Instigator / Pro
18
1565
rating
6
debates
83.33%
won
Topic
#1235
Firing Squad is the best form of capital punishment
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
bmdrocks21
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
15
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Description
"Best" will be defined on basic pro and con analysis. While other execution types shall be discussed for comparison, our two methods will be the only under consideration for "best".
Round 1: Summary of our proposed form of capital punishment and outline of Round 2 main points.
Round 2: Explanation of why there is a need for reform plus opening arguments(can include pre-rebuttals, but no rebuttals).
Round 3: Rebuttals/Further Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals/Closing(no new arguments)
Round 1
Pro
#1
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I wish him the best of luck in making his arguments.
Many people disagree on whether or not we should continue to practice capital punishment. However, since it is currently in place, everyone can agree that we should use the most humane, cost-effective, and historically proven method available. These are terms that do not describe lethal injection as I will show later, which is why we must examine other methods that do meet this criteria.
That is why my chosen method is Firing Squad.
The criminal will be strapped to a chair with a bag placed over his or her head and a target placed on their heart. Five .30-30 Winchester rifles will be fixed in place behind a wall, aiming at this target. One gun will be loaded with a blank so that no one knows who killed the criminal, and no one can see the effect from behind the wall.
Round 2
I will begin by elucidating some of the more egregious issues with our current use of lethal injection as a means of execution.
These will include how historically ineffective it has been, how painful it is, and how expensive/difficult to perform it is.
My main points for Round 2 will go as follows:
1. Less Painful/Quick death
2. Easily affordable
3. Historically proven
4. Tools for execution are abundant
5. Trained people will perform
6. Prisoner choices are irrelevant
These points will be used to prove both how firing squad remedies these problems, as well as some reasons why I believe my method of execution surpasses the benefits of utilizing my opponent's.
Thank you to everyone who chooses to read this, and I hope you enjoy the debate!
Con
#2
I would similarly like to
thank my opponent, as he suggested this debate and I’m excited to see how it
plays out.
As he states, and as I agree, we need a better system of capital punishment. I will get into the criteria that should define what the technique we use should be momentarily, though first, I will introduce my technique.
My chosen method is Nitrogen Asphyxiation.
To be clear, this will function in one of two ways depending on the facilities available. Either the condemned will be strapped to a chair and have a mask affixed to their face that feeds pure nitrogen gas into their lungs upon inhalation, or available chambers will be filled with this same gas, resulting in suffocation. Early efforts at this will require medical and engineering personnel on site to ensure the uninhibited flow of nitrogen gas and to monitor patient response. After this has been repeated several times without incident, prison staff may administer this method following protocols that have been clearly established during this period.
For the next round, I will begin by comparing my method to commonly (and uncommonly) used methods, including lethal injection, and establish what makes a poor method of capital punishment. These will be based on the following criteria:
1. The degree to which the method causes the condemned pain and suffering
2. The degree to which suffering is felt by those administering the punishment
3. How successful the method is at ending the life of the condemned
4. How expensive the method is
5. How difficult it is to apply the method consistently
Needless to say, I believe my analysis of these points will show that my method outstrips his in improving upon executions, though I will state outright that I believe both of our methods would be improvements.
Looking forward to a good debate, and I hope anyone reading this is as well!
As he states, and as I agree, we need a better system of capital punishment. I will get into the criteria that should define what the technique we use should be momentarily, though first, I will introduce my technique.
My chosen method is Nitrogen Asphyxiation.
To be clear, this will function in one of two ways depending on the facilities available. Either the condemned will be strapped to a chair and have a mask affixed to their face that feeds pure nitrogen gas into their lungs upon inhalation, or available chambers will be filled with this same gas, resulting in suffocation. Early efforts at this will require medical and engineering personnel on site to ensure the uninhibited flow of nitrogen gas and to monitor patient response. After this has been repeated several times without incident, prison staff may administer this method following protocols that have been clearly established during this period.
For the next round, I will begin by comparing my method to commonly (and uncommonly) used methods, including lethal injection, and establish what makes a poor method of capital punishment. These will be based on the following criteria:
1. The degree to which the method causes the condemned pain and suffering
2. The degree to which suffering is felt by those administering the punishment
3. How successful the method is at ending the life of the condemned
4. How expensive the method is
5. How difficult it is to apply the method consistently
Needless to say, I believe my analysis of these points will show that my method outstrips his in improving upon executions, though I will state outright that I believe both of our methods would be improvements.
Looking forward to a good debate, and I hope anyone reading this is as well!
Round 2
Pro
#3
I would once again like to thank my opponent for debating this fascinating and important topic with me. Now onto my arguments/pre-rebuttals:
Why Replace Lethal Injection?
Lethal injection is currently the main execution method of choice, despite its many shortcomings. The chemicals used for it are the primary concern. They have become scarce as companies have begun refusing to sell to prisons[1], which has made each execution cost nearly 15 times more in the period of one year. A Texas lethal injection costs around $1300 now, as opposed to $83[2].
Lethal injection has also has been proven to be rather inhumane. Autopsies of lethal injection victims in Ohio have been found to suffer pulmonary edema, as fluid rapidly and painfully filled the victims' lungs. Prisoner Robert Van hook was reportedly gasping for air during his execution[3]. Not only is this method painful, but it is the least effective out of any available method. It has a staggering 7% failure rate, which is worse than hanging[4]!
Finally, lethal injection is rather difficult to perform. It sometimes takes two hours before a suitable vein is found for execution[5]. We should not be poking and evaluating prisoners for hours before their execution. We need a simplistic and effective form of execution to remedy these issues. An obvious choice is firing squad.
1. Less Painful/Quick death
As I stated, lethal injection can be a rather painful way to die. This is not the case with firing squad. Adrenaline is a natural pain killer[6]. As a result, many people report not feeling any initial pain from gunshot wounds. This first-person example from a New Orleans reporter states just that. He said "That felt like someone just chunked a small pebble at me" and said it surprised him that it didn't hurt at all[7]. Pain comes later, which means that to make this form of execution humane, prisoners must die very quickly so that they do not suffer. Luckily an execution has been timed: murderer John W. Deering's heart stopped after 15.4 seconds[8]. Once the heart stops beating, unconsciousness will occur within 20 seconds[9]. So, this death will occur well under a minute. How about lethal injection and what my opponent propose? Lethal injection deaths occur within seven minutes barring complications[16]. Nitrogen gas asphyxiation, again, has never been utilized, so we don't have much evidence outside of conjecture as to the length of such an execution. However, gas executions in the past have taken ten to eighteen minutes[19].
2. Easily affordable
Firing Squad is one of the cheapest forms of execution. .30-30 Winchester bullets cost between $.70-$1.35 each[9]. This means each execution would cost at most $6.75[10]. Prisons already own guns, so no further startup cost should be necessary. But to be fair, let us presume that we must also purchase new firearms. The price range on Cheaper Than Dirt is $398.70-$1,062.32[17]. With the given ammo and bullet prices, this would cost between $1997-$5,318.35. My opponent, on the other hand, would need to build many new facilities to prevent guards and visitors from inhaling the toxic fumes[11]. Oklahoma's new gas chamber will cost $300,000 for one room[12]! Cost is clearly an issue for my opponent's case, as one room would cost more than 56x my worst case scenario.
3. Historically proven
My method is also historically proven to be effective. It has a 0% failure rate[4]. Gas has had a 5.4% failure rate, and my opponent must argue one of two things based off of this: either he accepts a higher failure rate or he must state that nitrogen gas is completely unrelated to other gassing executions. The latter brings up an interesting moral question for my opponent's case. There is not one piece of evidence to prove that nitrogen is good to use for execution because it has never been tried before[13]. Can we ethically use prisoners as guinea pigs as we kill them? Guns are designed to kill people, and have always done a great job of doing so. I suggest we don't experiment when lives are at stake, and that we go with a method that has never failed before.
4. Tools for execution are abundant
This is a simple argument: we have more guns that people in the US(40% of world guns are in this country)[20]. As stated before, drug companies had moral qualms about selling their drugs for executions, which has led to a shortage of the drugs. This won't happen with guns and ammo because their express purpose is to kill, and these companies therefore won't have moral qualms about selling to prisons that shall kill with them. Guns and ammo also have more purposes, such as stopping prison riots and fights, so they could argue that execution isn't the express purpose of the guns and ammo. However, nitrogen gas companies could have an issue with their product being re-purposed to execute criminals. Public pressure has proven to be rather crucial in starting such shortages for lethal injection[11].
