Nine months after Kenneth Smith’s botched lethal injection, state attorney general has asked for approval to kill him with nitrogen

7 points

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Kenneth Smith is one of two living Americans who can describe what it is like to survive an execution, having endured an aborted lethal injection last November during which he was subjected to excruciating pain tantamount, his lawyers claim, to torture.

If the state of Alabama has its way, he will become the test dummy for an execution method that has never before been used in judicial killings and which veterinarians consider unacceptable as a form of euthanasia for animals – death by nitrogen gas.

The choice of Smith as the first candidate for the technique, less than a year after he experienced a failed execution, has also been criticized as a double violation of the eighth amendment protection against “cruel and unusual punishments”.

Earlier that year, the state took more than three hours to kill Joe Nathan James and later abandoned the execution of Alan Miller after also failing to find a vein.

“The mask will be placed and adjusted on the condemned inmate’s face”, it says, and then after the prisoner has been allowed to make a final statement “the Warden will activate the nitrogen hypoxia system”.

Like many death penalty states, Oklahoma was looking for an alternative to lethal injection, having struggled to procure the necessary drugs as a result of an international boycott by pharmaceutical companies.


The original article contains 1,116 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

permalink
report
reply
26 points

Didn’t he ask for that method himself? I’m sure he doesn’t want to try injection again.

permalink
report
reply
141 points

Cruel? Nitrogen asphyxiation is probably one of the most painless, gentle ways to go.

Your trigger that you can’t breathe is a buildup of carbon dioxide. But as you can still exhale, you feel no panic. You just slowly drift unconscious and die. I’d take it over most causes of death.

permalink
report
reply
28 points

Exactly, the headline is just trying to get people to react.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s people’s that want to ban the death penalty. They have already have succeeded in getting pharmaceutical companies to stop providing the drugs traditionally used.

Nitrogen, though, would be hard to ban. There is plenty of it, and it is cheap and easy to isolate. So they are arguing hard that it shouldn’t be accepted before they can prove how painlessly effective it can be.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points
*

There’s a BBC documentary about it, I think this one:

How to Kill a Human Being

It’s been a long time since I watched it, but I think the inert gas route is very pleasant. He even gets slightly high/happy from it.

Key takeaways:

  • there are surprisingly easy ways to kill people humanely.
  • many in the US doesn’t want to kill prisoners humanely, they want it to hurt and be a punishment, not die in a euphoric high

edit: found it:

https://www.documentarytube.com/videos/how-to-kill-a-human-being-2/

Rendered unconcious within 15 seconds, dead within a minute.

In testing pigs would happily stick their heads in a space with pure nitrogen and munch on apples till they lost consciousness, fell over, then stick their heads back in the space with nitrogen to eat some more apples.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Well yeah if we wanted it to be happy and comfortable we’ve had morphine for over a century

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Medical companies will not sell if they suspect it will be used to kill human beings. If they do, they might get banned in Europe

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/lethal-injection-pharma-kill-death-penalty/

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

What kind of apples asking for a friend

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Do you like apples?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Yeah, compared to injecting horrifically painful substances, I don’t see why this is controversial.

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points

Execution is cruel, regardless of method.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-50 points

Opinion 👆.

Fact: it’s necessary to remove certain people who are prone to violence and incapable of rehabilitation. If you have such a problem with execution, then volunteer your time, money, and home to accommodate a violent psychopath with you forever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Shitty take. There are more than two options here, and suggesting otherwise is using an either-or fallacy as a bad way to try to win an argument.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Kinda funny that you label the comment you replied to as opinion and then proceeded to dress your own (shitty) opinion up as fact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Fact: when we sentence people to death we get it wrong one time in three

Fact: executing someone is more expensive than keeping them in prison for life

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Also opinion 👆

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Opinion 👆.

Fact: punishments can be reversed, if the punished stays alive. Any percentage of unjust executions is irredeemable. Also, there is a lot of evidence that abolishing the death penalty either does not affect the crime rate, or it has a positive effect (see link below).

More opinion: executions have no place in a society that highly values human rights because killing people is the exact opposite of humane. If you think prisoners are monsters and you could never end up in there, watch a documentary about it. If you see what some ppl went through, you know how easy anyone can end up there.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ACT50/015/2008/en/

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

That’s as silly a comment as “if you think Native Americans were wronged, give your house to one,” something else I’ve heard people say. Societal wrongs are not solved by individuals.

