap 'em with a phaser and nobody would have to feel any guilt about getting them out of the way!

What were the reactions? The guy who originally developed the three-drug "lethal injection" was resistant to the idea of making the injection more reliably painless, because he had no sympathy with those being executed. Even worse was the reaction of another death penalty proponent, who, when told about the nitrogen mask, said "that's just a terrible idea". He was perfectly clear that he wanted the victims to die in pain, preferably in as much agony as possible. If he could have had these people tortured to death, I think he would have preferred that. The revelation that the nitrogen process appeared to induce a sense of euphoria had him spitting nails.

That's just bent...

:(

ETA: It's spooky that there are people who call themselves moral who would want to cause pain! I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, but I'm sympathetic to some people who are. However, I can't believe there's any justice in turning the screw an extra notch! To me, that suggests a hint of sadism on the part of the proponent... :boggled:

[Rolfe]

Nitrogen causes death by asphyxiation, and has no anesthetic properties. Since our atmosphere is about three-quarters Nitrogen, you'd think that we'd all have gone comatose long ago, eh?

Nitrous Oxide suppresses the central nervous system directly -- the person falls asleep in a warm, euphoric state, never knowing what comes next.

Carbon Monoxide replaces any remaining free oxygen in the body, and induces full brain death within a very short time.

Granted, giving some mother-stabbing father-raper a warm, fuzzy death is not quite the idea that pro-executionists have in mind, but it still satisfies the conditions of "Executed criminal died quietly feeling no pain."

Oh, one more thing ... you can vent the exhaust gases of the chamber through the crematory. The Nitrous Oxide would burn off, and the Carbon Monoxide would convert to Carbon Dioxide. True, not exactly a "Green" method, but at least there will be one less criminal ... nothing's for free, y'know!

:D


Pure nitrogen causes death by hypoxia (well, anoxia really). That was what Michael Portillo experienced in the experiment, and what they allowed the experimental pig to choose to experience. Michael said he felt euphoric, and the pig happily stood up and came back for more.

Nitrous oxide is "laughing gas", and I think you'll find there are good reasons why it was superseded as an anaesthetic agent.

Carbon monoxide is bloody poisonous and bloody dangerous. Not to be created or handled or utilised without very very good reason.

You're not convincing me.

Rolfe.

[Professor Yaffle]

That wasn't the song he was singing last night, for sure.

Rolfe.

Maybe we aren't talking about the same guy. This is the relevant extract from the 2006 Guardian article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1877856,00.html


Bill Wiseman was a young representative in Oklahoma, one of the states that rushed its legislature back into emergency session. He didn't believe in the death penalty, but he was afraid of losing his seat if he voted against it. "I was just having such a happy time being a politician," he smiles sadly. "It was the most fun. And here this damned thing comes along and it has the potential to just crap all over this wonderful time in my life. So I was faced with a decision - and I was a wuss about it."
He voted yes. "But afterwards I came to the conclusion that if we were going to do the wrong thing, we might as well do it the right way." Wiseman set about inventing an alternative to the gas chamber and the electric chair. "Something," he winces, "that would be more humane."
Today, Wiseman is an Anglican priest in a grand old church in downtown Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is more opposed to the death penalty than ever. But he has a wolfish, twinkly smile, and it's easy to picture his ambitious younger self back in 1976, loving the limelight while trying to salve his conscience. He describes how the state's medical examiner heard he was looking for ideas, and offered to help. The pair more or less cobbled together a cocktail of intravenous drugs on the back of an envelope. The examiner had no specialist pharmacological training, Wiseman's medical knowledge was zero. But he wrote down what the examiner proposed, called it lethal injection and put it before the house. "I was going round like I was some angel of mercy, really starting to believe my own ********, when I ran into a reporter friend of mine one day. I was like, 'How do you like my bill?' And he just shrugged. It was the very first feeling I had of, 'Uh-oh'. He said, 'Bill, I'm afraid this'll make it too easy for them to pass death sentences.' And on the outside I said, 'Oh no, I'm sure that won't happen.' And on the inside I'm going, 'Oh God, what if he's right?' So what did I do? Nothing. I was enjoying the momentum and fame and the clips on the Today show too much. Everybody liked me. Hey, I was fixing up the death penalty, wasn't I? I was making it humane."

[JJM]

The (in)famous assisted-suicide doctor (Jack Kevorkian) studied this matter and decided, long ago, that carbon monoxide (CO) was the most humane gas to use for killing people. (I don't get the nitrous oxide, to my knowledge CO does not cause distress.) I suspect CO works better (faster, and no struggling for breath) than nitrogen asphyxiation.

Within the past 10 days, the US supreme court heard arguments that the current, three-component injection system could constitute unconstitutional "cruel and unusual" punishment. Most particularly because there were no medical experts present to assure that the victim was truly anesthetized before the potassium was used to induce a heart attack. When asked whether a simple overdose of barbiturate would be acceptable, the lawyer opposing lethal injection answered that death takes up to 1/2 hour in that situation, and that is unacceptably long (correct time? I don't know).

The reason for concerns about timing, and the gore factor, is that proponents of death know it must appear a simple and sterile procedure; especially because there are witnesses. Victim's families are often invited to observe, as are various members of the press, law-enforcement etc. When a killing is botched, the press reports get a lot of attention (about a decade ago, at an electrocution, the guy's head caught fire and the state was forced to abandon that mode of killing).

[SteveGrenard]

Pure nitrogen causes death by hypoxia (well, anoxia really). That was what Michael Portillo experienced in the experiment, and what they allowed the experimental pig to choose to experience. Michael said he felt euphoric, and the pig happily stood up and came back for more.

It's not called "nitrogen narcosis" for nothing. It is also known as "rapture of the deep"
as nitrogen narcosis occurs at great depths (below sea level) when breathing an oxygen-nitrogen mixture (aka: air) which is why gases other than nitrogen are used on deep diving. I concur on the euphoria, in fact you become downright "silly."

[Rolfe]

When asked whether a simple overdose of barbiturate would be acceptable, the lawyer opposing lethal injection answered that death takes up to 1/2 hour in that situation, and that is unacceptably long (correct time? I don't know).


What? I've got the post mortem report written up and typed by that time!

There are problems with very large animals, especially if they have poor circulation due to being very ill/dying at the time. I don't know what the likelihood of such concerns arising in human prison inmates is, but I'd say you have acceptably healthy moderately-sized subjects, so I wouldn't anticipate it.

The last one I did was a sheep, and she was gone while I was still injecting the last of the 10ml pentobarbitone - that is, seconds rather than minutes.

I suspect the lawyer was paid to say that.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Maybe we aren't talking about the same guy. This is the relevant extract from the 2006 Guardian article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1877856,00.html


There should be a transcript of the Horizon text going up, so we can check if it was the same guy. Very possibly not.

Rolfe.

[BenBurch]

I already know the MOST humane way to do this;

A 20mm anti-aircraft cannon round pointblank to the head.

The whole head is destroyed in less time than it takes the brain to know it has happened.

Just a red mist.

Other than not firing at all, there is no way this can fail.

Even better than the guillotine as it has been reliably reported that sometimes severed heads would appear to be aware briefly after the decapitation.

You set it up to be electrically-fired, and have three switches only one of which is live, on a delay line. Then you have three volunteers who all close their switches and never know which was live, so they can all tell themselves later that it wasn't their switch. This, of course, is so it is humane for the volunteers.

[Big Les]

:D
it'll cost you a kfc family bucket, and 8 cans of heineken

(other fast food and lager varieties are available)

You know plumjam, we might disagree pretty drastically in some areas, but you do have a rare old sense of humour :)

Although after that little lot, the actual injection would probably be redundant.

[Big Les]

Even better than the guillotine as it has been reliably reported that sometimes severed heads would appear to be aware briefly after the decapitation.

