Eegore,

You just asked for examples I'm not saying that the writer of that article was a qualified Brain of Britain, it was just top of a google list that contained typical objections. The point I was making is that any objection you can find for the use of N are of the same order of merit, i.e. they have none.

I have not seen any information that indicates the order changes are for the purpose of "reintroducing" any execution methods.

Yes you already said that, and I already answered it. But I'll answer again, I am saying that because the use of N answers every practical objection to the use of all other methods of carrying out the death penalty, other than (moral related objections because that's not my topic) and that there is an implicit statement that other methods are preferred.

Why? Because once it has been legally established that the States have the authority to execute, then the only avenue available to those to protest the action is to use technical issues like the obvious failures that we've already seen, including cruelty.

Yet in spite of this even States that have in principle accepted execution by N they are slow walking it using old excuses that don't make any sense, because there are no practical excuses. Why would this be, why would it be that States that are anxious to execute are nevertheless making it more difficult for themselves by opening themselves up to lawsuits that challenge their means on reasonable grounds. I'm sure that hanging and firing squad can also be challenged, in the same way as lethal injection. After all there's no guarantee that a hanging or a frying or a firing cannot go wrong, then it's back to court.

What other plausible reason is there for these States that are fighting to execute not simply getting the N setup done. See? I'm saying that it is implicit that there must be a desire to use the other obviously frightening and barbaric methods.

And 'barbaric' is temporally relevant. For example pulling a tooth out without anaesthetic as a normal procedure was not barbaric at one time in the past, but it would be today if it was done for no reason.

But that's my point, there are no arguments against 'method b', i.e. N hypoxia, that are not demonstrably false.

So let's play the devil's advocate then, try and come up with a plausible reason not for any State that sanctions death by any other method to not immediately begin using the N word.

N hypoxia has been known for a long time, long enough that it is deliberately eschewed, by pretending that it's just another method, or by simply ignoring it.

There is obviously a conscious or even subconscious pull away from it. It's like it doesn't want to be faced because it somehow shows something we don't want to know. What I find extra strange is that even in countries that have Euthanasia end of life centres, they don't use it. Preferring instead to use lethal injection albeit not one as horrific as that used for execution.

I'm just pointing out facts that are puzzling or lead one in different thought directions. I'm guessing that authorities do not want to draw people attention to how easy and painless and even pleasant it can be to off yourself. Notwithstanding of course that the thought process that leads one in this direction is indicative of a a disturbed mind.

It's like we'd rather that N executions just went away.

From your link..

They said the change was necessary because finding lethal injection drugs had become increasingly difficult.

See that's another example of the disingenuousness of the objections. As if it's only about the availability of the lethal injection drugs, that implies that were there no  problem with other methods that they'd wouldn't use N.

Also your link keeps saying they cannot procure a 'delivery device', they do not say what this device actually is. When in fact no special device is necessary the state can commission the construction of a chamber and they can commission the necessary air evacuation plumbing, there will definitely be a small engineering company that would build it. Unlike obtaining lethal chemical that require to be manufactured by large name brand pharma companies.

As to obtaining N I've been able to obtain that easily for using gas agitation in easily oxidised chemical solutions. Well not any longer but I used to. Similarly being able to procure N is easy because it has so many industrial uses and it's a non toxic non flammable gas.

Think about this, you already have someone strapped into a gurney. Well how difficult is it to get a local perspex manufacture to make a dome that fits over the gurney, they just need to suck the air out while feeding nitrogen in. There's nothing more complex than that. Easy to test on animals. Not only that but there nothing that can go wrong, even if the gas gets in there too slowly, the effect is the same, the euphoria would last a bit longer, there'd be no one writhing around in agony.

But your link proves my point again how the arguments they present do not stand up to scrutiny. As for it needing time, death by hypoxia has been known for a century. Or more, think about the experiments of Joseph Priestly with 'dephlogisticated air' hundreds of years ago!

It's obvious that the States that have introduced the death penalty are eager to use it otherwise why introduce it. Yet as eager as they are there doesn't seem to be any rush to use the one method that survives all objections. I'm just taking these facts and drawing the inevitable conclusion.

It doesn't have to be a stated conspiracy, and the arguments you make regarding the difficult of construction and testing would be relevant to the three methods suggested in the thread title, but as I've said before are definitely no relevant. Sure everything has to be done by the book, but it's not a very complex book. And we've just seen a 5 year virus plan finished in 18 months, and that is right at the limit of complexity.

There are government engineers who design and build complex engineering projects. With the simple specification needed for an inert gas chamber it would be a relatively easy design and build. The only requirement are to be able to evacuate a seal chamber, it's not working with poison gas, people jerry rig this up in their own homes with a plastic bag.

As I said, try and come up with a plausible reason why States that want to execute prisoners, don't get this fast tracked rather than continue with other methods that have myriad inherent problems

Come up with a plausible reason, I've asked you three times and you just twist it around to say that you don't think people are all agreeing together. The very fact that you cannot come up with a plausible reason proves my point, there is none.

Ergo we have to hypothesise why not? The clichéd reasons you've given apply to the current methods. And as I've said, this is not new technology, it's been known for hundreds of years. There must be a particular attraction to persisting with the methods in the thread title.

WebsterMark wrote on 11/28/20 at 05:26:34:

...
No execution 5 years after the fact is any type of deterrent. ...

Used to be when Criminals were put to death,
it was a deterrent.
Because everyone was reminded,
You stole a horse, (etc), you were hung.
It was a public display.
It was a deterrent.

Now the ‘PC’ correct UL, FDS’s,
Have HIDDEN it away !

 The construction is not difficult, the implementation in law is inefficient.

 Maybe if millions of murderers were waiting to be executed at the cost of millions more lives and crippling impacts on the economy then sure I can see them fast-tracking this like an international virus.

 US law is slow.  My reason for States not fast tracking nitrogen is one: Very few people need it in comparison to other things in US State legislature.  Two: They are trying to use it, but no matter how simple something is, like putting in a section of sidewalk, it can take years to get approved because of the bureaucracy.  A car wash needed a curbing drop off in my town and it took 3 years to get the permits and approval and about an hour to get the curb dropped.

 Again I see no reason to believe that the order you provided is for the purpose of "reintroducing" any method, but to allow for future methods to be implemented with less legal barriers.  I also do not think any "authorities" are trying to keep the general population from knowing what nitrogen is and how it could work in executions.

 If anything I would think that State legislators would prefer to have a more socially accepted method, that's low cost and in ample supply just so they can get it over with.  Making a few people feel pain for a few seconds every decade is most likely not that important by my assessment.

 

WebsterMark wrote on 11/29/20 at 04:56:13:

... the Thanksgiving Day vandalism by Uncle Joe’s antifa friends.
... The media is still covering for their boy Joe. ...

Na, just that the TV sets all broke, and they needed new ones.

And and the BLM (Belt Loops Mater) crowd,
just lent a hand.

No big deal, It's not news to be shared, cause YOU, don't need to hear it.