Somehow all the countries that don’t allow capital punishment find ways to deal with extremely violent people and don’t have murderers running amok.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-33 points

You know what else is cruel? People killing other people. And the former continuing to live despite their cruelty.

The only rub against execution to me is the risk of executing the innocent. But that is not the concern here. There is no dispute this guy is guilty.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

The only rub against execution to me is the risk of executing the innocent.

Right, so why is that not a total disqualifier then? Even if the risk is fleeting small, there is no taking it back. If it came out later on, dead is dead. Combining that with the fact that executions are obv a psychological cluster fuck for everyone who deals with it, especially the one executed, and the fact that it takes a lot of resources every trial because it’s such an unusually cruel punishment, the arguments for it are dwindling.

Also

You know what else is cruel? People killing other people.

Right but we’re not voting someone in office who can eliminate all homicides in the United States. Things are different for execution.

We could also talk about how this “well tough shit” opinion always fucks over positive and healthy change, but that’s probably the least impactful argument for the folks who still bank on executions as some sort of greater good.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Doesn’t ‘people killing other people’ include the state killing people? I don’t see how vengeance for a murder solves anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

You know what else is cruel? People killing other people.

Then why aren’t you advocating for executing those that execute killers? After all, they kill people. But I’m going to assume that you think those killers are okay.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Capital punishment is government sanctioned killing. Outside of war, the government should not have the power to kill anyone.

Let them rot in prison. It’s cheaper anyway.

Abolish capital punishment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’m against the death penalty but if I ever murder a load of people then I’d like to be able able to freely choose death by nitrogen over a life in prison

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

It’s human medical experimentation as a punishment that’s cruel and unusual.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

It’s not experimentation. People have already died, even accidentally, from inert gas asphyxiation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If we didn’t study it for this purpose in human subjects before him, it’s experimentation. Reproducing something that has occurred organically in a new context is absolutely experimentation. I don’t know how I can make this simpler.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’d take a firing squad or an enormous hydraulic press tbh. If I were to be an innocent stuck with a death penalty I’d be happy to know somebody will have to clean up a messy pile of guts after my quick death.

The whole point of using gas or chemicals for the death isnt to make the punishment humane - the death penalty is not humane in any way - its to make it easier on the people doing the killing. No mess, no fuss.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Citation needed

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Is there a citation on the necessity of citations? Surely someone in the academic world has written such a work, if not several.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It’s even better than that. Hypoxia causes feelings of euphoria! You get high, pass out, and die. It’s the best way to go, IMO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Of all the gases why Nitrogen? Argon is more commonly used for kill bags, I think.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

Atmospheric prevalence?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Pretty sure argon is one of the most expensive gasses to harvest/mine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Argon is the third-most abundant gas in Earth’s atmosphere, at 0.934%.

Argon is used in welding and costs slightly more than oxygen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

Because nitrogen is already the dominant gas in breathable air. Because it is plentiful and readily available. Because lungs don’t detect it as anything different than regular air. It has no side effects and no toxicity. It isn’t the nitrogen that kills, it’s the lack of oxygen. What humans detect when suffocating is excess carbon dioxide, so as long as that’a removed from the nitrogen enviroment, people will just blissfully slip into unconsciousness and then experience brain death from oxygen deprivation - while in a euphoric state the entire time it happens.

The article title is sensationalist clickbait at best, and outright disinformation at worst.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Idk I looked it up (the claim that vets don’t use it) and what I read was that it can cause feelings of suffocation. The vet claim here was a little challenging for since I doubt that pets would like a mask on their face regardless of what is coming out of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

and what I read was that it can cause feelings of suffocation

That is contrary to everything I have found (including veterinary use for euthanasia).

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

It’s not much of a guinea pig if you’re just asphyxiating him, its pretty understood how that kills people. By the logic of calling him a guinea pig does that mean anytime anything is done to someone for the first time they’re a guinea pig?

permalink
report
reply
2 points

There are lots of ways to asphyxiate someone, and not all of them are fast and easy. And yes, guinea pigs having been used in lab experiments, that’s exactly the logic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I understand the logic of it, I’m criticizing it for being sensationalist.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 451K

    Comments