Reliably? Not sure about that. But yes, your a/c cannon idea would certainly eliminate any doubts! Probably cheaper than anything custom, too.

[JJM]

{snip}
I suspect the lawyer was paid to say that.

Rolfe.Does that ever happen?

I was a tad suspicious. (Although, he might have been actually opposed to state-sponsored murder, and made the best (perhaps, dubious) case that he could muster.)

[Wowbagger]

What difference does it make if it's "humane"? If it is ruled that someone should be put to death, you might as well kill them, any old way. No matter how painful, there will be no pain, at all, once the person is dead!!

Though, would I advise killing them in a manner that would generate the least mess for those still living, to clean up. Anything that spills blood is not going to be very pleasant for the poor janitor who has to mop it all up.
Perhaps injections and gases are less messy?

[BenBurch]

If all we wanted was no mess, the Oubliette would be the preferred method.

But I don't think any of us would be comfortable with that.

[Fnord]

Pure nitrogen causes death by hypoxia (well, anoxia really).

Oopsies! I stand corrected. Thanx!

Nitrous oxide is "laughing gas", and I think you'll find there are good reasons why it was superseded as an anaesthetic agent.


Do you know what those reasons are? Does it have to do with flammability? Can you provide a link?

Carbon monoxide is bloody poisonous and bloody dangerous. Not to be created or handled or utilised without very very good reason.

Poisonous? Dangerous? I thought that was the whole point! The reason is that it turns the perp into a cold, silent corpse, and post-haste. If there's a problem with handling and storing cylinders of CO, then just run the exhaust of a Cummins diesel into the gas chamber.

You're not convincing me.

I don't expect to. But do provide those Nitrous Oxide links, k?

-Fnord-

[Dogdoctor]

There are many considerations.
1) What is the skill and knowledge of the executioner? If you have highly skilled technicians who can reliably and relatively painlessly place catheters, IV protocols will work well and if not then problems occur. If you have highly skilled technicians doing electrocutions then they will be humane.
2) Does it need to look humane? Many execution methods may actually be humane but the appearance is undesirable as in hanging if the head is decapitated or in electrocution the body jerks all over the place and smoking or burning of skin may occur, or in Carbon monoxide seizures may occur, in inert gas suffocation they may struggle to breath.
3) What level and what kind of problems are acceptable? With any technique you use there will be some discomfort and some problems.
4) Cost. Obviously if it costs too much it won't be feasible.
5) Safety to the executioner and the others present. An atomic bomb would be real quick and totally humane but obvious problems with it.
I don't think inert gas would be the least stressful way so it may be reasonable but not ideal. I can hold my breath for 2 minutes so I wouldn't die for more than that length of time. The gas delivery system needs to be quick or it will take longer. Inert gas is good because it is somewhat safe to handle and it should be cheap. I guess suffocating a criminal may seem acceptable since they will only suffer for a short period of time but it is still suffocating them.

[XBoxWarrior]

If I were to be the "victim", I think I would choose simple Herion.

It supplies both the sedative, and the cure.

If you have ever tried this drug, you might agree.....

Or as Hunter S. Thompson might have said, "just use the large caliber".

As far as the Govt killing people outside of their will?

Well, I don't think the Govt should be in the business of killing citizens.......

(but that's another topic)

ETA: ask that "Jesus" dude.......sure he wasn't a Roman, but still

[Rolfe]

There are many considerations.
1) What is the skill and knowledge of the executioner? If you have highly skilled technicians who can reliably and relatively painlessly place catheters, IV protocols will work well and if not then problems occur. If you have highly skilled technicians doing electrocutions then they will be humane.
2) Does it need to look humane? Many execution methods may actually be humane but the appearance is undesirable as in hanging if the head is decapitated or in electrocution the body jerks all over the place and smoking or burning of skin may occur, or in Carbon monoxide seizures may occur, in inert gas suffocation they may struggle to breath.
3) What level and what kind of problems are acceptable? With any technique you use there will be some discomfort and some problems.
4) Cost. Obviously if it costs too much it won't be feasible.
5) Safety to the executioner and the others present. An atomic bomb would be real quick and totally humane but obvious problems with it.
I don't think inert gas would be the least stressful way so it may be reasonable but not ideal. I can hold my breath for 2 minutes so I wouldn't die for more than that length of time. The gas delivery system needs to be quick or it will take longer. Inert gas is good because it is somewhat safe to handle and it should be cheap. I guess suffocating a criminal may seem acceptable since they will only suffer for a short period of time but it is still suffocating them.


Dogdoctor, I think you needed to have seen the programme. The electrocution demonstration was very persuasive of the argument that even done correctly, this may be anything but humane. (Actually, it was barbaric. And that was on a subject that was already stone dead.)

Safety is something I think some people are having a problem with as regards CO gas. Ever heard of Murphy's Law? I could even be persuaded that it was a serious issue in the case of a single shot to the head. I've heard of too many ricochets from equine euthanasia to believe it could never happen.

I was very surprised by the results of the pure nitrogen experiments. Apparently there was no struggling to breathe at all. I suppose deliberate breath-holding could be an issue, but I suspect this would be limited as the gas is not noxious nor is there any sensation of suffocating or asphyxiating. The subject who did it reported a feeling of euphoria.

The behaviour of the pig was remarkable. There was a feeding trough full of apples, in a perspex box, on one side of which was a big sort of cat flap that allowed the pig to get its head in and gorge. The box was filled with the test gas. After demonstrating that the animal would avoid feeding if there was a noxious gas in the box, we saw the nitrogen reaction. The pig was chomping merrily, and simply keeled over as if anaesthetised. Because this caused its head to slip back out into the fresh air, it came round. And the minute it got its trotters back under it, it made a bee-line for those apples again.

This is under test as a possible humane slaughter method. I'd say it looks promising, and certainly I'd hope it would end the ritual slaughter debate, since the animal is rendered unconscious without "blemish".

So, while it may not "seem" as if it would be the best way, actual experimentation seems to be pointing in this direction.

Rolfe.

[BenBurch]

You will NEVER have a ricochet if you use a 20mm cannon round. Not even possible. Fix the condemned to a solid chair, have the muzzle aligned with his head at about 5" separation (necessary - contact shot MIGHT force the head out of the way with the compressed air from the barrel) and there will be no head left after firing. This isn't a bullet through the brain, its a cannon round disintegrating the head. It does not even need to be an explosive round; the kinetic energy alone is enough to turn the head into a red mist. Actual obliteration.

And did somebody ask cheap?

First, a 20mm cannon round is about $40.

Second you don't even need to do a medical exam to determine death.

And finally if you do this out in the open on a range you won't even need to worry about cleaning up more than the stainless steel chair and the cannon.

If I would have to be executed that would be my choice.

I've had CO poisoning, and it was not painless.

[Rolfe]

Um, I think using that sort of calibre rather fails on the "dignity of the State" bit, requiring minimum gore. But intellectually, I see your point.

Rolfe.

[Fnord]

I've had CO poisoning, and it was not painless.
That's why the the condemned criminal needs to be anesthetized into a coma.

I dunno ... maybe just keep pumping the condemned criminal's blood full of barbituates until O.D.s?

Or just drop a 20-ton freight container on the condemned criminal's head. This has the advantage of being re-usable.

Drop. Lift. Rinse. Repeat.

[Rolfe]

The barbiturate one is SOP veterinary euthanasia, as I keep saying. And it works extremely well and extremely quickly. However, if you have to get a vein, and you only have technicians to do it, and the prisoner is struggling, this is a problem.

And while we're at it, how are you going to anaesthetise that prisoner in your first option?

And why do you need to, if the pure nitrogen gas works as well as the demonstrations suggested it does? Why even bring up the subject of dangerous, noxious CO when a better alternative has already been demonstrated?

And what was wrong with Madame Guillotine anyway....

Rolfe.

