Arizona execution takes two hours to kill inmate - Polidicks

they could have just put him outside in the afternoon and he would have melted so fast that he wouldn't have felt a thing I walked out on my porch yesterday and my right leg accidentally touched the sunlight and now I ride the short bus

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;45480450]He made his decision when he killed his girlfriend and her father, I have no sympathy for someone like that.[/QUOTE] The thing about democracy and our justice system is that we still have to uphold humane qualities no matter what, no matter who (could be Satan being executed, idc) but I DO believe karma gets the final word in life or death. He got his.

[QUOTE=Grindigo;45480486]With people like you no reason world isn't a better place.[/QUOTE] am i the only one who thinks staying in jail for 60+ years is a worse punishment compared to simply dying? i always found the "humane" argument kinda silly, sole reason to oppose the death penalty IMO is to avoid killing innocents, nothing more.

[QUOTE=Funion;45480884]they could have just put him outside in the afternoon and he would have melted so fast that he wouldn't have felt a thing I walked out on my porch yesterday and my right leg accidentally touched the sunlight and now I ride the short bus[/QUOTE] Are you a vampire?

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;45480973]am i the only one who thinks staying in jail for 60+ years is a worse punishment compared to simply dying? i always found the "humane" argument kinda silly, sole reason to oppose the death penalty IMO is to avoid killing innocents, nothing more.[/QUOTE] it depends on the country really. you would probably die worse staying in some prisons than if you had just been executed, whereas in some you actually become a better person during your stay (this news no doubt caused a miasmic wave of shock and revulsion across Texas)

If the US is so intent on keeping the death penalty, why not have a Japanese executioner come over and train American executioners in the proper art of hanging? The Japanese still employ the death penalty, largely by hanging, and when someone is hung properly, their neck is snapped immediately and they feel nothing. If they could get a Japanese hangman to train American hangmen, then they wouldn't need to conduct these torturous experiments on untested drugs. That, and rope is cheap and reusable.

[QUOTE=abananapeel;45480775]Why dont we just go back to the gas chamber but instead of the gas they used, use CO2.[/QUOTE] Except don't use CO2, use N if you don't wanna torture the guy inside. You won't feel a fuck when breathing nitrogen and you'll just fall asleep and never wake up.

