Alabama has already tried once to execute Kenneth Smith. On the evening of Nov. 17, 2022, Smith lay on a gurney as workers tried for an hour to insert needles into the veins of his hand, arms and collarbone so they could put him to death by lethal injection. Just before midnight, the execution was called off.
Surviving an execution is uncommon. Only one other prisoner alive today has done it — a death row prisoner from Alabama whom the state also failed to execute by lethal injection. But Smith’s case is even more unusual. When the state again tries to execute him, on Jan. 25, Alabama plans to use nitrogen gas. It will be the first time the gas has been used as an execution method in the U.S.
The method has come under scrutiny for safety and human rights reasons. NPR exclusively published a document that showed the Alabama Department of Corrections had required Smith’s spiritual adviser, the Rev. Dr. Jeff Hood, to sign a waiver acknowledging that the state believes he could be at risk of exposure to the gas. In January, the United Nations published a statement that declared U.N. experts were concerned the method could lead to grave suffering.
My issue with nitrogen gas isn’t the suffering, I’ve seen euthanasia advocates advocate for it and no evidence it’s painful. My issue is that it’s too easy to get. Executing people should be a real pain in the ass in every way. Governments should be frustrated that it’s still allowed. Nitrogen gas is abundant and scalable.
That’s not a real objection, though. I opposed the death penalty, but the ubiquity of the execution method has no relevance in the discussion of its morality.
This idea that we can practically eliminate the death penalty by making it really hard to execute someone is not only naive, it’s counterproductive. Execution advocates use the argument to justify their position. The Missouri AG is right now arguing to expedite the execution of a man who has exculpatory DNA evidence because it was so difficult to convict him the first time when the evidence pointed away from the defendant.
Execution advocates argue for less humane executions, where painkillers are not administered, because the proper drugs are difficult to acquire and administer. They advocate for a paralytic instead so that, whatever the person being killed feels, we don’t have to see the torment on their faces.
I’m undecided ultimately on the death penalty personally but I do think it’s advocates are a bit too keen on keeping the process as palatable for the living as possible. I say bring back the guillotine or the firing squad if the state is going to kill people according to laws that very clearly do not evenly apply
There is a fantastic podcast about public executions that I listened to years ago, which detailed how the public loved public executions no matter how violent or gruesome.
People would come from miles around, they would rent balconies above the execution site to get the best view and have parties while they watched someone suffer and die. Part of the reason public executions lasted as long as they did was governments being reluctant to take them away from the public.
I’m not sure that keeping it palatable is super important to the process. The real argument against execution is that we know for a fact that sometimes innocent people get convicted; to be ok with executing criminals you must be ok with the occasional innocent being killed, and I would argue that even a single innocent being killed by the state is too much to accept.
Was that an episode of Hardcore History?
That absolutely was #61 - Painfotainment.
It was indeed
Fun fact: they also did this for lynchings!
I hate to break it to you, but bullets are cheap, ubiquitous, and highly effective at causing death. The only difference is death by firing squad is less humane.
Bullets are cheap, but they chew through executioners and public will.
Don’t they have automated turrets for that yet? They’ve been in video games for decades!!
deleted by creator