[Dogdoctor]

Dogdoctor, I think you needed to have seen the programme. The electrocution demonstration was very persuasive of the argument that even done correctly, this may be anything but humane. (Actually, it was barbaric. And that was on a subject that was already stone dead.)

Safety is something I think some people are having a problem with as regards CO gas. Ever heard of Murphy's Law? I could even be persuaded that it was a serious issue in the case of a single shot to the head. I've heard of too many ricochets from equine euthanasia to believe it could never happen.

I was very surprised by the results of the pure nitrogen experiments. Apparently there was no struggling to breathe at all. I suppose deliberate breath-holding could be an issue, but I suspect this would be limited as the gas is not noxious nor is there any sensation of suffocating or asphyxiating. The subject who did it reported a feeling of euphoria.

The behaviour of the pig was remarkable. There was a feeding trough full of apples, in a perspex box, on one side of which was a big sort of cat flap that allowed the pig to get its head in and gorge. The box was filled with the test gas. After demonstrating that the animal would avoid feeding if there was a noxious gas in the box, we saw the nitrogen reaction. The pig was chomping merrily, and simply keeled over as if anaesthetised. Because this caused its head to slip back out into the fresh air, it came round. And the minute it got its trotters back under it, it made a bee-line for those apples again.

This is under test as a possible humane slaughter method. I'd say it looks promising, and certainly I'd hope it would end the ritual slaughter debate, since the animal is rendered unconscious without "blemish".

So, while it may not "seem" as if it would be the best way, actual experimentation seems to be pointing in this direction.

Rolfe.

I am quite familiar with electrocution of both animals and humans. Done correctly the electricity turns off the brain at the speed of light. It may appear to be barbaric but it is only barbaric in aesthetics. There have been studies done on other species of animals using nitrogen gas and they struggle for breath. In the case of pigs feeding ...... well you won't likely surprise a convict during a meal with suffocation from nitrogen gas. It sounds like a humane slaughter technique for hungry pigs though. :)

[Rolfe]

They tried it (or something allegedly equivalent) on the presenter. He was being asked to do a simple puzzle, and was getting it wrong. Afterwards he said he really thought everything was peachy and he was confounding everyone by getting it right.

Do you have any links to the other studies which showed nitrogen to be less than ideal? I'm asking because all I have to go on is what was shown on the programme, and it looked very well tolerated.

Rolfe.

[Dogdoctor]

http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
This is a summary of the studies. You can get the references and look around to see if you can find them online.

[Rolfe]

Thanks.

Rolfe

[Ivor the Engineer]

Modified Gas Chamber

1) Give the criminal a mild sedative.
2) Put the criminal in a sealable room.
3) Flood the room with Nitrous Oxide.
4) When the criminal is unconscious, or after 30 minutes (whichever comes first), flood the room with Carbon Monoxide.
5) After another 30 minutes, open a trapdoor and dump the body into a crematory.
6) 24 hours later, inter the ashes.

No-one touches the criminal once he's in the chamber. The process can be completely automated, and criminal dies in complete isolation.

I believe some call-centers are considering this technology.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I am quite familiar with electrocution of both animals and humans. Done correctly the electricity turns off the brain at the speed of light. It may appear to be barbaric but it is only barbaric in aesthetics. There have been studies done on other species of animals using nitrogen gas and they struggle for breath. In the case of pigs feeding ...... well you won't likely surprise a convict during a meal with suffocation from nitrogen gas. It sounds like a humane slaughter technique for hungry pigs though. :)

Which "expert" came out with that load of nonsense?

How do you "turn a brain off" exactly? Is there a circuit breaker in the cerebellum?

There is no humane way to kill a person who does not wish to die and knows they are about to be killed.

All there is to debate is how the executioner and viewers want to kill another individual so that it fits their idea of "humane" or "justice". I.e., it is for their psychological benefit, not the individual being killed, whose suffering is immaterial once they are dead.

The only reason to choose nitrogen gas over death by a thousand cuts is so those performing and watching the execution can feel ok about their actions.

The "science of execution" is a study of what a culture finds an acceptable way to carry out murder.

[Rolfe]

Hey, calm down.

Dogdoctor is a vet, as am I, and somehow we find this macabre conversation intellectually interesting. Our profession gives us first-hand knowledge of how euthanasia works, and the general debate about it, which can illuminate the debate about execution.

And by the way, I agree with your general sentiments. After the question of miscarriages of justice, the next most powerful argument against the death penalty is its dehumanising effect on those involved and society as a whole.

Nevertheless, Dogdoctor is in a position to know about electrical stunning. It's the accepted method of slaughter-stunning in poultry and sometimes in pigs. In addition, it is used by some animal welfare organisations (in the US, I'm not sure about here) for euthanasia of unwanted cats and dogs. However, I'm unsure about the relevance of his comment to the electric chair. Certainly, the report of the prisoner who continued to struggle and vocalise past a gag even after a 15-minute shock did appear to relate to a case where proper procedure had not been followed. Nevertheless, the fact that electrical stunning of animals is apparently humane, and that even accidental electrocution by only 240 volts can kill a human, doesn't necessarily prove that the electric chair is an efficient and humane means of killing people.

Even if instant unconsciousness can be reliably achieved, this seemed to be another one that failed on the "dignity of the State" grounds - flames leaping from the clamps and burns right down to the bone that dislocate the tarsus are no less gory than ripping a head off or blowing the brains out.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

I don't know, isn't "diginity of the state" and maintining death penalty self-contradicting?

In this kind of debates (which I try to shun just like con control debates, and for approximately the same reasons), people often point to some criminals who "don't deserve to live". While I can indeed think of people who hardly deserve to live, I find it much harder to think of people who deserve having the state executing them.

I think the only possibly dignified way of execution is giving the condemned the option of suicide (by the method of their choice, within reason), as opposed to life imprisonment.

Hans

[Cainkane1]

Modified Gas Chamber

1) Give the criminal a mild sedative.
2) Put the criminal in a sealable room.
3) Flood the room with Nitrous Oxide.
4) When the criminal is unconscious, or after 30 minutes (whichever comes first), flood the room with Carbon Monoxide.
5) After another 30 minutes, open a trapdoor and dump the body into a crematory.
6) 24 hours later, inter the ashes.

No-one touches the criminal once he's in the chamber. The process can be completely automated, and criminal dies in complete isolation.

Everythings fine except number one. If I was going to be executed I'd want a very heavy dose of xanax.

[Rolfe]

I don't know, isn't "diginity of the state" and maintining death penalty self-contradicting?


Yes. I was just adhering to Michael Portillo's criteria as laid down in the programme about what one might decide was an appropriate method of execution if you were going to do it at all.

It was quite interesting that there are also apparently opponents of the death penalty who oppose making the method more humane on the grounds that if people see it as humane then it is less easy to argue for abolition. I don't know what they're smoking!

While I can indeed think of people who hardly deserve to live, I find it much harder to think of people who deserve having the state executing them.


"But many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" (Gandalf to Frodo, in response to the latter's opinion that Gollum does not deserve to live.)

I find it impossible to think of people who deserve to be turned into killers at the behest of the state.

Rolfe.

[Big Les]

No soldier "deserves" to be turned into a killer, yet they do so willingly and with (contraversial wars notwithstanding) our blessing. They are supposed to protect our country and its interests from harm - executioners could be seen as protecting our society from the harm of criminals. Not that I believe in the penalty myself.

[Rolfe]

I see your analogy, but it's not perfect. It relies very much on the benefit being worth the harm. In addition, the situation of "the heat of battle" is very different from cold-blooded execution, which even soldiers shrink from. In the case of a just war, then most would argue in favour. Starting to argue the benefits of the death penalty, and whether these are worth the dehumanising effect on the individuals involved, gets us right back to the beginning.

Rolfe.