[QUOTE=cartman300;45481044]Except don't use CO2, use N if you don't wanna torture the guy inside. You won't feel a fuck when breathing nitrogen and you'll just fall asleep and never wake up.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah N is what I meant. I saw some sort of documentary about the most humane way to kill someone and that seemed to be the best.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45480517]And killing him is going to bring them back? Let him rot in prison for life without the possibility of parole[/QUOTE] Ahaha, right, what does that do for anyone except let the criminal live a life that, after a while, becomes normal and barely a punishment. Also what you're saying is nothing but a nicer way of saying "fuck killing him, I want to torture him for the rest of his life" which is much worse, but wouldn't happen like I said. Why is there such a circle around "saving that [I]precious[/I] human life" in these kinds of threads. People will inevitably say "It's not our right to take a human life!" or "Taking a criminals life will make us drop to his level!". Says who? Killing someone who is blatantly taking lives for no sane reason will absolutely not make us bad as him, and is [I]is[/I] our right to take a criminals life, at least in the states it is. Saying it isn't is just fabrication that isn't everyone's belief. And then people will say "Wow dude, willing to take someones life so easily? You're a psychopath!" No, we're not taking peoples lives so easily and psychotically, if we we're we would execute the local 70 year old saint who has donated thousands to charity. We would execute the soccer moms, the workers, the sports players, everyone! Because that is psychotic. However, executing someone who killed multiple people, for a ridiculous reason and cannot be rehabilitated is not psychotic, no matter how much you want to think it is just because "taking a human life" sounds so horrible, and 99.99% of the time it is, but there are times it just doesn't make sense not to allow it. We're not executing people who steal, who rape, who assault, who violate the law horrendously. No, we're executing people who deserve it (as much as "deserving it" is up to opinion, I say it should be reserved exclusively for murderers, and even then it shouldn't be taken likely. Like I said above, murders who kill multiple people, insane reason, and cannot be rehabilitated are prime candidates.), because well, that's what they deserve. Also just clarifying the rehabilitation factor, I'm not making any assumption that this murder couldn't have been rehabilitated, I'm trying to say there should be a psych eval on murderers to see if they are capable of going back into society, and if not, why keep them around? And revenge makes people feel better, of course. Why not let society get revenge at someone who so clearly deserves it? Is there a harm (fyi this is for people who cannot be rehabilitated like stated, people who will otherwise waste life and leech taxes with a life sentence in a prison, repeating this because people seem to always forget this is who I'm talking about) in doing such a thing? Revenge makes evolutionary sense as well when you think about it, it deters the person receiving the revenge and shows others not to repeat the receivers behavior, improving the function of a society. In this case it just shows others not to do it, but mainly to make society feel "satisfied" that the perpetrator got what they deserved. Oh, and just so this argument of revenge makes people feel better doesn't go out the window because "No source!" (a valid reason), here are some sources I have looked at before to back it up. [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/revenge-evolution/[/url] [QUOTE]As draconian as lethal retribution might seem, science has shown that the human brain can take pleasure in certain kinds of revenge. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans have revealed that thinking about revenge activates the reward center—where the feel-good neurotransmitter dopamine is lodged—in much the same way that sweet foods or even drugs can. [/QUOTE] [url]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0827_040827_punishment.html[/url] [QUOTE]A new brain-imaging study suggests we feel satisfaction when we punish others for bad behavior. In fact, anticipation of this pleasure drives us to crack the whip, according to scientists behind the new research.[/QUOTE] Quoting since people seem to like to skip clicking links in SH, so now you don't have to. Also hoping this argument doesn't go out the window because "I don't like your sources!". Also for those saying/will say "well you can't [I]100%[/I] prove they did it, so it's no good!" Well the problem with that is that we can say that for every single criminal who ever existed. Maybe that person didn't steal that car. Maybe that person didn't burn down that house. Maybe that person didn't rape her/him. Etc. You will never be able to prove 100% for anything, but for an execution to be considered, it should be pretty damn close. All in all, there are people who deserve it, and saying "well I don't like the fact that this person is dying, yes he may have killed all this people for no sane reason, and cannot be rehabilitated, but, uh, it's a human life! Well lets save a human life then! Wow, I feel accomplished!" Yup, you're supporting saving the life of a murderer who killed for insane reasons, who cannot be rehabilitated, but hey you're saving a life right? Pat you're self on the back. I always end up in these threads, through no fault but my own, but I feel people need to understand that the death penalty is valid. PS: I'm not basing this argument on how the justice system is, I'm saying how I think it should be and how if it was the death penalty would be valid. [editline]23rd July 2014[/editline] Also my bad this post is horribly formatted, but the edit button wont properly show my post.

| prison | <---murderers in --> weed dealers out

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45480517]And killing him is going to bring them back? Let him rot in prison for life without the possibility of parole[/QUOTE] eh just a personal opinion but if i was convicted of a crime i'd much rather have the death penalty than stay in prison for life

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;45481041]If the US is so intent on keeping the death penalty, why not have a Japanese executioner come over and train American executioners in the proper art of hanging? The Japanese still employ the death penalty, largely by hanging, and when someone is hung properly, their neck is snapped immediately and they feel nothing. If they could get a Japanese hangman to train American hangmen, then they wouldn't need to conduct these torturous experiments on untested drugs. That, and rope is cheap and reusable.[/QUOTE] Because hanging someone isn't "humane" enough. [editline]idk[/editline] Although, I think that's still an option for execution in Washington state. I don't think it has been used in nearly two decades though.

[QUOTE=Mitsudigi;45480722]They euthanize animals routinely all over the world and yet they can't even kill a single human being? Why can't they just use the same drugs? -- EDIT Found this: [url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-dogs-go-heaven/201112/animal-euthanasia-and-capital-punishment-some-uncomfortable-compariso[/url][/QUOTE] Seriously this is stupid, I don't advocate the death penalty but killing a person effectively with access to medical chemicals should not be so fucking difficult. If you inject a person with a high enough dosage of almost any anesthetic or depressant, they're going to die very quickly. How is it that anesthesiologists have to receive over a decade of training and get paid several hundred thousand dollars per year to keep people alive, and the state governments are having trouble killing people with the same chemicals?

