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.
I believe the death penalty is morally wrong in any and all circumstances. But if the state botches their murder attempt, they shouldn’t get a second try.
Something about jabbing someone with needles for an hour trying to kill them, failing, and being like “WELP LET’S KILL YA ANOTHER DAY”
…sounds a little, hmm. Cruel? Unusual maybe?
I agree, there’s no world in which I can make the death penalty make coherent moral sense to me.
This article exemplified that perfectly with the interview snippets near the end. The guy mentioned that he’s been receiving PTSD therapy since the first botched attempt, and I thought “what’s the point in spending the effort and money treating his trauma when they’re still so set on killing him?”. To be clear, I don’t believe that one bit, which is why it was such a jarring thought. I legitimately cannot understand why someone who was pro death penalty would care about this guy’s wellbeing when they clearly don’t.
I’ve heard nitrogen gas is perhaps the most humane method (though I oppose capital punishment). The feeling of asphyxiation comes from rising CO2 in the brainstem. If he can continue expelling the CO2 you won’t feel anything except as you go hypoxic you’ll become more dazed and confused until you simply pass out.
Then again I’ve always wondered why we don’t just put these people under anesthesia and then overdose on morphine.
That one’s in part because cruelty is by design I imagine, but also because the people giving those injections aren’t medical professionals and can’t legally obtain those substances. Guess that also explains how they can fuck up finding veins this bad. From what I’ve read and heard (In Last Week Tonight among others, I believe) they basically just use toxic crap that chemically burns the inmate from the inside and makes them asphyxiate while conscious. And of course they turn out to be undeserving of an execution around 5% of the time.
Wait, seriously? They aren’t even medical professionals administering the substances…?
Guess that would kind of go against the Hippocratic Oath.
I would rather the accused be given their choice of method, like was done in this case, than to make arbitrary decisions on what one thinks causes the most suffering. Granted I to am anti death penalty. I don’t see any benefit to it. I am for individual decided euthanasia.
Hell yeah, I’d choose gladiatorial combat.
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
deleted by creator
Was that an episode of Hardcore History?
That absolutely was #61 - Painfotainment.
deleted by creator
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