[Big Les]

I agree. It was just something that occurred to me. But I'm sure given the right political/religious/moral background, one could argue that the roles were not too dissimilar - both are cost/benefit as you say, and if you can show that more dead criminals = safer society, then you're tilting toward the benefit side of the scale as you would be with "more dead enemies = war over more quickly" or similar.

There's no question that soldiers are to some extent dehumanised by what they do, the extent to which this happens is probably lessened by combat being less up close and personal than either it used to be, or execution would be. But just as a fighter pilot clicking a button can kill hundreds without ever seeing them, or a soldier can fire into a building and kill the occupants without seeing them, there would be ways of removing the executioner from his task such that he/she had only the knowledge that they were going to take a life. And the assumption would be that this was justified, or they would not take part or be allowed to take part. Contrast this with the soldier's "victim", whose only crime might be a difference of ideology or allegiance. Yet he is killed all the same, with no due process required, and almost certainly with more pain and suffering involved.

I think in this way you can reduce the analogy to the point where it's valid. I still feel that there's a difference between soldier and executioner as far as their killing role goes, but I have to admit that it's not as tangible as I tend to think it is.

[Jimbo07]

It was quite interesting that there are also apparently opponents of the death penalty who oppose making the method more humane on the grounds that if people see it as humane then it is less easy to argue for abolition. I don't know what they're smoking!


Actually, this is related to the sarcastic remark I was making earlier. I'm somehwhat sympathetic to this argument. It's an emotional appeal, not a philosophical one.

I think some proponents of the death penalty may be able to ease their conscience by saying it was 'humane.' Again, zap 'em out of existence... neat and tidy. :(

[Big Les]

It's the same sort of logic that led to the banning of more effective expanding and explosive ammunition in warfare as being "inhumane". As if a jacketed bullet yawing through your chest at 1000fps leaving you to bleed out was just peachy. I can see why surgeons advocated for it, because it means more people surviving gunshot wounds, but you'd think that would run somewhat counter to the military agenda of, you know, killing the enemy.

[Broes]

I am very much against it but if it 'should' be done, even to myself, I guess I would prefer the firingsquad. Why all the hassle, people get shot all the day and if done properly, it rather instantainious.

[Big Les]

I am very much against it but if it 'should' be done, even to myself, I guess I would prefer the firingsquad. Why all the hassle, people get shot all the day and if done properly, it rather instantainious.

Not quite (hence the 20mm cannon idea above) - firing squads traditionally shoot centre-mass, which means at least 5 seconds of consciousness (quite possibly more). Quite possibly no pain in that time (you'd have to hope).

If I had to choose a way to die I'd agree - at least I'd satisfy my morbid curiosity about what it's like to get shot (!) and it's significantly less horrible for me personally than any of the other method used in the "civilised" world.

[Rolfe]

Eyuch, there was one guy in France sentenced to the guillotine some time ago who wanted to be guillotined face up so he could see the blade coming. He was some sort of sicko sadistic sex monster I think.

They didn't grant his request.

Rolfe.

[Professor Yaffle]

From some joke site:

A priest, a lawyer and an engineer have all been sentenced to death by guillotine for crimes they had committed. The executioner asks the priest whether he wishes to face up or face down when he meets his fate. The priest states he would prefer to die face up which would enable him to be looking towards Heaven when he dies.
The priest is placed in the guillotine and the executioner releases the lever. The blade comes speeding down, but jams just short of the priest's throat. Taking this as a sign from God, the priest is released and set free.
Next, the lawyer is led to the guillotine, and hoping he will be as fortunate as the priest, he too decides to die face up. Again the blade is released and jams just inches away from his throat. As with the priest, the lawyer is released and set free. Finally, the engineer is led to the guillotine. He also decides to die face up. Just as the executioner is about to release the lever, the engineer shouts, "Wait! I think I see what your problem is!"

[Big Les]

Eyuch, there was one guy in France sentenced to the guillotine some time ago who wanted to be guillotined face up so he could see the blade coming. He was some sort of sicko sadistic sex monster I think.

They didn't grant his request.

Rolfe.

I'm not like him. You can lose the "sadistic".

:D

This is really one of those silly playground "if you had to do X thing" games, and shooting would be my best of a very bad bunch of choices. It has a certain heroic quality to it... ;)

It's claimed that the blindfold was provided not for the condemnded, but so that the shooters couldn't see the eyes of the victim and thus would shoot true.

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's the same sort of logic that led to the banning of more effective expanding and explosive ammunition in warfare as being "inhumane". As if a jacketed bullet yawing through your chest at 1000fps leaving you to bleed out was just peachy. I can see why surgeons advocated for it, because it means more people surviving gunshot wounds, but you'd think that would run somewhat counter to the military agenda of, you know, killing the enemy.

:confused:

I thought the 'military agenda' was winning the battle and ultimately the war.

As you can't kill all of your enemies at once, better to maim as many as you can, then at least many of the other enemy soldiers are busy helping their comrades.

Here's an interesting site on the act of killing humans:

http://www.killology.com/article_onkilling.htm

[balrog666]

Modified Gas Chamber

1) Give the criminal a mild sedative.
2) Put the criminal in a sealable room.
3) Flood the room with Nitrous Oxide.
4) When the criminal is unconscious, or after 30 minutes (whichever comes first), flood the room with Carbon Monoxide.
5) After another 30 minutes, open a trapdoor and dump the body into a crematory.
6) 24 hours later, inter the ashes.

No-one touches the criminal once he's in the chamber. The process can be completely automated, and criminal dies in complete isolation.


Why not just CO2? It would be a lot simpler to handle and vent.

And I'll admit that the cannon idea is even simpler.

[Dogdoctor]

Hey, calm down.

Dogdoctor is a vet, as am I, and somehow we find this macabre conversation intellectually interesting. Our profession gives us first-hand knowledge of how euthanasia works, and the general debate about it, which can illuminate the debate about execution.

And by the way, I agree with your general sentiments. After the question of miscarriages of justice, the next most powerful argument against the death penalty is its dehumanising effect on those involved and society as a whole.

Nevertheless, Dogdoctor is in a position to know about electrical stunning. It's the accepted method of slaughter-stunning in poultry and sometimes in pigs. In addition, it is used by some animal welfare organisations (in the US, I'm not sure about here) for euthanasia of unwanted cats and dogs. However, I'm unsure about the relevance of his comment to the electric chair. Certainly, the report of the prisoner who continued to struggle and vocalise past a gag even after a 15-minute shock did appear to relate to a case where proper procedure had not been followed. Nevertheless, the fact that electrical stunning of animals is apparently humane, and that even accidental electrocution by only 240 volts can kill a human, doesn't necessarily prove that the electric chair is an efficient and humane means of killing people.

Even if instant unconsciousness can be reliably achieved, this seemed to be another one that failed on the "dignity of the State" grounds - flames leaping from the clamps and burns right down to the bone that dislocate the tarsus are no less gory than ripping a head off or blowing the brains out.

Rolfe.

Loose connections lead to the burning. If done right that won't happen. Who ever did the demo had an agenda other than truth.

[BenBurch]

Years and years ago I saw cattle slaughter being done with the pneumatic "gun." It seemed to be fairly close to instantaneous.

And I know people who have been across major voltages. NOT painless.

[JJM]

Why not just CO2? It would be a lot simpler to handle and vent. {snip}The CO2 levels in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million. Inhaling it is most unpleasant at the high concentrations needed to kill someone. It would be excluded (in the US) as "cruel and unusual punishment" which is barred by our constitution.

[BenBurch]

I've read accounts written by people dying of CO2 poisoning in wrecked submarines.

Most unpleasant.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Loose connections lead to the burning. If done right that won't happen. Who ever did the demo had an agenda other than truth.

I^2.R leads to the burning.:)

http://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/injuries.htm

Electrical burns

When an electrical current passes through the human body it heats the tissue along the length of the current flow. This can result in deep burns that often require major surgery and are permanently disabling. Burns are more common with higher voltages but may occur from domestic electricity supplies if the current flows for more than a few fractions of a second.