[QUOTE=seano12;45480593]Hasn't it been said that the death penalty costs more than keeping the person alive?[/QUOTE] Depends on how many times the prisoner appeals while on death row, if It's just once, which is given to everyone sentenced to death, it isn't more expensive.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;45480973]am i the only one who thinks staying in jail for 60+ years is a worse punishment compared to simply dying? i always found the "humane" argument kinda silly, sole reason to oppose the death penalty IMO is to avoid killing innocents, nothing more.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it sucks to be kept alive in a situation you can't escape. But it's undeniable that the government shouldn't be given the power to execute criminals because they've demonstrated they'll just kill a lot of innocents too. [editline]23rd July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=supersoldier58;45481109]words[/QUOTE] you have no intention of doing anything here but preaching that the death penalty is the best and only solution to the problem. In the last thread about this where you argued, you just fucking gave up because you have nothing but an emotional argument about this. Stop preaching, or start arguing and actually giving a shit that there's opinions other than yours that may possibly, just maybe, be valid. [editline]23rd July 2014[/editline] Your argument literally boils down to "Here's some sources that potentially show that murdering someone in "retribution" causes catharsis". There's no way you can say that, and then say it's a rational non emotional argument. That that is a good thing.

I read it as though everything was rushed within two hour's and he was put to death.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45481465] you have no intention of doing anything here but preaching that the death penalty is the best and only solution to the problem. In the last thread about this where you argued, you just fucking gave up because you have nothing but an emotional argument about this. Stop preaching, or start arguing and actually giving a shit that there's opinions other than yours that may possibly, just maybe, be valid. [editline]23rd July 2014[/editline] Your argument literally boils down to "Here's some sources that potentially show that murdering someone in "retribution" causes catharsis". There's no way you can say that, and then say it's a rational non emotional argument. That that is a good thing.[/QUOTE] Hooooo boy, now that I am using sources and being hardly emotional, you still deny my argument without supporting your own. I never mentioned it the last time, but your little "ooooh boy this murderers life is so precious" is nothing but emotional argument and though in this particular post it isn't clear, last thread you made it very clear. You put the foundation of your argument on "But it's not our right to take a life!". Also what, where did I say the death penalty is the best and only solution to the problem, I made it very clear it wasn't but was the best outcome in very rare cases, and you managed to dodge every clue I threw your way. Of course we can let them "rot" in prison, because hey it might be torture but whatevs I saved a life! No, it's not that simple. You are saying "Here's some sources that potentially show that murdering someone in "retribution" causes catharsis" and what is the problem with that, hmm? Is there anything else to add other than "but, but it's a human life, no taking human lives under ANY circumstance! Even if they pointlessly murder people and can't be rehabilitated!". I don't know why but apparently people getting what they deserve and society feeling satisfied is a big no no since hey a murderer who killed multiple people, for an insane reason, and cannot be rehabilitated (I feel like such a parrot but apparently this is a necessary for you to realize what I'm saying) is worth more than all the gold in the universe. Your argument is incredibly based on opinion and this belief that is not tangible yet to you it might as well have come from every god from every religion and beyond that is "no you don't have the right to take a human life under ANY circumstance", okay cool that's your opinion but it's not tangible and nothing is there to support it. The fact revenge and people getting what they deserve makes you feel good is a real tangible evidence, and clearly supports my belief. I don't see how you can put insane value in people like these lives, and say "well clearly that murderers life is worth more than any kind of catharsis these people may receive, because hey I belief all human life is precious no matter what you did!!". [editline]23rd July 2014[/editline] Also I gave up last time because you were like talking to a wall, as I was to you, just that your patience out weighed mine.