5. Trained people will perform
It is quite easy to be trained with a gun. You need to fire a few hundred rounds at a range and know a few basics about gun safety. Lethal injection and my opponent's method are rather scientific in nature. They often include drugs and they would need someone with a medical degree, which requires years of education and is very expensive to obtain. It may be difficult for my opponent to find such an individual, as has been the case with prisons who use lethal injection. According to this Slate article, professional associations for doctors and nurses have banned their members from aiding in executions[14]. So my opponent, like most prisons, will have to rely on unqualified individuals to carry out the task. There isn't some overbearing professional shooter organization that will prevent gun-savy people from carrying out executions. In fact, normal prison guards can carry out this task. Correctional officers, like police officers, receive firearms training before they begin serving[18].
6. Prisoner choices are irrelevant
This may seem like an odd point, but it is crucial to consider during capital punishment reform. Drug abusers' veins are much harder to find[5] and they can have a resistance to some of the drugs. Fortunately, nobody can take a drug that makes them bullet-proof. My opponent may find difficulty in ensuring a quick, painless death because of the prisoners choices during the execution. Anesthesiologist, Dr. Joel B. Zivot says "Nothing is known about what might happen if the prisoner resists by thrashing or breaking the seal of his mask — or by refusing to breathe, which could lead to a painful accumulation of carbon dioxide in the lungs."[15] Refusing to breathe for a few more moments of life may cause immense pain for the inmate. However, in my method, they cannot thrash around, as they are bound to the chair. Their choices before prison and during the execution cannot impede them receiving a quick, humane death.
I hope that I have given sufficient evidence as to why we should utilize firing squad as our main form of execution. There are so many benefits to this method, and it has been historically proven to work, unlike that of my opponent's. I look forward to seeing the proposed benefits of nitrogen asphyxiation, and I once again wish my opponent the best of luck in making his arguments.
Sources:
[11]https://oklahomawatch.org/2018/07/17/puzzle-of-nitrogen-execution-could-present-issues-for-state/
Con
#4
As I mentioned in my opening round, there are five criteria
that I will use to suss out what is the “best” means of meting out capital
punishment. Luckily, many of these overlap with my opponent’s criteria, so we
will likely find common ground on the type of assessment, even if we disagree
on how to use it. I will spend this round detailing why each of those methods
is best met by nitrogen gas.
1. Causing the
condemned pain and suffering
We agree that suffering should be as limited as possible in
order to ensure we do not impose cruel and unusual punishment or step outside
the bounds of justice to pursue vengeance. So, which of these methods imposes
the least amount of pain before the condemned is killed?
Lethal injection (LI) is tricky. Sodium thiopental induces
unconsciousness, pancuronium bromide causes muscle paralysis and respiratory
arrest, and potassium chloride stops the heart.[1] This may take many minutes,
but if all the drugs are successful, the patient won’t be conscious of any pain
or suffering. If any of these drugs fail, particularly the thiopental, they can
die in a much more gruesome way (often due to an inability to breathe) and feel
it the whole way.[2]
Nitrogen asphyxiation (NA) is more straightforward.
According to the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation board, in humans,
“breathing an oxygen deficient atmosphere can have serious and immediate
effects, including unconsciousness after only one or two breaths. The exposed
person has no warning and cannot sense that the oxygen level is too low."[3]
Note that that is just one or two breaths of gas to induce full anesthetic
effects. It’s physiologically inert, meaning that the sole effect of breathing
it in is a reduction of total oxygen content in the body. Since they are still
breathing out carbon dioxide, they don’t experience the pain or trauma normally
associated with suffocation.
Firing squad (FS) is also mostly straightforward. If the
condemned is shot in the heart, then the effect is very rapid, with electrical
activity usually stopping in under 30 seconds.[4] That, of course, assumes good
aim. A report out of the Salt Lake City Tribune provides an example of a
condemned individual who took several minutes to die after being shot in the
hip and abdomen, during which he no doubt suffered painfully.[5]
2. Causing collateral suffering
The condemned is not the only person in the room when the
death penalty is administered. Other people who are hired for the purpose are
brought into some form of contact with the condemned and administer the given
method to end the life of the condemned. While they accept a certain degree of
risk from their jobs, it should be taken as a given that their suffering should
be as close to 0 as possible. Any degree of suffering on their part falls well
outside of the bounds of justice.
Currently, executioners have higher rates of PTSD than Iraq
war veterans (31% to 20%).[6] That toll is with a system that largely relies on
LI.
Surmising the likely effect of a different execution method
on psychology is, admittedly, difficult. This is largely due to a lack of
studies comparing these, primarily because there are so few FS executions.[7] However,
what makes these different is the degree to which one is separated from the
outcome. Vietnam totally abandoned the FS in favor of LI for this reason: the
distress their shooters experienced was simply overwhelming.[7] The process of watching
someone bleed out because of a shot you fired is enough to elicit psychological
trauma. Regardless of the justification, it can have long-standing emotional
impacts.[8, 9] The psychological effects are not limited to the executioner.
Executions are often viewed by the family of the victim, who would be subjected
to watching a bloody and destructive death. Even the process of cleaning up
these corpses is traumatic and results in both PTSD and Secondary Traumatic
Stress Disorder, often due to repeatedly cleaning up after bloody, brutal
murders.[10, 11] Considering that these are suffered by people with little to no
context on the cause of these deaths, there is no reason to believe that the
outcome would differ for those cleaning up after an execution.
This problem is amplified by going beyond those directly
involved. Polls conducted of people in the US found that 53% view the FS as
cruel and unusual punishment, while only 18% would ascribe the same to LI.[12]
That might not sound like a big problem, but a full-on switch to FS against
public interest is bound to bring a legislative response, making it much more
difficult for prisons to enforce the death penalty without reprisal. While the
gas chamber does have a similar disapproval rating, that rating does not take
NA into account, and considering its implementation and effects do not resemble
other gas-based executions, that number is likely to change drastically if
applied to NA alone.
3. Botch rates
We want to end a life consistently. So, what are the error
rates for each method?
LI has about a 7% botch rate. FS has a 0% botch rate. NA
hasn’t been tried yet, so there is no data for it.
However, let’s be clear about that number for FS. It
represents just 34 of the almost 9,000 executions between 1890 and 2010. We
can’t extrapolate much from such a small number, especially since most of them
took place in a single state, and we’re talking about nationwide
implementation.[7]
4. Expense
A method that puts the least financial strain on the system
is more beneficial than another that does not. The more strain it places on the
system, the more likely that different systems may implement it differently.
LI costs about $1,300 per inmate.[13] As might be expected, this prohibitive cost leads to
the use of a lot of experimental drugs that treat the condemned like guinea
pigs.
Given my
lack of knowledge on firearm costs, I will defer to my opponent’s numbers on
this.
As for NA, a
facility only needs 2 things: a nitrogen gas tank and a clinical plastic face
mask to deliver it through. The former can be refilled, latter can be sterilized
and re-used (though, given the cost, this may not be necessary). Large tanks of
nitrogen gas tend to cost between $60 and $80 through Airgas, with prices
varying based on shipping.[14]A simple oxygen mask costs $7-10 from Walmart, nicer ones for about $50.[15]
If a facility already has a chamber on hand, they could choose to use that
instead.
5. Result of inconsistent application
Before I get into the specifics of this, I need to clarify
what I mean by “inconsistent” here. In this case, it doesn’t just mean the
effective death rate following application (as with #3). It addresses what
results from failures of the method. How long will it take to determine that
the given method has failed? Can the method be re-applied, and in the process,
are you causing the condemned undue harm?
For injections, the answers to these questions are obvious:
once the drugs are in their systems, they must either end the person’s life or
be eliminated from their systems. If it’s a failure, they will likely suffer
egregious physical harm in the process and may be a subject to yet another set
of drugs in the future that could cause a similar outcome. A failure of any
single one of the drugs injected could mean excruciating pain that is both undue
and excessive.
How about the FS? In instances where the squad misses the
heart, even though the condemned has terminal wounds, they would bleed out
slowly. It would take time to verify their survivorship, and therefore any
necessary follow-up shots would also be delayed. In the meantime, the condemned
may be suffering from multiple gunshot wounds for minutes at a time.
