OK's Double Execution

[Davka]

Post execution, you'd need a body bag, a hose, and a bunch of bleach.

The problem here is that the cleanup could itself be considered 'cruel and unusual punishment.' What we need is a chamber that kills the victim instantly, after which the chamber could be transformed into a crematorium without harming the mechanism. So imagine a huge sliding bolt which enters the chamber from the side, smashing the head to jelly. The bolt is propelled by your weight & pendulum, which are positioned outside the chamber so that they are not subject to the intense heat of post-execution cremation. The chair would be disposable, made of flammable material. Cleanup requires only a broom and dustbin.

We should patent this idea and start flogging it around the redneck utopia states. A nice C.G. video demonstration (with lots of blood and gore) would sell it in Texas and OK in a heartbeat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a slight here. A white person convicted of killing a white person also has an elevated chance of the death penalty. You kill a white woman and you might as well give up. The race of the victim matters much more than the race of the perpetrator.

And a white who kills a black person is more likely to get executed also.

Please back that with a citation.

 

[Sabine Grant]

By Davka :I have determined the same for myself: if, towards the end of my life, I am facing a slow, painful decline and an ugly death, I intend to get hold of a bucketful of Oxycontin or some similar opioid or opiate, and drift away on clouds of fuzzy bliss. The only reason we don't allow this in America is because the religious fascists are scared that Aunt Martha might go to Hell if she isn't forced to suffer needlessly on her deathbed.

Just to clarify, Physician Assisted Suicide is legal in 3 US States, Oregon, Washington and Vermont. Montana and New Mexico may be next. However, the assisting role of the physician is limited to prescribing a lethal drug to be self administered by the patient. Meaning it cannot involve any other party than the patient himself/herself when it comes to the physical act of inducing the process of death (that is what distinguishes PAS from euthanasia).

There has been some controversy in the medical milieu (meaning not related to any religious beliefs) based on bio medical ethics where physicians are expected to "do no harm".

Going back to the OP motivated topic, a 2 step drug cocktail would suffice to guarantee a prompt and peaceful process of death. First step to render the person unconscious (such as the dosage of sedatives used for "terminal sedation") and step 2, lethal drug. The term "terminal" from "terminal sedation" does not mean that it induces death. We use this term for hospice patients who need to be placed under heavy sedation to alleviate their suffering. The patient is totally unconscious.

"Terminal sedation" is used when euthanazing a pet. Right before the injection of a lethal solution. It is indeed peaceful and prompt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The whole idea of lethal injection is stupid, anyway. We have a simpler means--anoxic environment. Painless, messless, leaves an intact corpse and no fiddly things to go wrong.

Just pump the execution chamber full of nitrogen. It's not toxic so when you're done you can just vent it outside.

Um, suffocation may be painless in the strictly physical sense, but it is far from it in the practical sense.
There are some gasses (CO is one IIRC) which fuck with your brain enough that you don't realize you're suffocating... those might be an option.

You don't realize anything is happening with an anoxic environment unless you have been trained to recognize the symptoms.

However, running a gas-chamber isn't actually that easy. There are quite a few things which can go wrong, most obviously not getting the concentration high enough for long enough. Making a "quick suffocation" environment is more complicated that just sealing a room and pumping in another gas... the air in the room has to go somewhere (or somehow be rapidly depleted of of O2). That is why adding highly toxic gasses/vapors to the air in a sealed gas chamber is the 'traditional' method. (BTW: Gas chamber has a lot in common with lethal injection actually... and a lot of the same problems.)

You're assuming has to act quickly. Seal the chamber other than the nitrogen input and the vent. Run the system until the 0₂% has been low enough for long enough.

 

[fromderinside]

It would be pretty boring. Just wheel in the sleeping, drugged of course, prisoner to the chamber before you introduce carbon dioxide to the normal atmosphere would work nicely. If an awake person is required then anesthetize him with most any drug, even ether, used for otherwise painful surgery. Nothing to see but a custodian or anesthesiologist flip a switch just before he exits the chamber in the one minute delay set before CO₂ is introduced. The whole thing would take less than 5 minutes.

We're overthinking things way too much here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It would be pretty boring. Just wheel in the sleeping, drugged of course, prisoner to the chamber before you introduce carbon dioxide to the normal atmosphere would work nicely. If an awake person is required then anesthetize him with most any drug, even ether, used for otherwise painful surgery. Nothing to see but a custodian or anesthesiologist flip a switch just before he exits the chamber in the one minute delay set before CO₂ is introduced. The whole thing would take less than 5 minutes.