Mains electrical burns are almost always third degree, and often don't look as serious as they actually are.

An interesting aside: The frequency of the electrical supply in most of the world (50 or 60Hz) is coincidently the most dangerous as far as electric shock is concerned because of the frequency dependence of the resistance of the human body, which reaches a low around this frequency.

Read more about electrical shock here (http://books.google.com/books?id=FdSQSAC3_EwC&pg=PA2319&lpg=PA2319&dq=60hz+frequency+electrical+shock&source=web&ots=VZOIiLDi6m&sig=aXKHrqBvnxRvb6-Fgy8bTs24x-U).

[Big Les]

:confused:

I thought the 'military agenda' was winning the battle and ultimately the war.

Strategic level objective.

As you can't kill all of your enemies at once, better to maim as many as you can, then at least many of the other enemy soldiers are busy helping their comrades.

Tactical level objective! Intended to achieve the above.

In fact, what you propose has been suggested in the past as a rationale for the Hague convention provisions and/or not putting much thought into more lethal small arms ammunition. Later theory, informed by Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, and other "unconventional" wars says that's bollocks; you need to incapacitate them, and a single, clean hole is not the way to do that. The idea that their comrades will drop everything to get them medical attention might have applied to Imperial Germany or Britain circa 1916, but not to a determined irregular opponent, high on adrenaline and more besides. Witness law enforcement who use expanding ammunition almost exclusively. Hunters, who wish to kill their game humanely and recover the body more easily, use the same. Limiting suffering by using slightly less horrible weapons is a nonsense; same here. "Less gory" executions are to allow us to maintain some veneer of civilisation whilst engaged in one of the least civilised acts still acceptable to (some) modern societies.

Here's an interesting site on the act of killing humans:

http://www.killology.com/article_onkilling.htm

I think you've linked that before - interesting. I keep meaning to read "The Lucifer Effect", but from what I've learned otherwise (Milgram anybody?), we're all capable of killing in the right circumstances, and not necessarily for the right reasons. I doubt there is much difficulty in finding people able to rationalise being an executioner in one way or another, and I'm not sure that it's inherently more wrong than simply being a soldier (in respect of the killing part of the job).

[Dogdoctor]

I^2.R leads to the burning.:)

http://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/injuries.htm



Mains electrical burns are almost always third degree, and often don't look as serious as they actually are.

An interesting aside: The frequency of the electrical supply in most of the world (50 or 60Hz) is coincidently the most dangerous as far as electric shock is concerned because of the frequency dependence of the resistance of the human body, which reaches a low around this frequency.

Read more about electrical shock here (http://books.google.com/books?id=FdSQSAC3_EwC&pg=PA2319&lpg=PA2319&dq=60hz+frequency+electrical+shock&source=web&ots=VZOIiLDi6m&sig=aXKHrqBvnxRvb6-Fgy8bTs24x-U).

I meant external burning.

eta: Basically if you electrocute someone properly they will not smoke and burn visibly and in fact come to think of it there won't be much internal buring either.

[Big Les]

Years and years ago I saw cattle slaughter being done with the pneumatic "gun." It seemed to be fairly close to instantaneous.

Never seen it, but I've handled a captive bolt gun (shotgun cartridge style activated). I have little doubt that it would obliterate enough of the brain quickly enough to be roughly equivalent to the rather more blackly amusing 20mm cannon idea proposed earlier.

So much of this issue is about emotion and how we see ourselves as above killing yet simultaneously in need of ultimate "justice". Can you imagine a politician bringing legislation to use captive bolt guns to bear on criminals? Yet what's the difference? They're still dead, and humanely, too. Is it because people might realise that we're just strategically shaved animals?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Never seen it, but I've handled a captive bolt gun (shotgun cartridge style activated). I have little doubt that it would obliterate enough of the brain quickly enough to be roughly equivalent to the rather more blackly amusing 20mm cannon idea proposed earlier.

<snip>


When did you take that course in brain physiology again?

Ever heard of Phineas Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)?

Or Mike the headless chicken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken)?

All we can ever do is imagine and guess what it is like to die in a particular way, since unless you believe the likes of Sylvia Browne, reliable testimony is unavailable.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_bolt_pistol

This method is currently the most effective and widely used type of stunning, since it physically destroys brain matter (increasing the probability of a successful stun), while also leaving the brain stem intact (thus ensuring the heart continues to beat, facilitating a successful bleed).

[Big Les]

When did you take that course in brain physiology again?

I didn't. I'm not sure I need to in order to argue that a victim is instantly rendered insensible, and very shortly afterward, really quite dead, by such a weapon.

Ever heard of Phineas Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)?

Or Mike the headless chicken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken)?

Yes to both. What's your point? Are you suggesting that you would be conscious and thinking following a bolt through the brain?

All we can ever do is imagine and guess what it is like to die in a particular way, since unless you believe the likes of Sylvia Browne, reliable testimony is unavailable.

Yeeeees. That's what I'm doing. What's with the attitude?

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_bolt_pistol

Yeah. I know. I've seen them (the full size ones). Never seen one used, hope never to, on animal or human. I'm just musing upon the likelihood that they would be just as efficient and humane as the methods currently used in countries where they do this, if not more so, and that it's unlikely that it would be politically acceptable due more to squeamishness and human arrogance than any practical concern.

I'm really not sure what the problem is here. I'm not claiming any special knowledge or experience. :confused:

ETA - aggressive reply notwithstanding, you might well be right re potential suffering caused by the bolt gun;

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q7x01266v4g76083/

However I would think, properly administered (rather than self!) the incidence of consciousness after the firing would still be very low. The brain stem would be intact, but as with animals, you could simply provide a coup-de-grace to actually finish off the body.

But probably reason enough to avoid considering its use to replace more certainly fatal methods. Ah well, back to the aircraft cannon it is then!

[Macoy]

As god, the ultimate judge, I would sentence the wrong-doer to be reincarnated as every human being who would ever live through both time and space.

It's painless for me.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Big Les,

No attitude. Sorry if my post gave the impression I had one.

[Rolfe]

Loose connections lead to the burning. If done right that won't happen. Who ever did the demo had an agenda other than truth.


Let me know what you think when you get the chance to see the programme.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Yeah. I know. I've seen them (the full size ones). Never seen one used, hope never to, on animal or human. I'm just musing upon the likelihood that they would be just as efficient and humane as the methods currently used in countries where they do this, if not more so, and that it's unlikely that it would be politically acceptable due more to squeamishness and human arrogance than any practical concern.


In fact the captive bolt isn't the end of it. To achieve certain death (and stop the body kicking) you then "pith" the animal using a flexible plastic cane inserted through the bolt hole and down into the brain stem. (And then you start worrying that you've released prions into the circulation, but that's a whole other ball game.)

I'm pretty sure you could reliably and humanely kill someone with a captive bolt, and a lot safer than a free bullet of any description. But I still don't think it's going to pass the "no gore - dignity of the State" test.

Rolfe.

[Dogdoctor]

I didn't. I'm not sure I need to in order to argue that a victim is instantly rendered insensible, and very shortly afterward, really quite dead, by such a weapon.



Yeah. I know. I've seen them (the full size ones). Never seen one used, hope never to, on animal or human. I'm just musing upon the likelihood that they would be just as efficient and humane as the methods currently used in countries where they do this, if not more so, and that it's unlikely that it would be politically acceptable due more to squeamishness and human arrogance than any practical concern.

I'm really not sure what the problem is here. I'm not claiming any special knowledge or experience. :confused:

ETA - aggressive reply notwithstanding, you might well be right re potential suffering caused by the bolt gun;

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q7x01266v4g76083/

However I would think, properly administered (rather than self!) the incidence of consciousness after the firing would still be very low. The brain stem would be intact, but as with animals, you could simply provide a coup-de-grace to actually finish off the body.