Now, let’s look at nitrogen gas. Assuming a failure (i.e.
not enough gas entering their lungs to end their lives), there are two possible
outcomes. Either they receive enough nitrogen gas to render them unconscious
but not dead, in which case the apparatus can be checked for holes and
reapplied without harm or incident, or the condemned remains conscious because
they receive some nitrogen gas, which may cause some of the symptoms of hypoxia
(headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea and euphoria), but nothing else. The
degree of undue harm that can be caused to the condemned by botching is
minimal.[16]
Given all of this evidence, nitrogen gas is not just a better method than those commonly used today, but is the best available method for enforcing the death penalty. I look forward to both seeing my opponent's responses and rebutting his points on my case.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I.
Your source 5 never mentioned that the man suffered when
getting shot in the abdomen and hip: you assumed it. As I stated
before, adrenaline often reduces pain from gunshots. However, you mentioned
that he still died within a couple minutes, which is still quick. Here is an example of someone not feeling gun shot pain, even running on a leg that got shot[15].
Prisoners wouldn't feel the pain of suffocation with your
method so long as they do not hold their breath to delay their execution, which you cannot prevent. Also, there is no research to suggest whether
or not you should release the gas quickly or slowly to be more effective[16].
II.
My opponent mentions some difficulties with executions in
Vietnam in his source 7 related to psychological trauma.
However, I found quite a few discrepancies between how Vietnam does FS and my R1 outline. These criminals were tied to stakes, which his source said leads to larger potential for error. It
was also never mentioned if they were behind a wall (which would prevent
executioners from viewing it), and it didn't mention that any of them had a
blank in their gun(which provides doubt that they even contributed to the
killing). This negates my opponent when he states that: "The process of
watching someone bleed out because of a shot you fired is enough to elicit
psychological trauma". As my opponent
concedes, the PTSD of executioners in the US is associated with LI, not FS.
Furthermore, I would argue that my opponent's method would cause a large traumatic
toll on the executioner, because they would know for a fact that they killed
the prisoner. They released the nitrogen, and no one would have
died had they not released the deadly gas. This is similar to the story of John
Hurlburt, who "flipped the switch" for the electric chair. This source says "It's hard
enough to throw the switch, harder still if he accepts in the slightest that
he's about to kill in cold blood". The idea that he was killing people
drove him to eventually commit suicide[1].
First off, you say that the family of the victim "would
be subjected to watching a bloody and destructive death". The family will
not be "subjected" to anything. Viewing an execution is completely
voluntary and 'subject', by definition means "cause or force to undergo".
Also, I read an account of Ronnie Lee Gardner’s execution by FS. There was no
mention of seeing blood or destruction as my opponent states would happen. They
heard a few shots, his hands moved a bit, and then he went limp shortly
after[9]. I created my standards in R1 around
how Gardner was executed.
FS is on a positive trend in public opinion. Admittedly,
LI is far ahead in the polls. However, from 1985 to
2014, FS has gone from 3% to 9% of being considered the most humane form of
execution. Gas chamber has gone down from 8% to 4%.[7]
I read your Source 11 about supposed PTSD and STS. I found it quite interesting that prosecutors, animal shelter workers, and therapists also suffered from STS. Your
source even stated that hearing about traumatic events can cause STS. This is
more of an issue with the death penalty itself, not the firing squad. As long
as people have to deal with dead bodies and someone is required to put them to
death, there will always be issues of this sort, no matter the method. Morticians
suffer from high levels of anxiety and stress without even being connected to the killing[8]. I didn’t see a mention
of PTSD being linked to cleaning up “bloody and brutal murders”. I am sure it
would be. Luckily, four bullets holes in a relatively small area of the torso
isn’t something likely to be construed as “brutal”.
III.
As my opponent agrees, there is no data for nitrogen
asphyxiation. So, I will directly pose the question: how can we ethically use
prisoners as guinea pigs? In the past, governments have used prisoners as test
subjects. The US government
also refused to treat prisoners with syphilis to view its effects, hepatitis
was given to mental patients, etc[2]. So, it is quite obvious that the
government should not be given such power to experiment on inmates, especially
when dealing out their deaths. Furthermore, my opponent may need to forcibly
implement these experimental methods. Would prisoners be given consent forms
to agree to these experiments? This California Law Review paper states
"because of their high illiteracy rates and low education levels,
prisoners are likely to have difficulty understanding complicated consent forms
and might even be confused about basic experimental protocols."[3] This means my opponent would either give the government
the right to forcibly experiment on prisoners, or he would unethically take
advantage of their low education levels.
My opponent states that only 34 executions have been done by
my method to try to diminish the astounding 0% failure rate. However, there is
a lot of data to work with to continuously improve it. A few decades before prison
execution records were kept, 433 men were executed by firing squad in the Civil
War[4]. It is a historically proven method. For more current information, I must mention that FS is used in 28 countries worldwide[5]. So, the supposedly low
number of executions in the US by no means offers doubt to firing squad's
efficacy, as data about FS is quite extensive. Also, nationwide
implementation will have no effect on how this works. There will be strict rules on weaponry used and where bullets are fired. They will all be
required to follow specific guidelines to standardize the execution. It has
worked in Utah, so doing it the same exact way in California or Florida won’t
change the effectiveness of FS.
IV.
As I stated in my pre-rebuttal for expense, my opponent
would need to build a gas chamber in order to protect those around the convict
during the execution[6], which will cost around $300,000[13]. My opponent
stated that "just one or two breaths" will cause a loss of consciousness.
So, that means that even a small leak can potentially cause a lot of prison
staff to faint and fall on the floor, potentially sustaining injuries. I looked
at my opponent's Wal-Mart link. The actual price range was $.98-$138.18. My
opponent left very little information related to standardizing his process, so
I am going to assume that prisons would buy some of the cheaper options to save
money. A review of a cheaper product says "Adult mask fits a small face
but not adult, especially a man."[10] Well, that would definitely lead to
a leak or potentially even allowing the prisoner to flail and get the mask off.
My opponent also didn't provide any standardizing information for how much gas
should be used each time, meaning that the cost and effective rate will be hard
to determine. Since my opponent was so vague in his R1 specifications, we have
to assume that not every prison makes the correct choice of mask, and that
poses all of the aforementioned dangers.
V.
FS won't likely ever fail. A target is placed directly over
the heart, and the guns are pre-aimed, then fixed in place inside of the wall.
Assuming that this simple procedure is somehow botched, lungs, major
arteries, and veins are directly around the outside the heart[11]. They will
die quickly, even assuming that
the shots missed their mark. If it were botched, this would be
discovered at one minute, since I proved last round that death should occur well
under a minute. If the heart is still beating, they will reload their guns, adjust their aim if necessary and fire again.
However, I believe it is necessary to relay why I believe it
is highly unlikely that this botching will occur. That is mainly because the
.30-30 Winchester round is meant to take down whitetail deer, feral hogs, and
black bear, and has an effective range of 200 meters[14], which is well over
the qualifications needed for such an execution.
As stated in R2, my
opponent will have prison staff execute criminals, not medical professionals,
as doctor and nurse professional associations banned them from aiding in executions[12]. If we want to assume that my opponent wants to potentially
knock out and kill others in the room by using cheap masks, not building
gas chambers, and not having any qualified personnel carry out the execution,
then reapplying the gas might not hurt them very much when a botched
execution inevitably occurs.
My opponent accurately remarks that botching his method
could cause headaches and nausea, which would be quite uncomfortable for the
convict.
[3]https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=californialawreview
Con
#6
Before I start into Pro’s points (I will address his R2
responses next round), I will analyze Pro’s plan. His case relies on
consistency of application, yet each of the planks of his plan still allow for
variability.
First, the restraints. Different prisons may use different
types of restraints, may restrain fewer parts of the condemned, may restrain
them more loosely, etc. Each state will develop protocols of how to do this, resulting
in potentially different outcomes based on location.
Second, fixing the position of the rifles. Assuming individual
prisons verify their accuracy by shooting at a target, this would have to be
checked repeatedly after each reload to ensure that the aim is kept consistent.
Pro can’t guarantee that every prison will do this. Moreover, it’s impossible
to fully remove the influence of the shooters. Even allowing for a small degree
of shaking (it depends how well “fixed in place” these guns are) could
dramatically alter their aim.
Third, the blank. The benefits of this rely on a lack of
experience, yet Pro seeks experienced individuals to carry this out. That
experience gives them enough tactile information to know the difference between
shooting a blank and shooting a bullet. The recoil is absent when firing a
blank cartridge, and even from a fixed location in a wall, that recoil will be
felt by the shooter.[17] They will recognize the difference, and in doing so,
be firmly aware of their participation (or lack thereof) in the execution.