Every thread related to the death penalty always has comments suggesting to use a [I]firing squad[/I] instead. [B]That's almost as stupid as using these fucked up drug combinations[/B]. -For one, the precise accuracy needed to completely destroy the specific parts of the brain that give you consciousness, regulate the experience of pain and keep the body's heart pumping would be easy to miscalculate, and would require shooters from all angles (right in the path of the bullet if it exits the body) with highly destructive bullets that would make one hell of a mess, and even with our knowledge of the brain we still have lots of areas of the brain we're not 100% sure do what we think they do, so there's a high chance of someone fucking up and the inmate still being conscious and fully aware they've been shot while feeling the intense pain from the cranial impact, let alone actually having a chance to survive it. -Second, the psychological impact it would have on the shooters cannot be ignored. Even if you do the common method of having only one gun carrying a live bullet (which would be impractical if a painless effective death were required) you still have people seeing the gore, questioning if they actually killed a person or not. I wouldn't doubt that causing PTSD in the shooters. -Third, it's fucking barbaric. Might as well use a piston powered machine to completely squish his head while you're at it. While I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, there's way easier ways to kill someone painlessly and cleanly, possibly quietly too. Currently the three drug injection attempts to paralyze, anesthetize and stop the heart, and as can be shown by all of these botched executions it's not working properly. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_device#Exit_International.27s_euthanasia_device]Nitrogen inhalation[/url] is painless, cheap, quiet, and clean. It's an inert gas so your body doesn't go into panic due to oxygen deprivation. Death takes minutes. I have no clue why this isn't the standard practice.

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;45480450]He made his decision when he killed his girlfriend and her father, I have no sympathy for someone like that.[/QUOTE] Kill him through pure N20 Overdose. It doesn't fuck the body, doesn't scar people through life via mutilation, and the person goes out through a high before expiring. I believe in the death penalty, but I believe in a [B]Humane[/B] Death penalty.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45481212]eh just a personal opinion but if i was convicted of a crime i'd much rather have the death penalty than stay in prison for life[/QUOTE] I personally agree, but if you had optional death penalties you might have people being "forced" into the death penalties somehow, or suicidal people killing just for an easy death. Brings a new meaning to the phrase "suicide by cop."

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;45482099]Hooooo boy, now that I am using sources and being hardly emotional, you still deny my argument without supporting your own.[/QUOTE] You're using sources for a few points, not your argument itself. [QUOTE]I never mentioned it the last time, but your little "ooooh boy this murderers life is so precious" is nothing but emotional argument and though in this particular post it isn't clear, last thread you made it very clear. You put the foundation of your argument on "But it's not our right to take a life!".[/QUOTE] I never said a murderers life is so precious. So it is a right to take a life? It isn't our right to take a life. It shouldn't be the governments right to take our lives. Innocents die. Is that not a point? [QUOTE]Also what, where did I say the death penalty is the best and only solution to the problem, I made it very clear it wasn't but was the best outcome in very rare cases, and you managed to dodge every clue I threw your way. Of course we can let them "rot" in prison, because hey it might be torture but whatevs I saved a life! No, it's not that simple. [/QUOTE] "every clue"? What does that mean? Either you argue with as concise statements as you can make, or you don't and you just fuck around. You made it clear that when it should be used, it is the best and only solution. You're essentially saying this through out your post. [QUOTE]You are saying "Here's some sources that potentially show that murdering someone in "retribution" causes catharsis" and what is the problem with that, hmm? Is there anything else to add other than "but, but it's a human life, no taking human lives under ANY circumstance! Even if they pointlessly murder people and can't be rehabilitated!".[/QUOTE] So mocking me is a step towards reason, or is it an emotional tactic whether you realize that or not? Firstly, whether the study is factual or not is probably up for a bit more study, but even agreeing it is right, yes, there are things wrong with that. Something being a biological fact of our existence doesn't necessarily mean we should structure ourselves after that. We've done our best to avoid structuring most of our societies on evolutionary principles. Think about the potential repurcussions to our society if we cultivate that biological feeling of satisfaction from an act that isn't positive. The act being killing, and murder. [QUOTE] I don't know why but apparently people getting what they deserve and society feeling satisfied is a big no no since hey a murderer who killed multiple people, for an insane reason, and cannot be rehabilitated (I feel like such a parrot but apparently this is a necessary for you to realize what I'm saying) is worth more than all the gold in the universe. [/QUOTE] Who decides what they deserve? I don't want you, myself, or anyone in a position determining, who deserves death. Yes, some people cannot be rehabilitated. There's certainly a shame to that. How many percent of the population do you think that is? How few people really need to be locked away forever? Not that many. And you want to culture this feeling? You want to glorify it with a sanction by the government, and general public? And you don't even stop for a second to question this? [QUOTE]Your argument is incredibly based on opinion and this belief that is not tangible yet to you it might as well have come from every god from every religion and beyond that is "no you don't have the right to take a human life under ANY circumstance", okay cool that's your opinion but it's not tangible and nothing is there to support it. [/QUOTE] Yes. It is my opinion. I have never said it was anything but that. You have said yours is true, like it cannot be questioned. I have not said this about mine. I am calling you out for that exact thing. You're reinforcing that you think you're factually correct under any and all circumstances and that your view is not an opinion. [QUOTE]The fact revenge and people getting what they deserve makes you feel good is a real tangible evidence, and clearly supports my belief. [/QUOTE] So biological principles should dictate society? I guess we actually should fornicate in the streets and do nothing but live a totally hedonistic life style. If a person biologically enjoys murder, are you against that? Based on that evidence, shouldn't we culture that? [QUOTE]I don't see how you can put insane value in people like these lives, and say "well clearly that murderers life is worth more than any kind of catharsis these people may receive, because hey I belief all human life is precious no matter what you did!!".[/QUOTE] I don't put insane value on it. I put value on life in general. Is the feeling of satisfaction that I could get, the total complete feeling of elation from simply killing you justification for that action? [editline]23rd July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45482170]I personally agree, but if you had optional death penalties you might have people being "forced" into the death penalties somehow, or suicidal people killing just for an easy death. Brings a new meaning to the phrase "suicide by cop."[/QUOTE] I agree. If that option was presented in the optimal situation where there is no risk of that, I can't see why not.