We're overthinking things way too much here.

Carbon dioxide isn't a good choice.

 

[travc]

Going back to the OP motivated topic, a 2 step drug cocktail would suffice to guarantee a prompt and peaceful process of death. First step to render the person unconscious (such as the dosage of sedatives used for "terminal sedation") and step 2, lethal drug. The term "terminal" from "terminal sedation" does not mean that it induces death. We use this term for hospice patients who need to be placed under heavy sedation to alleviate their suffering. The patient is totally unconscious.

"Terminal sedation" is used when euthanazing a pet. Right before the injection of a lethal solution. It is indeed peaceful and prompt.

The problem is making a fool-proof formula. There is quite a bit a variation in how people respond to different anesthetics, which is why a really good anesthesiologist is rather critical... There is still a lot of 'art' involved. This is actually the central "physician assisted" part of "physician assisted suicide".

The execution setting doesn't normally have real (as in highly competent) physicians involved. Apparently they often don't even have competent phlebotomists.

PS: I'm sure it has already been mentioned, but it deserves repeating... The standard execution protocols are three-drug, where the second drug is a paralytic. That is presumably for the 'comfort' of the viewers so they don't have to watch convulsions, which would be OK if it didn't also mask ineffective anesthetic. In practice, it very much appears that the paralytic is "for" masking just how horrible and common execution fuck-ups are.

PPS: Euthanization of pets (or lab animals) is *very often* peaceful, but there are occasional exceptions where the reaction to the drug(s) are atypical. The protocols, especially for lab animals, have also been tested and optimized many many many times, and yet continue to be improved.
(I think the currently 'best practice' for mice and hamsters is a large dose of ketamine based on weight and then "cervical dislocation"... aka breaking the neck.)

ETA: After thinking about it more... I'm liking explosives more and more. If I were to want to end my life (or were condemned), my current preference would be a large amount of high-explosives and someplace like an abandoned quarry. It also solves the problem of disposal of the corpse... a sort of "sky burial".

 

[bilby]

Agreed. A high explosive detonated close enough to the head to ensure that the neurons of the brain are destroyed by a front that moves through the tissue faster than the speed of propagation of nervous impulses is theoretically incapable of being perceived by the victim, or of being survived.

It would be my choice.

Still, the janitor has a big clean-up job to do; even if you vaporise the entire corpse, it will likely re-condense over a moderate area, which will need cleaning to remove the potentially quite pathogenic material - even a really huge explosion likely won't kill all the gut flora, and they will have a nutrient rich environment to work in...

... a nuke or big fuel-air bomb probably wouldn't have this issue, but you would need a deep underground chamber for the execution - or to do it in a large area of desert.

 

[travc]

Still, the janitor has a big clean-up job to do; even if you vaporise the entire corpse, it will likely re-condense over a moderate area, which will need cleaning to remove the potentially quite pathogenic material - even a really huge explosion likely won't kill all the gut flora, and they will have a nutrient rich environment to work in...

I was stuck on the biohazard issue for a bit too... but a body blown to very small bits and left in the open (in a non-extreme environment) will decompose very rapidly. After that sort of decomp, there are very very few pathogens which could possibly be of concern, and all the ones I can think of (anthrax for example) would be very obvious.
Anyway, that is why I said "*abandoned* quarry"

For something which isn't a one-time thing, a designated site closed to the public and basic precautions for people who aren't planning to be dead in a very short time would do the trick.

ETA: How about this for a business (probably a non-profit service) idea...
"Explosive assisted suicide" at sea.
Really simple actually. Take a boat out into international waters and launch a (disposable) dingy with the client, a lot of explosives, a detonator, and a video+audio+monitor link (cheap tablet/laptop+antenna) so the client can virtually be with loved ones. The client triggers the detonator when they are ready.

The non-legal complications I can think of aren't bad...
There needs to be a remote arming mechanism. A lot of people who might want such a service aren't physically capable of triggering a standard detonator. Both of those just require some easy gadgetry to overcome.

I'm not sure about legality... but it seems like the only obvious liability would be possible suit by the family of the client under the "Death on the High Seas Act". Of course, there would be blanket waivers which would theoretically cover that. I don't find anything else obvious in google about suicide in international waters.

