The False Evolution of Execution Methods

Joining Nebula is one of the easiest ways to support more videos like this. All the exclusive content is just gravy. go.nebula.tv/jacob-geller

When a pharmaceutical company says "we cannot ethically sell this to you", then you know you are doing something absolutely ungodly.

The fact that methods of execution are considered "more barbaric" by how much it makes the people watching it uncomfortable instead of by how much the people being executed suffer is painfully ironic.

the biggest irony is the entire suggestion that it's possible to humanely kill another person

I remember watching a documentary about exactly this question: What's the most humane way to execute someone? They actually found one: nitrogen asphyxiation. By all accounts, it's not only painless, it's euphoric. It's one method used in euthanasia -- Sir Terry Pratchett chose that for his own death. Then they tracked down a pro-death-penalty lobbyist to get his reaction. "That's horrible!" he said. It turned out that the people who want the death penalty aren't just apathetic about making it humane. They want the death penalty precisely because it's barbaric.

In France, our school books usually state "Death penalty is nowadays only used in non-democratic countries, and the United-States of America" And it's absolutely hilarious.

Fun fact! If you are a US citizen and get jury duty, and you wind up part of the jury for a defendant in a capital-eligible crime, if you express at any point that you have moral issues with the death penalty, you will be kicked off the jury and replaced with someone who does! Just throwing that out there if it ever comes up for you, in case that's useful info

I've never been able to square "humane" with "non-violent." People always talk like it's for the sake of not being cruel or causing unnecessary suffering, but things like the guillotine and the firing squad, while violent, are less prone to error and more effective in ending life quickly and efficiently. It's almost like the motivation isn't about being kind or humane, but a squeamishness to confront the enormity of what is actually being done. It's about self-deception, not kindness. They want to kill people, but are so frightened to actually be seen as killers. Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty, but I think if you're going to advocate for it, you should insist on something that is brutal and efficient. The guillotine, the firing squad. Not cruel, but still violent. Not neat and sanitized, but swift. If you're going to end a life, you owe it to yourself not to dress it up and pretend you're being gentle and kind. You're not. There should be blood. Not a spectacle, just a grim reminder that what you are doing is killing. You're not gently rocking someone to sleep, no matter how much you pretend you are. You are killing a person. I'm tired of these people pretending it's not. It strikes me as cowardice that these people are so bloodthirsty, and yet so terrified to actually shed any.

What’s also really sad about the Joe Nathan James case is that the victim’s family actually protested against the execution. They tried to appeal it and spoke out against it several times, but were denied.

15 years ago, a pro-death penalty British politician, Michael Portillo, featured in a documentary where he was seeking the "perfect" method of execution. And he thought he'd found it - inert gas asphyxiation. Flood a chamber with nitrogen, the person would become euphoric, fall unconscious, and die within a short time without pain. Portillo then presented this to an advocate of the death penalty from the US, Robert Blecker, who thought that it was "horrific". Blecker wanted the person being executed to suffer before they died. This seemed to shock Portillo ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YgWXKAwNY )

I remember learning about lethal injection, and when I got to the drugs used, my immediate question was... "Wait, what's the paralytic for if the first drug puts them to sleep? That doesn't make any sense."

Being unable to convey my agony because I’m paralyzed, muted, or otherwise stifled is one of my greatest fears. I once heard a story - can’t remember where from - of a man who had a stroke on a sunny day and fell on his back paralyzed. Passersby were thankfully able to do CPR and keep him alive, but because he was paralyzed, unable to close his eyes or speak, his staring at the bright sunny sky turned him blind. I imagine him laying there, feeling his retinas slowly burning and crying in his mind for the people to close or cover his eyes but unable to say anything as he slowly but surely and helplessly lost his vision.

40:35 I laughed out loud here. "Gosh, if we accept the claim that this is injustice, then the entire justice system can be called into question." There's a categorical obliviousness to this reasoning.

This juxtaposed against reading about a lawsuit filed YESTERDAY on behalf of an Indiana Man, who was essentially tortured by State Police for 20 days in solitary confinement leading to massive rapid weight loss and death from malnutrition and dehydration after he had not been charged with a crime, truly highlights the desire to hide the brutality of the Carceral System. That the brutality is at every stage and they just want you to ignore it all and be blissfully unaware while the system squeezes blood from the stone

"utopian punishment" - what a horrifyingly great sentence

I remember arguing with my parents about why I'm against the death penalty. (My main reasons are, "killing is wrong no matter who dies, it's often torturous and sometimes people who didn't do the crime end up on the death penalty.") My parents' argument against the last point was, "Oh, how often does that happen?" Which is like saying, "Sometimes the innocent must be sacrificed for the greater good." No! Even one innocent person dying is too many! I cannot accept this argument.

Entire scientific community: The electric chair is not what you claim it is and almost always leads to botched executions that cause immense suffering and can actually be very messy. The American judicial system: No

Being only paralyzed while still fully conscious and feeling everything is such a horrible thought. It is literally the perfect example of “I have no mouth, and I must scream”. Absolutely brutal…

If a society deems it necessary to have a death penalty it should be done in a direct and reliable way like firing squad or beheading. Even if the method was absolutely painless talking a life is inherently violent. No one involved in the process can be allowed to pretend that it's "gentle" or "humane".

So, 2 things have always BAFFLED me about this issue. 1: I have had many pets, sadly had to have them put to sleep due to extreme illness, and "put to sleep" actually is a good way of phrasing it. One minute hugging buddy one last time, next, not. No fuss. 2: I have had quite a few surgeries lately (15 in 2 years: it's a long story) and being medically curious I asked the anesthesiologist about the chems used, how they work: science is fun, right? And then he said something to the effect of "but don't worry at all: i'll be right there beside you the whole time." "Eh? That's sweet of you, but, if other people need you, please, go help them. Heck, how would I know anyway, right? Haha." "No no, I meant monitoring all the machines that keep you breathing and, well, alive." And then, a few mins later in my last 10 seconds or so of consciousness, as I could feel the meds forcing me to 'sleep' I remember wondering then, as I do right now, "why don't, for crimes, we just give like 4x this dose to be extra sure, and then NOT use the life saving drug and just... go to sleep? Isn't that FINALLY a fairly 'civilized' way to do it? Like, morals aside, only methodology examined here. And I brought this thought up with a veterinarian friend who said that's basically what they do for pets, tweaked a bit for cat and dog metabolism etc. So... yeah: why don't we just do that? I can say from firsthand experience: it seems quite ...gentle.