Sooner or later, they are going to stop these lethal injections forever as they are using random drugs now to see if it works seeing as their main drug that dried up YEARS ago is no longer being sold to the US. This is also going to throw dents into compounding pharmacies seeing as they are providing these drugs that are killing people horribly. They are trying to recreate Sodium thiopental or pentobarbital as those were the known drugs known to work (it knocks them out and causes respiratory arrest) while two other drugs cause paralysis then finally cardiac arrest. Seeing as these drugs are failing to knock people out or cause respiratory arrest, they need to stop trying random drugs on people during executions to see if it works.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45482223]-[/QUOTE] "It's not our right to take a life." Okay, assuming you mean we shouldn't give everyone on the planet the given right to take a life, sure. But who's to say that we shouldn't take a life when it benefits society? A murderer getting what they deserve benefits society if they can't be rehab... yadayada. Also assuming we didn't use enough money to buy a house to execute someone for it to benefit. I think here you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying my opinion is more valid because it has factual and mathematical evidence. I am trying to say that a person should be executed if they meet very, very specific criteria, a situation where killing them benefits society more than it harms. Also "innocents die". Yes, just like innocents are locked away for life, innocents are fined, etc etc etc. Anyone CAN be innocent and if we based our justice system on that then nobody would be in jail. It is impossible to 100% prove someone to be guilty, ANYTHING could have happened to make them seem so. But I said it better be close to 100%, which is increasingly possible with today's technology. Would I be for the death penalty, 50, 30, 20 years ago? Hell no, there would be too many innocents executed, but assuming we require a very, very high amount of evidence to consider the death penalty combined with today's technology, virtually no innocents would die. Also I'm saying our biological urges should always be followed IF it doesn't harm society (which if it doesn't harm it will always benefit). Killing someone who very much deserves it to satisfy our urge for revenge is preferable, since it releases satisfaction which in turn benefits society, compared to simply having him rot in prison wasting tax payer money + very minuscule stress from someone not getting what they deserve.