The company could also offer "modern viking burials" for people who have already died.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

How is it that none of the stories about this planned execution see fit to mention that both of the condemned men "just happen" to be black?

Why is that relevant? Would it have been better if they had been white?

In other words "I don't understand that racism still exists and is still an issue".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Agreed. A high explosive detonated close enough to the head to ensure that the neurons of the brain are destroyed by a front that moves through the tissue faster than the speed of propagation of nervous impulses is theoretically incapable of being perceived by the victim, or of being survived.

So long as the blast wave is powerful enough when it reaches the head it doesn't matter where the charge is--the blast wave propagates far faster than neural impulses do. Even if you're standing on the charge you won't feel anything.

 

[NobleSavage]

I really don't understand why this is so complicated (well I do...it's political) but vets put animals to sleep routinely and very effectively. Why can we just use what my vet uses?

 

[credoconsolans]

I really don't understand why this is so complicated (well I do...it's political) but vets put animals to sleep routinely and very effectively. Why can we just use what my vet uses?

Same here.

The 3 stage lethal injection consists of a painkiller, an anesthesia and then the lethal drug. All to stop any pain, knock him out and stop his heart.

I don't know what we use for our pets.

As for the OP, the man was convicted to be executed, he was.

It was messier and longer than expected or desired, but that was just a failure of the technique, not the job itself.

As for the man being black and a disproportionate number of black men sentenced to death, that doesn't mean they don't deserve it. It only means white heinous killers have better lawyers.

 

[Angry Floof]

I really don't understand why this is so complicated (well I do...it's political) but vets put animals to sleep routinely and very effectively. Why can we just use what my vet uses?

Because vets' offices in OK are closed for the hangin'.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

I don't actually see that as an oxymoron. We want to kill, remove permanently from society. We don't want to kill _and_ torture.

Who is this we you mention?

This story is getting air time on Canadian television as well. Aside from the whole debate surrounding capital punishment, if the sentence of death is going to be implemented, then the methodology must be swift and sure. From what has been reported, this execution was anything but well handled. A bullet to the brain would have been kinder.

Wouldn't the guillotine be the best solution? Swift, painless, and inexpensive.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and the Bill of Rights has been a bulwark of protection against cruel and unusual punishment, such as solitary confinement, killing via slow strangulation (hanging without a sudden drop to break the neck), chopping off the foot of a runaway slave, whipping in the public square, confinement in stocks, tarring-and-feathering, and similar un-American methods of punishment.

Let's face it: shooting someone in the head is a foolproof, non-cruel method of execution that has been around since our nation was founded. So why don't we use it? Simple: It's messy, and looks a whole lot like killing someone.

Slaves are not poeple they are property. The mutilation of a slave, such as cutting of a foot, is not cruel and unusual punishment but the damaging of private property.

 

[travc]

I really don't understand why this is so complicated (well I do...it's political) but vets put animals to sleep routinely and very effectively. Why can we just use what my vet uses?

Same here.

The 3 stage lethal injection consists of a painkiller, an anesthesia and then the lethal drug. All to stop any pain, knock him out and stop his heart.

At least get the relevant facts right...
The standard (SCOTUS approved) lethal injection protocol is an anesthetic, a paralytic, and a lethal drug.
The paralytic is problematic because it can hide a failure of the anesthetic. Awake+paralyzed+lethal drug taking effect is pretty fucking inhumane.
OK and some other states have been substituting a large does of sedative since the approved anesthetic is not available. Sedatives aren't anesthetics, though they can work in theory, but practice gets complicated. Remember, there isn't a lot of opportunity for testing and it has to work on the specific condemned person being executed.

As for euthanizing animals...
First off, there are different protocols for different animals because drugs often effect them differently. There isn't a single "what the vet uses" if the vet in question is at all competent.
Second, there has been a lot of opportunity for experimentation and testing of those protocols. Don't forget about all the animals which have been used in research... figuring out ways to humanely and easily euthanize them has been (and continues to be) pretty important.
Finally, with animals it isn't normally a huge problem if the normal procedure fails with a small percentage of them (due to some individuals reacting to the drugs differently). There are alternative procedures available and normally at hand. That isn't acceptable for executions though. and for some unknown reason they never seem to have a plan-B.