But probably reason enough to avoid considering its use to replace more certainly fatal methods. Ah well, back to the aircraft cannon it is then!

You could probably design a captive bolt system that would effectively kill humans but it would have to involve a head restraint. If there were medical personnel or equipment to document survival then additional blows could be administered since the patient would be rendered unconscious by the first one. Or one could have a multiple bolt system but then that may decrease the aesthetics of it not to mention that many people would feel it was unaesthetic to punch a single hole in the head of a person.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I meant external burning.

eta: Basically if you electrocute someone properly they will not smoke and burn visibly and in fact come to think of it there won't be much internal buring either.

If the connection resistance and current density on the surface is low enough, then external burns could possibly be avoided or at least minimised.

But passing several amps through a body for more than a few seconds has to cause significant internal burns.

ETA: The skull is quite a good insulator, so I doubt the claims of 'instant' unconsciousness are true in many cases. Current follows the path of least resistance.

[Dogdoctor]

Let me know what you think when you get the chance to see the programme.

Rolfe.
I don't need to see the program to know about killing with electricity. It was used in vet school to kill animals when we wanted to preserve tissues. No smoking, burning or damaging of tissues occurred. From your description it appears that whatever else that program was about, it wasn't about up to date scientific knowledge about humane killing. They presented a slanted view of things or lacked the knowledge to do the program in the first place. Why would they cook a dead pig with electricity? What did that show? It was a tactic to steer people away from electrocution without science involved. A tactic commonly employed by those who choose to subvert science. I will let you know if I ever see the program.

[BenBurch]

Would exsanguination into a bucket count as "no gore"? Because death from blood loss is pretty gentle. During the civil war in Bangladesh volunteers who thought they were giving only a couple of pints were drained dry without realizing it in one infamous instance.

[Rolfe]

I don't need to see the program to know about killing with electricity. It was used in vet school to kill animals when we wanted to preserve tissues. No smoking, burning or damaging of tissues occurred. From your description it appears that whatever else that program was about, it wasn't about up to date scientific knowledge about humane killing. They presented a slanted view of things or lacked the knowledge to do the program in the first place. Why would they cook a dead pig with electricity? What did that show? It was a tactic to steer people away from electrocution without science involved. A tactic commonly employed by those who choose to subvert science. I will let you know if I ever see the program.


Well, it was Horizon - which has been going badly downhill in recent years. (According to the Radio Times, this is because they are making programmes with an eye to the US audience!) So I wouldn't absolve them of anything. And I agree that as an exploration of up-to-date scientific knowledge of humane killing it left a lot to be desired (especially that tongue-tied woman with the rat, just wittering on about "well there are many methods....). And the choice of Portillo as presenter was nothing more than a gimmick.

Nevertheless, I'd value your opinion more if it was based on actually seeing what they did. They weren't duplicating what happens in vet schools, they were (allegedly) duplicating what happens in the electric chair. And since it is quite obvious that the "lethal injection" method of execution differs markedly from what we'd do in the same circumstances, and is in fact considerably inferior, I'm open to the position that the same is true of a comparison between veterinary euthanasia by electrocution and the electric chair.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Would exsanguination into a bucket count as "no gore"?


Hardly! By definition.

You have to take into account that in executions, unlike animal euthanasia or slaughter, and unlike accidents, the victim knows exactly what is going on. He may well struggle and resist. If that causes so much trouble that even getting a vein to get 25ml of Euthatal in is impractical, I'd like to see a successful and peaceful exsanguination - not!

Actually, I still think that the whole anticipation and knowledge thing alone makes any sort of execution a cruel and unusual punishment.

Rolfe.

[BenBurch]

I agree and think capital punishment is something that should only be done if you have absolutely perfect knowledge of the alleged crime, and I don't think you have very often. Our Patron Mr. Randi could show you many ways in which what hundreds see didn't really occur.

In practical terms, I am from Illinois where we commuted all death sentences a few years back because we found that an amazing percentage of the people on Death Row were provably innocent.

[tracer]

When addressing this issue, I like to ask "What if it was ME facing execution? What method would I prefer?"

The problem I have with death by intert gas or lethal injection or anything that takes time to render me unconscious is the notion that my last thoughts are going to be some muddled parody of the Real Me. I want to be awake, alert, fully conscious, and able to form real, top-of-the-line thoughts about my experience in the final moment. I don't CARE that those thoughts are going to evaporate into non-existence and not even be a memory the moment Brain Death hits. They're MY last thoughts and, dog gone it, I don't want them to be about going "whee!" to hypoxia.

With that in mind, I think the best form of execution is:

Throwing me off a really really really high cliff to a solid floor below.
The impact would destroy me instantly, and I'd get a fun ride on the way down.

[Dogdoctor]

Well, it was Horizon - which has been going badly downhill in recent years. (According to the Radio Times, this is because they are making programmes with an eye to the US audience!) So I wouldn't absolve them of anything. And I agree that as an exploration of up-to-date scientific knowledge of humane killing it left a lot to be desired (especially that tongue-tied woman with the rat, just wittering on about "well there are many methods....). And the choice of Portillo as presenter was nothing more than a gimmick.

Nevertheless, I'd value your opinion more if it was based on actually seeing what they did. They weren't duplicating what happens in vet schools, they were (allegedly) duplicating what happens in the electric chair. And since it is quite obvious that the "lethal injection" method of execution differs markedly from what we'd do in the same circumstances, and is in fact considerably inferior, I'm open to the position that the same is true of a comparison between veterinary euthanasia by electrocution and the electric chair.

Rolfe.

I think the original electric chair was designed by the criminal to be electrocuted by it. It took several tries to get it right. Probably no one wants to change things because of legal issues with changing the process. They should change the laws if they want things to be humane ( allow changes to be made). I am not sure about the concern for minimizing stress. It seems that confinement in a prison is probably pretty stressful for most. They are being punished anyway. I don't think there is any valid reason for capital punishment but I guess they could make it as humane as possible.

[BenBurch]

...
Throwing me off a really really really high cliff to a solid floor below.
The impact would destroy me instantly, and I'd get a fun ride on the way down.

You'd think so, but;

http://www.startribune.com/local/11586351.html

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Skyscraper-Fall-Survivor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17113222/

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008856128

[hodgy]

We shall all die and most of us probably painfully. There is something that kills us all - heart attack, stroke etc.... All of us non-major-criminal folks are going to die in such a way. Our executioner is nature.

I would not wish pain upon anyone but a reasonably swift method of dispatch is most likely better or no worse that your own (blameless) shuffling from the mortal coil. I think that the real punishment / pain is in having time to consider the finality of your sentence.

We can make things pleasanter or not, faster or not, but let us not suppose that the guilty are being harshly punished by pain. You who are morally pristine are likely to suffer in death, moreover, your children may die in pain through pernicious diseases - none of us are immortal.

When we who live a good life shall die a proper (and probably painful) death I see no reason to be concerned that a rapist has a more comfortable exit. I do not wish it upon them and I would prefer to be humane but I do not think the subject is of deep moral significance.

[Starthinker]

I just read this whole thread and a thought occurred to me. What if, upon the decision that a criminal is to be executed, they simply gassed him in his cell one night? Other posters agreed that the anticipation that you know you are going to die is cruel and unusual, then let it be at a time they least expect it.

[BenBurch]

I just read this whole thread and a thought occurred to me. What if, upon the decision that a criminal is to be executed, they simply gassed him in his cell one night? Other posters agreed that the anticipation that you know you are going to die is cruel and unusual, then let it be at a time they least expect it.

My wife was saying that.

She says, why don't they just shoot them in their sleep some night? The "Dead Man Walking" ritual is barbarity.

But since we always have a legal appeals process going on up to the very moment of the execution any more we cannot do that. The condemned and his lawyers absolutely have to know when.