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;45482358]"It's not our right to take a life." Okay, assuming you mean we shouldn't give everyone on the planet the given right to take a life, sure. But who's to say that we shouldn't take a life when it benefits society? A murderer getting what they deserve benefits society if they can't be rehab... yadayada. Also assuming we didn't use enough money to buy a house to execute someone for it to benefit. I think here you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying my opinion is more valid because it has factual and mathematical evidence. I am trying to say that a person should be executed if they meet very, very specific criteria, a situation where killing them benefits society more than it harms. Also "innocents die". Yes, just like innocents are locked away for life, innocents are fined, etc etc etc. Anyone CAN be innocent and if we based our justice system on that then nobody would be in jail. It is impossible to 100% prove someone to be guilty, ANYTHING could have happened to make them seem so. But I said it better be close to 100%, which is increasingly possible with today's technology. Would I be for the death penalty, 50, 30, 20 years ago? Hell no, there would be too many innocents executed, but assuming we require a very, very high amount of evidence to consider the death penalty combined with today's technology, virtually no innocents would die. Also I'm saying our biological urges should always be followed IF it doesn't harm society (which if it doesn't harm it will always benefit). Killing someone who very much deserves it to satisfy our urge for revenge is preferable, since it releases satisfaction which in turn benefits society, compared to simply having him rot in prison wasting tax payer money + very minuscule stress from someone not getting what they deserve.[/QUOTE] You know what I never get? How people like you make the comparison of "innocents waste away in jail too" yeah, I agree, so we should abolish jail now? Is that what you're saying? Cause you're missing what I'm saying entirely. Killing an innocent is noticeably different, you might say, factually and mathematically different than simply being locked away. I don't see the culturing of a feeling of gratitude over the death of someone as a good thing period. I don't feel that we should make that a reward. I don't think we should glorify the real deaths of these people.

[QUOTE=seano12;45480593]Hasn't it been said that the death penalty costs more than keeping the person alive?[/QUOTE] By lethal injection, I'm pretty sure it's more expensive than keeping them alive. Putting a 9mm bullet in the back of their head? So much cheaper and so much faster. I'm with Fruxodaily, it should be death by firing squad or nothing at all.

[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;45482422]By lethal injection, I'm pretty sure it's more expensive than keeping them alive. Putting a 9mm bullet in the back of their head? So much cheaper and so much faster. I'm with Fruxodaily, it should be death by firing squad or nothing at all.[/QUOTE] the cost comes from the legal system. not the method of execution.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45482429]the cost comes from the legal system. not the method of execution.[/QUOTE] The gun is still faster and more reliable than the needle. Some people are born with better resistance to poison than others, which is a big cause of botched executions. It's just mutations and natural selection. But nobody's born with a resistance to bullets.

[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;45482467]The gun is still faster and more reliable than the needle. Some people are born with better resistance to poison than others, which is a big cause of botched executions. It's just mutations and natural selection. But nobody's born with a resistance to bullets.[/QUOTE] the cost isn't related to the method of execution. i'm not really interested in how we best kill people

Just to think executions in the 1500's managed to be more humane at times.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;45482122]Every thread related to the death penalty always has comments suggesting to use a [I]firing squad[/I] instead. [B]That's almost as stupid as using these fucked up drug combinations[/B]. -For one, the precise accuracy needed to completely destroy the specific parts of the brain that give you consciousness, regulate the experience of pain and keep the body's heart pumping would be easy to miscalculate, and would require shooters from all angles (right in the path of the bullet if it exits the body) with highly destructive bullets that would make one hell of a mess, and even with our knowledge of the brain we still have lots of areas of the brain we're not 100% sure do what we think they do, so there's a high chance of someone fucking up and the inmate still being conscious and fully aware they've been shot while feeling the intense pain from the cranial impact, let alone actually having a chance to survive it. -Second, the psychological impact it would have on the shooters cannot be ignored. Even if you do the common method of having only one gun carrying a live bullet (which would be impractical if a painless effective death were required) you still have people seeing the gore, questioning if they actually killed a person or not. I wouldn't doubt that causing PTSD in the shooters. [/QUOTE] Firstly, a round to the brain stem is what would be guaranteed instant death, and that can be done by way of a machine. That gets around your first and second points. Strap them to a chair and have a robot aim a .22 handgun at their brainstem and they'll instantly die. Nitrogen is better, but it's very unlikely that it will ever fall into use. Nobody wants a convicted killer to get giddy and enjoy his death. Granted i'd rather have no executions, but it will either never happen, or will take decades to happen.