Onto the points.
1. Speed/Pain
2. Affordability
Cross-apply my arguments about the degree to which each technique is historically proven. Pro fails to mention just how few FS executions have been, which throws his “0% failure rate” into a problematic context. There simply aren’t enough FS executions to justify a claim that a very limited number of failures (meaning instances where the condemned dies painlessly within 30 seconds, I’ve cited one such failure [5]) portends no future failures, nor is there a clear and well-established protocol (in the US or elsewhere) that has received enough testing to warrant such a claim. There are simply too few instances of this execution being used over too long a stretch of time.
4. Availability of Tools
5. Availability of Personnel
Pro argues that it’s easier to get trained personnel to
perform FS than it is to get doctors and nurses to perform NA. However, FS
requires trained shooters every time it’s done to ensure somewhat consistent
results, while NA benefits medical personnel to establish the equivalent of
standard operating procedures. Note the word “benefits” instead of “requires”
and note the time scale. Medical professionals would help establish best
practices, but they are not required to efficiently deliver nitrogen gas
through a mask designed for the purpose.[20] Also, any benefit of repeat visits
is minor, meaning that prisons would only gain substantial benefits by having
them there for the first and perhaps second executions. This could be made even
simpler by establishing a federal standard based on the first few executions
nationwide. And while medical personnel are told by some professional
associations not to assist in the death penalty, enough still do that getting
that support is entirely feasible.[21] What’s more, those associations don’t
have much in the way of sway over most medical professionals, with the one
example my opponent provides representing only 20% of doctors and nurses, and
the only punishment they can mete out to those who defy the ban is revoking
that membership.[22] Efforts to further punish these medical professionals have
largely been blocked by court orders.[21]
6. Prisoner Choice
Pro argues that patients can resist the procedure. This is
non-unique – individuals can thrash against their bonds and resist being placed
into the chairs that are used for FS, increasing the pain they experience
before execution and reducing shot accuracy. If it is possible to fully prevent
any thrashing in FS, the same must necessarily be true of NA, which can employ
the same restraints to prevent the condemned from damaging equipment. As for
refusing to breathe, two responses. One, it’s also non-unique: the condemned
can hold their breath to induce pain before a FS just as easily as they can
with a mask strapped to their face. Inflicting pain on oneself in this fashion doesn’t
require NA, it just requires a desire to do so. Two, I don’t see how the
choices of the condemned to cause themselves pain or discomfort should reflect
on the institution or the technique used. A condemned prisoner choosing to
injure themselves before they are executed does not reflect on the execution
itself, since the pain they experience is not caused by the method by the
condemned themselves. At worst, they prolong the experience, though not by much
given that the most they could do is render themselves unconscious.
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad
18. https://hbr.org/2014/03/anticipating-pain-is-worse-than-feeling-it
19. https://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/animal-instincts-human-body-psychological-and-skeletal-muscular-analysis-adrenaline-human
20. https://localtvkfor.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/nitrogen-hypoxia.pdf
21. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/lethal-injection-and-physicians-state-law-vs-medical-ethics
22. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/30/doctors-in-the-death-chamber/doctors-can-and-do-participate-in-executions
Onto the points.
1. Speed/Pain
Pro argues that FS affords a less painful and quick death.
My stats largely agree with his, so I won’t contest the length of time that it
takes for an individual be shot in the heart to die. However, I have three
problems with his point.
First, Pro does not acknowledge the possibility that the use
of a FS may not result in an individual being shot in the heart. Regardless of
how trained the shooters and how perfect the set-up, Pro cannot fully account
for human error in every state across the country, especially as there may be
very different protocols used in different states. Much as Pro might not see
much difference between 30 seconds and a few minutes, that extra time could
feel like an eternity to someone suffering terrible pain from a series of
gunshot wounds.
Second, adrenaline is not the cure-all Pro wants it to be. Pro’s
example is a victim of a mass shooting, not someone who was informed ahead of
time that they would be targeted by 5 men in a small room. That’s an important
distinction for two reasons: anticipation and distraction. We don’t know
precisely what effect that has on the ability of the condemned to feel pain
(kind of hard to poll them when every individual who could have told us is
dead). However, the anticipation of pain, by itself, inspires a great deal of
dread that can overwhelm even extreme pain.[18] More importantly, Pro doesn’t
cite any literature on the pain reduction caused by adrenaline. So, let’s do
that. Experiments have been conducted that show that applying adrenaline to a
wound. The effect is variable, and this is with large amounts of injected
adrenaline, far higher than the body produces. Most importantly, the pain
reducing effects of adrenaline seem directly related to distraction, i.e. they
were engaged in something else and the adrenaline increased their mental focus
on that alternative.[19] Pro would have us believe that the condemned are
distracted often distracted in their final minutes.
Third, the rapidity of the death only matters in relation to
the pain experienced. The length of time that it takes to occur is not important
so long as it is not accompanied by the prolonging of pain. NA doesn’t cause
pain, as even the worst symptoms of hypoxia are ameliorated by euphoria and elation.[16] FS is direct injury to the body, and therefore can and likely will elicit
a pain response. Just because it is short-lived doesn’t mean it’s inconsequential.
2. Affordability
Cross-apply my own arguments on the affordability of NA.
Pro would have to justify why a chamber is necessary to carry out the sentence
if NA is used. Remember, even if it reduces overall consistency to use a mask,
the condemned does not suffer from botches with NA.
3. Proven
Cross-apply my arguments about the degree to which each technique is historically proven. Pro fails to mention just how few FS executions have been, which throws his “0% failure rate” into a problematic context. There simply aren’t enough FS executions to justify a claim that a very limited number of failures (meaning instances where the condemned dies painlessly within 30 seconds, I’ve cited one such failure [5]) portends no future failures, nor is there a clear and well-established protocol (in the US or elsewhere) that has received enough testing to warrant such a claim. There are simply too few instances of this execution being used over too long a stretch of time.
As for NA, while it hasn’t been used as a means of
execution, that does not mean there is no medical literature on its effects.
Hypoxia induced by breathing too little oxygen (or replacing it with another
gas, like nitrogen) has been studied extensively. There are numerous case
studies of its usage in suicides and high-altitude pilot training.[20] To be clear,
this means that both applied (suicide) and incidental (pilot training) exposure
to hypoxia induced by nitrogen produces no perceivable pain and prolonged
exposure in both instances can result in death. Much as there is a long history
of FS, there are no similar studies establishing a lack of pain.
4. Availability of Tools
Pro claims that public pressure against NA could reduce the
availability of the gas to prisons. This may be possible, but it seems
extremely unlikely. The comparison to the shortages for lethal injection is
problematic because the number of producers of those drugs is extremely
limited, partly due to the already small size of the market they inhabit and
partly due to intellectual property issues. By contrast, the process of generating
cannisters nitrogen gas is far simpler and is performed by more companies,
meaning more companies would have to succumb to this browbeating. For that
matter, the purpose of acquiring nitrogen gas can be far more uncertain, as it
is used for a variety of purposes, including medicine, cooking, and welding.[20]
That means that the reason for acquisition will always be subject to some
uncertainty, as opposed to LI drugs, which are highly restrictive in their
functions. Also, cross-apply my argument about how public backlash can affect
implementation of FS, regardless of the availability of tools. Given the
novelty of NA, the public will have the opportunity to warm to it. FS, on the
other hand, evokes strong feelings currently, and there is no reason to believe
that that will change under Pro’s plan.
5. Availability of Personnel
6. Prisoner Choice
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad
18. https://hbr.org/2014/03/anticipating-pain-is-worse-than-feeling-it
19. https://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/animal-instincts-human-body-psychological-and-skeletal-muscular-analysis-adrenaline-human
20. https://localtvkfor.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/nitrogen-hypoxia.pdf
21. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/lethal-injection-and-physicians-state-law-vs-medical-ethics
22. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/30/doctors-in-the-death-chamber/doctors-can-and-do-participate-in-executions
Round 4
Pro
#7
Restraints only require the torso to be held in place for my
method, since the target is on the heart. The only objective of the prison is to prevent torso movement. That is the standard, but doing extra could be up to state discretion.
Accuracy doesn’t need to be verified at all immediately
before the firing squad, but there are different ways than that which you
propose. Laser bore sighters can be put in the barrel to show directory[1],
which can cause near perfect consistency. However, a shot from a few yards away won't likely need any sort of practice and the effects of shaking would be minimal without a long distance to exaggerate the effects.