PS: A simple summary of the problems with lethal injection as an execution method:
The physiological response to pharmaceuticals is (normally) very complicated.

ETA: If there was a good anesthesiologist with a well stocked kit and no paralytic masking (so the anesthesiologist could do his job correctly), the actual 'lethal' part an execution wouldn't matter at all. As I said before, the problem is that anesthetics involves a lot of skill/art... you can't just follow a recipe and expect it to work reliably.

PPS: The large-animal necropsy at the vet school is very near my lab. If anyone has some specific questions about euthanizing animals, I could drop by and ask them. Just message me.

 

[travc]

Wouldn't the guillotine be the best solution? Swift, painless, and inexpensive.

Decapitation does not cause 'instant death'. There is very good reason to think that the guillotine is far from painless.
Also, while much much better than the headsman's axe, the chance of it not working properly and failing to decapitate the condemned is significant.

 

[credoconsolans]

I really don't understand why this is so complicated (well I do...it's political) but vets put animals to sleep routinely and very effectively. Why can we just use what my vet uses?

Same here.

The 3 stage lethal injection consists of a painkiller, an anesthesia and then the lethal drug. All to stop any pain, knock him out and stop his heart.

At least get the relevant facts right...
The standard (SCOTUS approved) lethal injection protocol is an anesthetic, a paralytic, and a lethal drug.
The paralytic is problematic because it can hide a failure of the anesthetic. Awake+paralyzed+lethal drug taking effect is pretty fucking inhumane.

So is being buried alive. I'm not feeling any sympathy for these guys.

Wouldn't the guillotine be the best solution? Swift, painless, and inexpensive.

Decapitation does not cause 'instant death'. There is very good reason to think that the guillotine is far from painless.
Also, while much much better than the headsman's axe, the chance of it not working properly and failing to decapitate the condemned is significant.

So, we're back to a bullet or several bullets to the head. Fast, painless but messy.

 

[travc]

At least get the relevant facts right...
The standard (SCOTUS approved) lethal injection protocol is an anesthetic, a paralytic, and a lethal drug.
The paralytic is problematic because it can hide a failure of the anesthetic. Awake+paralyzed+lethal drug taking effect is pretty fucking inhumane.

So is being buried alive. I'm not feeling any sympathy for these guys.

Your sympathy, or lack there of, is irrelevant. The legal system in the US is not supposed to be about satisfying a blood-lust for revenge.

So, we're back to a bullet or several bullets to the head. Fast, painless but messy.

Bullets often don't do as much damage as you seem to think they do. Yes, a bullet to the back of the head will nearly always cause certain death, but the goal should be near instant death if we're trying to minimize cruelty... There's a difference.
But yeah, a bullet to the head is almost certainly more humane than lethal injection. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that the reaction to a lethal injection (or whatever sort of execution) going wrong isn't for one of the guards to put a bullet or two into the head of the condemned.
Having a plan-B is a good thing, and plans C+ just involve pulling the trigger more times... it will work, though it will be messy and not very pleasant for the shooter(s) and observers.

 

[credoconsolans]

At least get the relevant facts right...
The standard (SCOTUS approved) lethal injection protocol is an anesthetic, a paralytic, and a lethal drug.
The paralytic is problematic because it can hide a failure of the anesthetic. Awake+paralyzed+lethal drug taking effect is pretty fucking inhumane.

So is being buried alive. I'm not feeling any sympathy for these guys.

Your sympathy, or lack there of, is irrelevant. The legal system in the US is not supposed to be about satisfying a blood-lust for revenge.

Then you need to stop bringing up irrelevancies such as your opinion about the inhumanity of the procedure. Nobody cares.

So, we're back to a bullet or several bullets to the head. Fast, painless but messy.

Bullets often don't do as much damage as you seem to think they do. Yes, a bullet to the back of the head will nearly always cause certain death, but the goal should be near instant death if we're trying to minimize cruelty... There's a difference.
But yeah, a bullet to the head is almost certainly more humane than lethal injection. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that the reaction to a lethal injection (or whatever sort of execution) going wrong isn't for one of the guards to put a bullet or two into the head of the condemned.
Having a plan-B is a good thing, and plans C+ just involve pulling the trigger more times... it will work, though it will be messy and not very pleasant for the shooter(s) and observers.

Perhaps using the devices they use to kill cattle at a slaughter house would be best.