BTW, This is also why it costs MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to execute one criminal.

[Dogdoctor]

You know I have been thinking about this and death by nitrogen gas asphyxiation might not be so bad. They might feel like they can't breath properly for a little while but it's only for a little while and it avoids all the hassles of IV catheters. The chambers still need to be built and operated so that it occurs as rapidly as possible. The stress of not being able to get enough oxygen probably wouldn't be much worse than the stress of waiting to die.

[Big Les]

Big Les,

No attitude. Sorry if my post gave the impression I had one.

Don't worry, I'm probably being oversensitive. You did seem a bit animated though - it could be the subject at hand. If so I quite understand; don't for a minute think that I support capital punishment. As long as there's even a tiny percent chance of miscarriages of justice (i.e. forever), I can never do so. If anything I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of Portillo stipulating "no gore" - clearly as Rolfe says the bolt gun wouldn't qualify even if you didn't have to exsanguinate them immediately afterward, because you'd have to do the Ancient Egyptian Shuffle to scramble the brain. Then again if you're killing people as punishment or as deterrent, why even care how much pain they suffer? It's an emotional argument, as someone else pointed out. The guillotine or sword beheading would seem to tick all the boxes on that score. Yet western countries are too "civilised" to use such methods. Weird.

So going by the "rules" of the OP, bolt guns and aircraft cannon are out. Some sort of gas or injection seems to be the order of the day.

[Rolfe]

I also wondered about the "sneakily kill them one night" idea, but in fact that would be even worse. If this was done, and was known to be the process (and I can't imagine you'd be able to keep it secret), then the stress of knowing that it could happen without warning at any minute would surely be far worse than the stress of knowing that it is going to happen at x time and date (but at least not before that).

Rolfe.

[Thabiguy]

You know I have been thinking about this and death by nitrogen gas asphyxiation might not be so bad. They might feel like they can't breath properly for a little while but it's only for a little while and it avoids all the hassles of IV catheters. The chambers still need to be built and operated so that it occurs as rapidly as possible. The stress of not being able to get enough oxygen probably wouldn't be much worse than the stress of waiting to die.

The thing is, they won't feel like they can't breath properly. There won't be any stress of not being able to get enough oxygen. That's the point.

Human body is unable to feel lack of oxygen. What it can feel is excess of carbon dioxide. Under normal circumstances, this works just fine to keep you alive. When you don't breath, the discomfort of CO2 buildup (which is that what one perceives as "can't breath properly" or "can't get enough oxygen") will eventually force you to.

But under special circumstances - not commonly found in nature - this fails to work. One such case is when someone removes oxygen from the air and leaves only nitrogen. As body does not detect O2, and nothing will prevent breathing out CO2, you won't notice anything at all. You'll be perfectly comfortable breathing, and if someone asks you, you'll swear that you're getting all the oxygen you need. And after a while, for no apparent reason at all, you'll pass out, possibly in the middle of saying how refreshing the air is.

I want to emphasize this because I think that everybody should be aware of this. Not because everybody would be at risk of being executed by inhaling pure nitrogen, but because there are other cases when this can have dangerous consequences. Shallow water blackout is an infamous example. Sometimes people swimming underwater hyperventilate before diving, believing that this will "supersaturate" them with oxygen. And the fact that they'll be able to hold their breath longer after hyperventilating seems to confirm this. But it's a dangerous illusion. Hyperventilating just removes extra carbon dioxide from the system, so it takes longer for it to build up to uncomfortable levels, but it does nothing to increase oxygen saturation. The person will be to able to stay underwater longer, without feeling an urgent need to breath; this may lead to running out of oxygen without being aware of it, and the person may suddenly pass out underwater, and possibly drown.

Try to keep this in mind and do not inhale oxygenless gases or gas mixtures, or hyperventilate before going underwater. You may run out of oxygen without any warning, and when you start losing consciousness, it's often too late to get out of danger.

[Rolfe]

When addressing this issue, I like to ask "What if it was ME facing execution? What method would I prefer?"


Actually, if you're thinking about it that way, I still think there's a lot to be said for offering the victim the choice of voluntarily drinking down a preparation such as is used in human euthanasia. If they agreed, then fine. If not, either because they wouldn't co-operate even with their last breath, or because they didn't fancy that as a way out, then move on to plan B.

Tracer, I think your "thrown off cliff" fantasy is about as sick as wanting to be guillotined face up, but what do I know? But if it's just "instantaneous" you're after, go for any of the versions of "shot to the head".

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

The thing is, they won't feel like they can't breath properly. There won't be any stress of not being able to get enough oxygen. That's the point.

Human body is unable to feel lack of oxygen. What it can feel is excess of carbon dioxide. Under normal circumstances, this works just fine to keep you alive. When you don't breath, the discomfort of CO2 buildup (which is that what one perceives as "can't breath properly" or "can't get enough oxygen") will eventually force you to.

But under special circumstances - not commonly found in nature - this fails to work. One such case is when someone removes oxygen from the air and leaves only nitrogen. As body does not detect O2, and nothing will prevent breathing out CO2, you won't notice anything at all. You'll be perfectly comfortable breathing, and if someone asks you, you'll swear that you're getting all the oxygen you need. And after a while, for no apparent reason at all, you'll pass out, possibly in the middle of saying how refreshing the air is.


Yes. That was exactly what Portillo was describing. He had it done to him, and he was smiling and happily trying to solve a very simple puzzle (and failing miserably). He said afterwards that he thought everything was fine, and he was confounding everyone by solving the puzzle correctly.

It also looked that way with the pig. It went right on scoffing the apples with no sign of any breathing abnormality, until it keeled right over. Then it came round back in the air, and immediately got back up and headed for the (nitrogen-filled) apple box again.

However, Dogdoctor disagreed....

There have been studies done on other species of animals using nitrogen gas and they struggle for breath.


He cited this document (http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf), which contradicts the above to some extent (though it does confirm the precise observation with respect to feeding pigs).

NITROGEN, ARGON
Nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar) are colorless, odorless gases that are inert, nonflammable, and nonexplosive.
Nitrogen comprises 78% of atmospheric air, whereas Ar comprises less than 1%.

Euthanasia is induced by placing the animal in a closed container that has been prefilled with N2 or Ar or into which the gas is then rapidly introduced. Nitrogen/Ar displaces O2, thus inducing death by hypoxemia.

In studies by Herin et al,[88] dogs became unconscious within 76 seconds when a N2 concentration of 98.5% was achieved in 45 to 60 seconds. The electroencephalogram (EEG) became isoelectric (flat) in a mean time of 80 seconds, and arterial blood pressure was undetectable at 204 seconds. Although all dogs hyperventilated prior to loss of consciousness, the investigators concluded that this method induced death without pain. Following loss of consciousness, vocalization, gasping, convulsions, and muscular tremors developed in some dogs. At the end of a 5 minute exposure period, all dogs were dead.[88] These findings were similar to those for rabbits[89] and mink.[80,90] With N2 flowing at a rate of 39% of chamber volume per minute, rats collapsed in approximately 3 minutes and stopped breathing in 5 to 6 minutes. Regardless of flow rate, signs of panic and distress were evident before the rats collapsed and died.[85] Insensitivity to pain under such circumstances is questionable.[91]

Tranquilization with acepromazine, in conjunction with N2 euthanasia of dogs, was investigated by Quine et al.[92] Using ECG and EEG recordings, they found these dogs had much longer survival times than dogs not given acepromazine before administration of N2. In one dog, ECG activity continued for 51 minutes. Quine also addressed distress associated with exposure to N2 by removing cats and dogs from the chamber following loss of consciousness and allowing them to recover. When these animals were put back into the chamber, they did not appear afraid or apprehensive. Investigations into the aversiveness of Ar to swine and poultry have revealed that these animals will tolerate breathing 90% Ar with 2% O2.[69,71] Swine voluntarily entered a chamber containing this mixture, for a food reward, and only withdrew from the chamber as they became ataxic. They reentered the chamber immediately to continue eating. Poultry also entered a chamber containing this mixture for a food reward and continued eating until they collapsed.[71] When Ar was used to euthanatize chickens, exposure to a chamber prefilled with Ar, with an O2 concentration of < 2%, led to EEG changes and collapse in 9 to 12 seconds. Birds removed from the chamber at 15 to 17 seconds failed to respond to comb pinching. Continued exposure led to convulsions at 20 to 24 seconds. Somatosensory-evoked potentials were lost at 24 to 34 seconds, and the EEG became isoelectric at 57 to 66 seconds. Convulsion onset was after loss of consciousness (collapse and loss of response to comb pinch), so this would appear to be a humane method of euthanasia for chickens.[93] Despite the availability of some information, there is still much about the use of N2/Ar that needs to be investigated.