There are multiple types of blank rounds. A blank round is
simply any round that has black powder and no bullet or shot[2]. The type of
blank used in Gardner’s execution was a wax bullet, which provides a much more
realistic recoil[3].
1.
The protocols used in the botched execution were not those
that I proposed. As I proved in previous rounds, correctional officers are
trained with firearms. These trained individuals are providing enough firepower
to kill four black bears, and even a moderate miss will hit a lung or major
artery, as I proved. Four trained riflemen with large caliber rifles
shooting at a short range aren’t likely to ever botch this execution.
You mentioned that dread is worse than pain. This is a criticism of the death penalty, not just FS. Your source 18
stated people were willing to endure pain to avoid dread. Unless you are
suggesting that prisoners aren’t afraid to be gassed to death, this is
against both of our methods. People are afraid to die. This is proven by the
fact that criminals are more likely to accept plea bargains if threatened with
the death penalty[4]. They want to avoid death, and they will dread death when
it comes. That very dread works to reduce pain. My opponent just stated that
the adrenaline wouldn’t help. His source stated that except for electrical
stimulation, all other types of pain were either reduced or stayed the same.
However, my opponent’s dread point and adrenaline point work together to prove
that they will unlikely experience pain. Natural body pain killers experienced
from stress(dread) work together with adrenaline to reduce pain as much as
marijuana[5].
I agree the rapidity of death is important in relation to
pain. However, again, four times the fire power to kill a black bear (which can grow to 660lbs[6]) in an area surrounded by vital organs and
veins using modern weaponry isn’t likely going to fail, and four more
rounds can be loaded after the one minute mark.
2.
It wouldn’t be too fair to add points as to why a gas
chamber is needed since my opponent couldn’t respond. My opponent in R1 stated
that a gas chamber would be used if available. If he mentioned that, it means
there are benefits such as lower chance to botch. He mentions that consistency
is reduced by using a mask, which leads to botching. I am surprised that my
opponent has such a nonchalant attitude towards a quick death,
especially since he went to great lengths to incorporate the "dread" smear to FS. I’m left wondering: since people choose pain over dread and CON doesn’t
care to be consistent and quick about death, wouldn't the couple minutes-long dreadful contemplation of death with NA be worse than 30 seconds of pain with FS(if pain was present at all)?
3.
You have cited one instance from 1951 in which the death
took longer than 30 seconds. I am not sure if my opponent believes that no
technological innovations have occurred between then and the execution I
model after Gardner in 2010. Also, as I stated last round, 28 countries use
FS. We can view data on their executions and see what went wrong and right in
order to be as effective as possible. I iterate, your method doesn’t have this
luxury of being proven at all for executions. My
opponent gives suicide data to justify NA use. Well, does that mean that the
20,000 Americans who use guns for suicide can also be included in my data[7]?
Because, if so, my opponent must entirely drop the lack of data available
point.
4.
Prisons likely attempted the multiple uses excuse with LI drugs. Sodium thiopental is just an
anesthetic[8], but it isn't being sold to prisons anymore. So, stating
that it is “extremely unlikely” to happen with nitrogen gas is not accurate. You argue that the range of applications is larger, but you offer no evidence that prisons use nitrogen for those purposes, so some or all prisons couldn't hide it. You mention how cheap the nitrogen is. Will companies take the “browbeating” and sell to prisons? Do you really think they
will suffer that negative publicity to make $60-$80 considering it
can negatively affect overall sales[9]? As I have proven in my last round, FS
is trending positively in public opinion, while gas chamber is downwardly
trending. My opponent argues for novelty without providing evidence of novelty
aiding public opinion in the past. As I argued last round, it very well could
lead to aversion to NA because it will be associated with human
experimentation, which could evoke memory of our syphilis studies in which we
experimented on prisoners. In addition to this, my opponent would have a hard
time explaining to the public how using gas masks and deadly gas is so much
different than using gas masks and another type of poisonous gas. Either it is
novel and experimental or it is the same as current gas chamber statistics, and
therefore less popular than FS.
5.
My opponent failed to substantiate his claim that FS needs
trained personnel with any sources. I will work around this, though.
Let us assume that FS requires trained personnel to make an easy shot from a few yards away. As I stated earlier in the debate, every single corrections officer
has firearms training, meaning that every single prison has perfectly qualified
individuals to carry it out. So, my method would have prison guards that have
been fully trained in the use of firearms, while my opponent would have nobody
qualified in administering nitrogen gas. Again, my opponent has a lackadaisical
attitude towards having botched executions by stating doctors and nurses would
only be beneficial to the execution. He cares not to effectively administer the
execution, and thus end any “dread” they would experience, which my opponent
stressed so much in point 1. The National Practitioner Data Bank could take
away physicians’ ability to practice medicine, which doesn’t just represent 20%[10].
You were referring to the AMA, which holds its members to comply with their
oath to do no harm, something everyone in the health field pledges to do(meaning it won't only apply to the members' morality). Also,
according to their membership reports, the AMA has been continuing to increase
in numbers since your 2014 article, meaning they are gaining more influence
over those doctors and nurses you need to facilitate effective executions[11].
Again, there is no organization that in any way restricts correctional officers
from aiding in executions.
6.
Actually, no, the restraints wouldn’t be the same for FS and
NA. They would be similar. However, there is a difference between a target on
the heart and a mask on the face. You would need to restrict head movement to
stop the mask from getting flung off, meaning potentially strangulating neck
restraints would be necessary depending on the mask. I could find no issues
with restraints being inadequate to maintain good accuracy for FS as you didn't provide a source. My opponent
missed my point for not breathing. Sure, they could refuse to breathe for FS as
well, however they have absolutely no incentive to do that. It will not delay
or prevent getting shot at all. However, it will delay NA effects as long as
the individual holds their breath. They now have an incentive to hold their
breath because they will live for an extra minute or two before they die. They
can think about their family, pray, etc. So, while they could hold
their breath for FS, they wouldn’t. They aren’t trying to hurt themselves for
the heck of it, they are trying to survive. Also, yes, incentives for prisoners
to injure themselves should be taken into consideration. During FS, as I
mention, no action that they commit will in any way prolong the death. However,
with NA, they are given the ability to prolong their lives. My opponent gives
them that power and incentive and expects them not to take it. Finally,
allowing prisoner choices such as not breathing allows inconsistencies to arise
in application. My opponent is right in saying that prisoners holding their
breath do eventually fall unconscious, however my point was that they will
experience pain, which you pretend is completely avoidable with NA.
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I believe that both of our methods would be an improvement over LI. However, the availability of guns, qualified personnel, low cost, 30 second death, lack of prisoner influence, FS' uncertainty of contribution to killing, and non-experimental nature give FS the edge over the potential benefits of NA. Thanks to everyone that reads this debate. I hope you all enjoyed it as much as I have!
[4] https://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/08/08/9340/death-bargaining-chip-plea-bargains-and-capital-pu/
[7] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/more-20-000-people-die-gun-suicide-each-year-alarmed-n906796
Con
#8
Pro decides to specify his case in some rather important
(and abusive) ways for this final round. The addition of the laser sights and
the wax bullet are particularly heinous; both of those are brand new this
round, and the latter is a shift from a blank round to a blank round +. Voters
should hold him to his original case. Regardless, none of these remove the
variability that results from different means of implementation. None of these remove all doubt of the stillness of the condemned or the
aim of the rifles.
This debate essentially breaks down to two issues: between FS and NA, which is more feasible and is more beneficial?
Which method is more likely to stand the test of time? Both our methods are cheap, so this comes down to public backlash.
Pro wants you to believe that that public backlash will stop the sale of nitrogen gas canisters to prisons. His only warrant is that they did it with LI drugs. Two concessions belie this comparison. One, there is a far larger availability of producers of nitrogen gas, meaning that far more companies would have to succumb to public pressure. Two, the specific uses of nitrogen gas: medicine, cooking and welding. These are all clearly important in a range of industries, including prisons. Meanwhile, LI drugs have singular purposes. Sodium thiopental is an anesthetic, regardless of where it’s used, including LI. Prisons can claim any number of purposes for nitrogen. Nitrogen gas will continue to flow into prisons.
Lobbying Congress, on the other hand, can be effective. Pro argues that the public is already predisposed against gas chambers, failing to note that a lot of that negative response has to do with the gasses used and not the physical implements involved.[23] Pro drops the preponderance of data on the effects of nitrogen gas on the human body (including lethality without pain), so his claims that the condemned are being treated like guinea pigs don’t hold up. Together, these distinguish NA from previous methods and invite a new public perspective.