Advantages—(1) Nitrogen and Ar are readily available as compressed gases. (2) Hazards to personnel are minimal.
Disadvantages—(1) Loss of consciousness is preceded by hypoxemia and ventilatory stimulation, which may be distressing to the animal.
(2) Reestablishing a low concentration of O2 (ie, 6% or greater) in the chamber before death will allow immediate recovery.[69]

Recommendations—Nitrogen and Ar can be distressful to some species (eg, rats).[85] Therefore, this technique is conditionally acceptable only if O2 concentrations <2% are achieved rapidly, and animals are heavily sedated or anesthetized. With heavy sedation or anesthesia, it should be recognized that death may be delayed. Although N2 and Ar are effective, other methods of euthanasia are preferable.


So there we have it. One researcher in Bristol saying that the method is appropriate, and showing his apple-chomping pigs as evidence. Portillo himself reporting no sensation of dyspnoea, and in fact being perfectly happy up to the point where he was about to pass out. On the other hand a respectable body (the AVMA) reporting hyperventilation in dogs, rabbits and mink (followed by some distressing - to the onlookers - signs after loss of consciousness), and "signs of panic and distress" in rats. They appear not to be recommending the process.

So the jury is still out. I don't know. But certainly, physiology suggests that the sensation of wanting to hyperventilate shouldn't be a feature, nor should panic and distress, and certainly Portillo showed no signs of anything like that. Maybe it's all down to species differences. The AVMA document is fully referenced, if anyone wants to track the facts even closer to their lair.

69. Raj ABM, Gregory NG. Welfare implications of gas stunning pigs 1. Determination of aversion to the initial inhalation of carbon dioxide or argon. Anim Welfare 1995; 4:273–280.
71. Raj ABM, Gregory NG. Investigation into the batch stunning/killing of chickens using carbon dioxide or argon-induced hypoxia. Res Vet Sci 1990; 49:364–366.
85. Hornett TD, Haynes AP. Comparison of carbon dioxide/air mixture and nitrogen/air mixture for the euthanasia of rodents: design of a system for inhalation euthanasia. Anim Technol 1984; 35: 93–99.
86. Smith W, Harrap SB. Behavioral and cardiovascular responses of rats to euthanasia using carbon dioxide gas. Lab Anim 1997; 3 1:337–346.
87. Hewett TA, Kovacs MS, Artwohl JE, et al. A comparison of euthanasia methods in rats, using carbon dioxide in prefilled and fixed flow rate filled chambers. Lab Anim Sci 1993; 43:579–582.
88. Herin RA, Hall P, Fitch JW. Nitrogen inhalation as a method of euthanasia in dogs. AmJ Vet Res 1978; 39:989–991.
89. Noell WK, Chinn HI. Time course of failure of the visual pathway in rabbits during anoxia. Fed Proc 1949; 8:1 19.
90. Vinte FJ. The humane killing of mink. London: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, 1957.
91. Stonehouse RW, Loew FM, Quine JP, et al. The euthanasia of dogs and cats: a statement of the humane practices committee of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. Can Vet J 1978; 19: 164–168.
92. Quine JP, Buckingham W, Strunin L. Euthanasia of small animals with nitrogen; comparison with intravenous pentobarbital. Can Vet J 1988; 29:724–726.
93. Raj ARM, Gregory NG, Wotton SR. Changes in the somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electroencephalogram of hens during stunning in Argon-induced anoxia. Br Vet J 1991; 147:322–330


Anyone got any references specifically relating to human subjects?

Rolfe.

[Thabiguy]

He cited this document (http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf), which contradicts the above to some extent (though it does confirm the precise observation with respect to feeding pigs).

I don't think it necessarily contradicts it. These studies did not test the effects of nitrogen on humans. They tested the effects on dogs, rats, and other animals. The conclusion is "Nitrogen and Ar can be distressful to some species (eg, rats)." While that is interesting, it's not of great relevance to the OP. The question is whether it's distressful to humans.

Maybe it's all down to species differences.

Quite possibly. As far as I can tell, the document mentions different results for different species of animals. It would seem that species is an important factor.

Anyone got any references specifically relating to human subjects?

I can find many case studies of people accidentally exposed to nitrogen, but I can't find any experiments documenting effects of using nitrogen to euthanize people.

[Rolfe]

Since it's not all that dangerous, I wonder if someone has tried it in a controlled setting? So long as the subjects are given fresh air the minute they lose consciousness, they recover completely. And there are always some raving lunatics prepared to try stuff like that in the name of scientific curiosity.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, it is not really surprising that it may be species dependent. Rats are adapted to diving and under-ground living (the common rat's natural habitat is river banks), where they may encounter methane pockets and oxygen depleted holes (where the CO2 has been dissolved in water and is thus not at a high level), so it is not surprising if they have evolved an ability to detect such a situation and try to save themselves.

However, in the execution debate, obviously it doesn't really matter how rats (or pigs for that matter) react, since the species we (they ;) ) want to execute is homo sapiens. So it is the reaction of that species which is interesting.

Hans

ETA, oh, I see others already covered this. Oh, well.

[MRC_Hans]

Since it's not all that dangerous, I wonder if someone has tried it in a controlled setting? So long as the subjects are given fresh air the minute they lose consciousness, they recover completely. And there are always some raving lunatics prepared to try stuff like that in the name of scientific curiosity.

Rolfe.

Also since it is clean, neat, peaceful, readily practiceable, safe for others, 100% effective, and at least probably without suffering, you might think it would be good enough.

I mean even if the odd executionee might feel some discomfort, it seems by far the best of the available options.

Hans

[Mister Earl]

Meh. You can only ever die once. I don't want to die old and helpless. Quick and messy, that's how I want to go. Something newsworthy. Like getting caught in the gears of a combine.

[Dogdoctor]

Perhaps humans fully knowing they will be asphyxiated to death with nitrogen won't struggle to breath. However I now think even if they do stress that it has to be less stress than that which the criminal would undergo being kept in a prison for 20 years or so and most likely even less than the stress of waiting to be executed. The waiting to be executed can go on for years but the struggle to breath would be a relatively short period of time.

[balrog666]

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million. Inhaling it is most unpleasant at the high concentrations needed to kill someone. It would be excluded (in the US) as "cruel and unusual punishment" which is barred by our constitution.


Fine, back to the cannon then.

[Bob Blaylock]

I've always thought it rather ridiculous to worry this much about whether an execution is being carried out “humanely”. I generally consider capital punishment to be appropriate only for crimes which involve murder or attempted murder. In such cases, the criminal almost certainly did not give any such thought to how humanely his victim was to die. I just don't see that it makes any sense to give such consideration to a criminal who did not give such consideration to his victim.

[SteveGrenard]

I've always thought it rather ridiculous to worry this much about whether an execution is being carried out “humanely”.

How about an execution by lethal injection which had to be cancelled? Because the death chamber didn't have any alcohol swabs to prep the skin to prevent an infection at the needle site.