Pro drops the poll results against the firing squad. Pro really wants you to believe that a positive trend will reverse these; however, he’s not waiting several years before implementing this. He wants it now. Now, the numbers are strongly against FS. Now, a significant majority view it as cruel and unusual. He provides no reason why his setup will alter public perception, so he is guaranteed to implement his capital punishment in a US that is openly hostile to it. That practically guarantees a tidal wave of backlash, striking down his method.
II. Net Benefits
1. Cruelty to the condemned
Pro in no way discusses how lengthening an NA execution is
harmful beyond small increases to cost (more gas, a new mask) and dread. Dread
brought on by the condemned themselves is not imposed cruelty. Pro doesn’t
provide any reasoning for why any pain they cause themselves reflects badly on
the method. In the end, it’s their choice that is being acted upon. The
government is not responsible for that choice.
What makes the best method is one that is, essentially, botch-proof. No matter how perfect a method may seem, different types of implementation and mistakes will lead to botches. Things will go wrong. I have provided evidence that botches exist for FS and, much as Pro’s methods may reduce their number, it is still fallible. I accept that NA can be botched. So, what do those botches look like for our two cases?
We begin with NA. At worst, a mask is damaged and a new nitrogen canister must be acquired. Both are low cost and minor setbacks. Self-inflicted pain that results is, again, both non-unique and not relevant to this debate. Pro’s argument that incentives to self-harm are unique to NA is also false: FS incentivizes moving out of the lines of sight, and the condemned may dislocate joints or abrade themselves against their restraints to do. These do not expose cruelty in these methods because they are not impositions. This is what Pro misunderstands about my dread argument. The condemned may dread their deaths with both NA and FS, but Pro’s case uniquely generate anticipations for terrible pain post-shooting. Setting aside the question of whether those gunshot wounds cause pain (for now), anticipation of pain exists solely in Pro’s case. As such, Pro’s claim that pain won’t be felt solely because of the neurological chemicals pumped into the body is objectively wrong: the anticipation of expected pain is worse than pain.
Onto FS botches. Historical evidence shows that botches involve more than 30 seconds of bleeding out slowly, and this is only among executions. Pro points to the many Americans who use guns for suicide, asking if he can use it in his data. Yes, please. What’s the botch rate on those? 17.5%.[24] That’s a massive botch rate and emphasizes that the length of time one suffers after being shot can be excruciatingly long, well beyond the period where brain chemistry can dull the pain.
Even if we confine it to the shorter time, though, Pro’s case is designed to inflict physical harm. That can and will cause pain. Pro’s claims regarding stress-based pain reduction are just as flawed as his adrenaline claims. Stress-induced analgesia is limited by “individual sensitivity… [which] can vary greatly and that sensitivity is coupled to… opioid sensitivity and startle response… [and] influenced by age, gender, and prior experience to stressful, painful, or other environmental stimuli.”[25] Since it’s largely based on surprise and distraction (hence “startle response”), stress, like adrenaline, has little to no role in death row inmates who know they are about to be killed. As such, Pro’s case directly inflicts both injury and pain, regardless of time frame.
2. Collateral cruelty
This issue does not require botching to be meaningful. So long as there is collateral harm caused by implementation of our methods, it factors into this equation. Do FS or NA harm those who are involved beyond the condemned?
a) Executioners
Pro’s case relies on the effectiveness of the blank as a form of absolution. However, as I’ve already pointed out, a blank is all his case actually requires, and a blank has no recoil. This means every shooter will know their contribution. That’s 4 people, compared with 1 in my case (you don’t need more to affix a mask and pipe in nitrogen), who will have knowingly contributed to the death of the condemned. Even if we assume recoil was built in, Pro doesn’t provide any evidence that this reduces resulting psychological trauma. PTSD is still far more prevalent in Pro’s case, regardless of whether we assume some minor ameliorating effect.
b) Physicians
Pro argues that The National Practitioner Data Bank could remove medical licenses. He’s wrong – it’s a data bank, which theoretically can lead medical staff, societies and licensing boards to act against specific physicians, but cannot act itself. Pro provides no provides no examples of this occurring at any point in US history. That’s probably because it never has.[22] And his own source [11] from R4 explains why: “Medical licensing boards ordinarily address illegal activities of physicians and complaints relating to patient care... Executions are legal; therefore, in states that require the presence of physicians at executions, licensing boards—established by state law and quasi-legal—are unlikely to take action against the licenses of physicians who participate.” Pro’s argument also relies on medical professionals disclosing their participation. Again, Pro’s source shows that few states disclose the names of these physicians, and those that do protect them against reprisals.
c) Staff
Let’s get this out of the way first: nitrogen leakage into the environment is not dangerous. 78% of our atmosphere is nitrogen.[26] A single tank leaking into the environment does not displace enough oxygen to cause hypoxia, despite Pro’s unwarranted claims to the contrary.
In a respect, Pro is correct that PTSD results among those seeing corpses, regardless of gore. However, Pro’s argument goes beyond that. He argues that the blood and gore generated by FS will not engender worse symptoms. The big problem with this response is that Pro concedes that stress disorders like this would be worsened by working with brutalized corpses. That’s not surprising considering there is substantial research supporting the link between exposure to traumatic death and PTSD.[27] Pro claims that these are not gory deaths, though this flies in the face of Pro’s other arguments. He at once wants to claim that these guns will utterly destroy lungs, major arteries, veins and the heart itself, and yet they won’t be particularly bloody or gruesome. And that’s if there is no botching.
Even if we can assume that everyone viewing these executions is completely protected from viewing the resulting gore, the effects on the prison staff and clean-up crews cannot be prevented.
Conclusion:
Both of our cases have shown benefits over the status quo. Pro wants you to believe that the uncertainties damn my case, but it’s the certainties that damn his. We know that the public is opposed to FS and that none of the changes he’s making will alter that perspective, leading to legislative action against it. We know that FS, by design, inflicts both pain and injury, and has a substantial chance of botching, causing egregious pain and injury. We know that FS is psychologically traumatizes other, non-guilty parties more than methods that don’t result in a gory death. None of these are true of NA. Hence, vote Con.
23. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/us-judge-rules-gas-chamber-is-illegal-1441323.html
24. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/
25. https://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/bitstream/handle/10379/761/PRONEU-D-08-00058_no.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
26. https://sciencing.com/percentage-nitrogen-air-5704002.html
27. http://www.tgorski.com/terrorism/exposure_to_traumatic_death.htm
This debate essentially breaks down to two issues: between FS and NA, which is more feasible and is more beneficial?
I. Feasibility
Which method is more likely to stand the test of time? Both our methods are cheap, so this comes down to public backlash.
Pro wants you to believe that that public backlash will stop the sale of nitrogen gas canisters to prisons. His only warrant is that they did it with LI drugs. Two concessions belie this comparison. One, there is a far larger availability of producers of nitrogen gas, meaning that far more companies would have to succumb to public pressure. Two, the specific uses of nitrogen gas: medicine, cooking and welding. These are all clearly important in a range of industries, including prisons. Meanwhile, LI drugs have singular purposes. Sodium thiopental is an anesthetic, regardless of where it’s used, including LI. Prisons can claim any number of purposes for nitrogen. Nitrogen gas will continue to flow into prisons.
Lobbying Congress, on the other hand, can be effective. Pro argues that the public is already predisposed against gas chambers, failing to note that a lot of that negative response has to do with the gasses used and not the physical implements involved.[23] Pro drops the preponderance of data on the effects of nitrogen gas on the human body (including lethality without pain), so his claims that the condemned are being treated like guinea pigs don’t hold up. Together, these distinguish NA from previous methods and invite a new public perspective.
Pro drops the poll results against the firing squad. Pro really wants you to believe that a positive trend will reverse these; however, he’s not waiting several years before implementing this. He wants it now. Now, the numbers are strongly against FS. Now, a significant majority view it as cruel and unusual. He provides no reason why his setup will alter public perception, so he is guaranteed to implement his capital punishment in a US that is openly hostile to it. That practically guarantees a tidal wave of backlash, striking down his method.
1. Cruelty to the condemned
We both agree that a death that involves the least possible
cruelty is one to be favored. What makes a method crueler?
What makes the best method is one that is, essentially, botch-proof. No matter how perfect a method may seem, different types of implementation and mistakes will lead to botches. Things will go wrong. I have provided evidence that botches exist for FS and, much as Pro’s methods may reduce their number, it is still fallible. I accept that NA can be botched. So, what do those botches look like for our two cases?
We begin with NA. At worst, a mask is damaged and a new nitrogen canister must be acquired. Both are low cost and minor setbacks. Self-inflicted pain that results is, again, both non-unique and not relevant to this debate. Pro’s argument that incentives to self-harm are unique to NA is also false: FS incentivizes moving out of the lines of sight, and the condemned may dislocate joints or abrade themselves against their restraints to do. These do not expose cruelty in these methods because they are not impositions. This is what Pro misunderstands about my dread argument. The condemned may dread their deaths with both NA and FS, but Pro’s case uniquely generate anticipations for terrible pain post-shooting. Setting aside the question of whether those gunshot wounds cause pain (for now), anticipation of pain exists solely in Pro’s case. As such, Pro’s claim that pain won’t be felt solely because of the neurological chemicals pumped into the body is objectively wrong: the anticipation of expected pain is worse than pain.
Onto FS botches. Historical evidence shows that botches involve more than 30 seconds of bleeding out slowly, and this is only among executions. Pro points to the many Americans who use guns for suicide, asking if he can use it in his data. Yes, please. What’s the botch rate on those? 17.5%.[24] That’s a massive botch rate and emphasizes that the length of time one suffers after being shot can be excruciatingly long, well beyond the period where brain chemistry can dull the pain.
Even if we confine it to the shorter time, though, Pro’s case is designed to inflict physical harm. That can and will cause pain. Pro’s claims regarding stress-based pain reduction are just as flawed as his adrenaline claims. Stress-induced analgesia is limited by “individual sensitivity… [which] can vary greatly and that sensitivity is coupled to… opioid sensitivity and startle response… [and] influenced by age, gender, and prior experience to stressful, painful, or other environmental stimuli.”[25] Since it’s largely based on surprise and distraction (hence “startle response”), stress, like adrenaline, has little to no role in death row inmates who know they are about to be killed. As such, Pro’s case directly inflicts both injury and pain, regardless of time frame.
2. Collateral cruelty
This issue does not require botching to be meaningful. So long as there is collateral harm caused by implementation of our methods, it factors into this equation. Do FS or NA harm those who are involved beyond the condemned?
a) Executioners
Pro’s case relies on the effectiveness of the blank as a form of absolution. However, as I’ve already pointed out, a blank is all his case actually requires, and a blank has no recoil. This means every shooter will know their contribution. That’s 4 people, compared with 1 in my case (you don’t need more to affix a mask and pipe in nitrogen), who will have knowingly contributed to the death of the condemned. Even if we assume recoil was built in, Pro doesn’t provide any evidence that this reduces resulting psychological trauma. PTSD is still far more prevalent in Pro’s case, regardless of whether we assume some minor ameliorating effect.
b) Physicians
Pro argues that The National Practitioner Data Bank could remove medical licenses. He’s wrong – it’s a data bank, which theoretically can lead medical staff, societies and licensing boards to act against specific physicians, but cannot act itself. Pro provides no provides no examples of this occurring at any point in US history. That’s probably because it never has.[22] And his own source [11] from R4 explains why: “Medical licensing boards ordinarily address illegal activities of physicians and complaints relating to patient care... Executions are legal; therefore, in states that require the presence of physicians at executions, licensing boards—established by state law and quasi-legal—are unlikely to take action against the licenses of physicians who participate.” Pro’s argument also relies on medical professionals disclosing their participation. Again, Pro’s source shows that few states disclose the names of these physicians, and those that do protect them against reprisals.
c) Staff
Let’s get this out of the way first: nitrogen leakage into the environment is not dangerous. 78% of our atmosphere is nitrogen.[26] A single tank leaking into the environment does not displace enough oxygen to cause hypoxia, despite Pro’s unwarranted claims to the contrary.
In a respect, Pro is correct that PTSD results among those seeing corpses, regardless of gore. However, Pro’s argument goes beyond that. He argues that the blood and gore generated by FS will not engender worse symptoms. The big problem with this response is that Pro concedes that stress disorders like this would be worsened by working with brutalized corpses. That’s not surprising considering there is substantial research supporting the link between exposure to traumatic death and PTSD.[27] Pro claims that these are not gory deaths, though this flies in the face of Pro’s other arguments. He at once wants to claim that these guns will utterly destroy lungs, major arteries, veins and the heart itself, and yet they won’t be particularly bloody or gruesome. And that’s if there is no botching.
Even if we can assume that everyone viewing these executions is completely protected from viewing the resulting gore, the effects on the prison staff and clean-up crews cannot be prevented.
Both of our cases have shown benefits over the status quo. Pro wants you to believe that the uncertainties damn my case, but it’s the certainties that damn his. We know that the public is opposed to FS and that none of the changes he’s making will alter that perspective, leading to legislative action against it. We know that FS, by design, inflicts both pain and injury, and has a substantial chance of botching, causing egregious pain and injury. We know that FS is psychologically traumatizes other, non-guilty parties more than methods that don’t result in a gory death. None of these are true of NA. Hence, vote Con.
23. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/us-judge-rules-gas-chamber-is-illegal-1441323.html
24. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/
25. https://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/bitstream/handle/10379/761/PRONEU-D-08-00058_no.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
26. https://sciencing.com/percentage-nitrogen-air-5704002.html
27. http://www.tgorski.com/terrorism/exposure_to_traumatic_death.htm
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Both sides used sources sufficiently, no need to talk about that beyond mentioning that it's tied for that reason. Same with S&G and Conduct.
For me this debate boils down to a flawed issue in all 'this vs that' debates; you're making arbitrary lines of judgement masquerade as objective. That's flawed, period. The word 'best' wasn't defined or expanded upon by either side. This means that the voter is completely able to justify voting either way due to what they arbitrarily think 'best' should be out of what's discussed, and that's exactly what I'm going to do right now.
While conceding that there's no data on NA, he further agrees that FS has a 0% botch rate... Even though he mentioned in another area of debate that missing the target (which is botching it) can cause severe pain, bleeding out slowly and resulting in a lot of hassle in between the shot and the time to reload and randomise the bullet again, not to mention the trauma for the ones doing it (as while all are equally exempt from it, all are equally guilty of it which is a point I don't know why Con never brought up, to backfire and debunk the 'everyone is not guilty' psychological benefit of FS).
To compensate for the lack of data on NA, Con seeks to tell us that being suffocated and forced unconscious so you can die from your oxygen starved heart, brain, lungs and muscles cramping and shutting down is somewhat strange. I get it, we are to assume that we reliably 'know' that the person isn't experiencing the agony in their unconscious state, can't hear what's going on or feel sensations... Even if that is all true, why did Pro not focus very hard on the fact that FS wrongly aims for the heart instead of the brain? Why would you not first shoot the brain to ensure the dying person can't feel any of the things going on? Why didn't Pro amend FS to aim for the brain instead? There's quite a few lines of creative rebuttal and attack/defense that I saw neither side take and given the supposed calibre of debater, it irked me is all.
The debate basically became Pro winning on all counts in my eyes. Pro proved that it was more reliable (extremely so, 100% official success rate in the US etc), that NA has just as much trauma involved potentially (if not more, as the one administering it knows they're dealing the killing blow, which he explicitly highlights that FS doesn't allow) and that while Con keeps going on about 'too many people in the US will throw a hissy fit about FS! Oh no, don't do it!', Pro points out that there's no clear consensus of supporting NA in the first place, so why are we to assume it is a safer bet?
Con lost in my eyes, I justified it here.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1235/comment_links/20667
My usual gist section doesn't do this debate justice. Fantastic job all around!
I was genuinely tempted to rate this one a tie.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
First off: Fantastic fuckin debate by both sides. Its been a long ass time since I saw a debate creep into the voting section and immediately caught my interest, and both sides did a tremendous job with their cases.
The fundamental problem with the debate though is that both sides chose techniques which have been practiced on a very limited scale or not even practiced entirely. Execution by firing squad is super rare, and execution by Nitrogen Asphyxiation is a completely new form of execution. The incredibly limited sample of both forms of execution make it fairly hard for certain sides to make convincing arguments for their cause, since the arguments are entirely theoretical depending on context.
For Pain and Quickness of death: While Nitrogen Asphyxiation could probably feasibly be botched if a number of circumstances are met, its more conceivable to see why a firing squad could conceivably fail in their task of painlessness and quickness of death. Both sides take precautions to ensure why their method would have minimal failures, so then the argument becomes IF a botched attempt occurs, how painful is the aftermath? While NA is only a theoretical procedure, worst case is that the condemned gets a little woozy for a bit before the issue is resolved or retried at a later date, whereas a botched execution by firing squad could cause far worse effects for the condemned. For this reason, Con barely wins this argument.
For Affordability: Both sides appear to be affordable enough to serve as the primary form of execution for capital punishment compared to the current standard of lethal injection. Tied on this count
For being Proven as methods: With Pro easily meeting the burden of proof that firing squad has historically worked, Con saves his ass by tying Nitrogen Asphyxiation to Hypoxia in round 3 as evidence that the method would work with close to perfect accuracy. (There is actually an instance of a civilian airline in Greece going down because the oxygen in the oxygen bags ran out after 7 minutes, and everyone drifted off peacefully into their sleep/death except for one flight attendant who used multiple bags to stay awake/alive). Tied on this count.
For Staff effects behind both forms of execution, there are two sub-arguments here: Pro does well in pointing out that the need for medical professionals to administer executions by Nitrogen Asphyxiation could run into issues, or at very least is lower than the number of qualified people needed and willing to carry out a Firing Squad execution.... On the other hand though, Con makes a solid argument that staff behind Nitrogen Asphyxiation executions would likely be far less likely to develop sorts of PTSD or other forms of trauma from witnessing the execution compared to those who would participate in a Firing Squad execution. Since both of these relate to the argument of staffing for both forms and each side wins one of these points, this count also remains a tie.
In the end, I would support both forms of these executions over Lethal Injections any day. Damn near every point made in the debate was tied due to how incredibly well both sides argued their sides. Because the argument regarding effects felt by the condemned if the execution is botched was won by Con's side of Nitrogen Asphyxiation though, I cannot leave argument points as a tie overall, and have to award points to Con despite many of the other arguments made being effectively tied..... This is chiefly in part due to the theoretical nature of Nitrogen Asphyxiation Executions though since they have not been utilized at any large enough rate to really evaluate effects a botched procedure would have, without going into pure speculation.
If the debate was structured in a way where Pro argued that execution by firing squad would be the best form of execution -to be utilized right away for all death penalty cases-, then he may have won that debate using the same arguments he used, since firing squads have been practiced in the past and could be readily implemented nation wide, whereas Nitrogen Asphyxiation could still be years or decades away from being able to be utilized on a large scale. However, because the debate strictly limits its scope simply to best form of capital punishment, the 1 tiebreaker won by con out of the multiple other arguments that remained a tie BARELY gives him the win here.
Again, I just want to emphasize this, fan-FUCKING-tastic debate to both sides. I legit enjoyed reading this whole damn thing and learned a good deal from it
The conscience of the executioners is a big concern. That is why my method puts a blank in one of the guns. You never know if you contributed to the killing.
Mental suffering was referring to the victim's family suffering as you stated. The basis for you saying punishing one person wouldn't be justice for a murderer.
Intelligence and reading comprehension are related.
Mental suffering cannot be quantified. How do you prove that one person suffered from the loss of a relative more than another or at all? Kinda tough.
Are you saying that if an activity was made legal that more people wouldn't do it? Not one? Because that is what a deterrent is.
If my job were to end people's lives on a daily basis, I'd imagine that scary movies wouldn't do much to alleviate the psychological torment of actually experiencing someone eaten by carnivorous fish. If it worked so well, we would have been subjecting soldiers to "The Shining" years before active service to stave off PTSD. There is a severe disconnect between contrived, virtual violence and real executions of living, breathing people. People who, for instance, may be posthumously be granted innocence after an executioner got acquainted with his/her pulpy corpse.
Also, it's not just one "scary thing" happening that can influence someone's mental state. Doing these executions on a regular basis could cause PTSD or related psychosis. This isn't even mentioning the constitutional challenges that would emerge. Death row inmates havebless rights than other people, but they still have rights.
>>" I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question."
I went through what I thought was what happened. That wasn't being rude. That was me laying out what I thought happened.
>>but you questioned his intelligence/if he even read it(which you quite obviously know he did).
Intelligence is not tied to reading. A gardener can be the best gardener without reading a single book. I simply said he might have not read it given how he didn't really answer what I said instead gave a question.
>>I don't know how you would bring mental suffering into the question when you mention the victim's family.
When and what you do mean by this? Can you state this in a different way or bring in a quote to so I might understand what you are saying.
>>That isn't something that can really be quantified.
Yes it does.
>>Eye for an eye isn't always precise. They used to cut off a thief's hand.
Didn't think anything was in the first place.
>>Punishment is a deterrent, which is good.
I don't think this is true. If that is the case we would see for every punished criminal an impact on future crime. The stats I don't think layout punishment being an effective way at deterring crimes. I guess if you had crime stats and showed how a lot of people were in jail then it has been steadily I'll believe it but I doubt that is the case.
>>I see no use in keeping people in prison on the taxpayer dime if they could be productive.
Well yes.
"I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question."
That suffices for the rude to Alec and word choice question. You could have just said no, but you questioned his intelligence/if he even read it(which you quite obviously know he did).
I don't know how you would bring mental suffering into the question when you mention the victim's family. That isn't something that can really be quantified.
Eye for an eye isn't always precise. They used to cut off a thief's hand.
Punishment and rehabilitation are important. Punishment is a deterrent, which is good. No one wants to go to prison. Rehabilitation is also good if it works. I see no use in keeping people in prison on the taxpayer dime if they could be productive.
>>Word choice is a big giveaway.
What word specifically?
>> Don't be rude to Alec
Quote me being rude.
>>Your comment #8 is saying you don't believe the death penalty is a punishment that is appropriate for murderers. You say more lives were affected by the murderer.
Yes and I don't think it will ever be given that only 1 life will be impacted by the murderer whereas the person dead would have more than likely 1 more person that cared about them.
>>An eye for an eye, correct?
Well yes but it is definitely more complex than that.
What if it was manslaughter?
The only way to meet a just punishment if we value an equal answer is if that person was also manslaughtered.
This value is me borrowing from Alec's. I don't personally take the side that we should value punishment over rehabilitation. I take the opposite which is why I don't really care about punishment but with what Alec said I found it didn't really make sense.
It is quite easy to sense emotion through comments. Word choice is a big giveaway.
Not sure exactly when it changed, but you were definitely less sassy. Don't be rude to Alec.
Your comment #8 is saying you don't believe the death penalty is a punishment that is appropriate for murderers. You say more lives were affected by the murderer. I'm not sure that this necessarily means that we shouldn't attempt to give as much justice as possible, though. An eye for an eye, correct?
How can you see emotion through comments?
What was my mood before and when did you think it changed?
Do you understand the #8 comment?
Why have you been so moody lately?
Say what I said in a way that you like. I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question.
No to answer your question.
Your saying that the murderer should receive a harsher punishment?
"6+ people murdered, death by getting eaten by piranhas."
I like your thinking!
The amount of harm lets say a murderer committed will not be met given that more than 1 life would be impacted. If lets say a dad was murdered. His wife/girlfriend/lover, parents that are still alive, children, other family and friends would be impacted.
Saying you would commit X punishment on the murderer doesn't actually change that. So the argument that this should occur because it is comparable to what the murderer did is false. Given the murderer impacted multiple lives and the punishment you are issuing will only impact one life.
I guess you can argue it is just but don't know how you would go about it. Care to try?
The executioner could undergo various training so they can get used to dealing these execution methods. This might include watching hundreds of very scary movies so when there is something real that's scary, the executioner doesn't react as badly to it.
I feel like some of these might be traumatic for the executioner.
1 person murdered, death by firing squad or gioty.
2 people murdered, death by stabbing
3 people murdered, death by hanging.
4 people murdered, death by being burned alive.
5 people murdered, death by drowning.
6+ people murdered, death by getting eaten by piranhas.
Sound good?
An interesting proposition. Murder is rather a cruel and unusual thing. However, then you have to determine what kind of torture would be allowed based on the crimes.
I think cruel and unusual punishment should get modified to allow for an exception for murder.
It gets a little hairy constitutionally speaking. Cruel and unusual punishment isn't allowed, which probably includes painful deaths. On a personal level, I could agree in some cases.
Depends. If one person is murdered, then yes. If multiple people are murdered, I would prescribe something more painful.