Alabama is seeking to become the first state to execute a prisoner by making him breathe pure nitrogen
Alabama is seeking to become the first state to execute a prisoner by making him breathe pure nitrogen.
The Alabama attorney general’s office on Friday asked the state Supreme Court to set an execution date for death row inmate Kenneth Eugene Smith, 58. The court filing indicated Alabama plans to put him to death by nitrogen hypoxia, an execution method that is authorized in three states but has never been used.
Nitrogen hypoxia is caused by forcing the inmate to breathe only nitrogen, depriving them of oxygen and causing them to die. Nitrogen makes up 78% of the air inhaled by humans and is harmless when inhaled with oxygen. While proponents of the new method have theorized it would be painless, opponents have likened it to human experimentation.
Can someone enlighten me why it's so hard to find an execution method?
I mean, tens of thousands of teens manage to execute themselves with the content of an average bathroom. How can it be that hard to find a fitting method?
Especially if there are things like carbon monoxide poisoning which has been used by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to accidentally kill themselves without them even noticeing.
And if you want a method that's guaranteed to be painless, put someone's head into a large fires cutter and drop a 10 ton weight onto it from 50 meters height. In an instance, there's noting left that could feel weight.
Or ask Ocean Gate for advice. From what Youtube told me, submersible implosings happen within a few milliseconds and have so much speed and pressure that they effectively vaporize the people inside. Pretty sure that's rather painless.
First, no licensed medical personnel can participate since it violates the Hippocratic oath, so you have to design the protocol without any input from anyone who understands the human body well enough or any scientific studies because human experimentation designed to end a life is illegal. And then also carry it out without people who know how to find a vein, much less understanding what to do when things go wrong.
And if it requires drugs or complex equipment whose sole use is executions, very few companies are going to want that contract. It's not lucrative with no other uses, and you tarnish your reputation and possibly lose more lucrative contracts in less conservative states.
There are very few methods that are effective and painless for everyone and not messy since you want people to watch, including the victims' friends and families. That way you can justify the act, pretend that you're using it as a crime deterrent, and fewer people are likely to feel sorry for the person and stop future executions. And it has to be cheap because one of the justifications is that life in prison is so costly.
Honestly, the best bet for painlessness, ease of execution, and simplicity of the equipment and maintenance is the guilotine. But it's messy and most people don't want to see a headless body fall to the ground. And it's hard to find workers to clean up after.
But, you don't have to. You just get a butcher who knows how to do a carbon monoxide execution on animals and apply the same thing to humans.
All you need is to pipe the exhaust of an old gasoline engine into a room and be done with it.
Costs nothing, doesn't require medical personell, not even medical equipment. There are tousands of people in the US who routinely do it and it's as cheap as can be. All you need is an old car or a scrap engine, a hose and some gasoline.
But I guess, since it was the favourite form of execution of the Nazis, it would probably be pretty on-the-nose about how terrible the act of state-sponsored murder is.
The issue is this may be considered "cruel and unusual" punishment, and that is what lethal injection was designed to avoid. However, there are all sorts of problems with lethal injection in practice. Nitrogen would effectively be a better lethal injection without the complications (drug inventory, dosing amounts, etc).
The issue here isn't killing people. It's doing so in a way the defense lawyer can't argue against to a judge.
Honestly, the best bet for painlessness, ease of execution, and simplicity of the equipment and maintenance is the guillotine.
I was thinking about a 50t weight. 10x10x10 cube of steel, put you into a socket, have you stand in the middle, drop. by the time your brain could register pain, everything would be a few mm thick layer of you-goo. It'd work every time, and you wouldn't have to worry about the eyes blinking after, or the body running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. No brain function would upset the executed.
If I had to be executed, something like that would be vastly preferable to dying via asphyxiation whether chemical induced or atmospheric deprivation...
Without going on a whole dissertation, there are a lot of aspects that have to be figured out for a government sanctioned execution to occur.
You could in theory just have an officer whip out a shotgun and bang, problem solved, much like you mentioned with suicide. But when it's sanctioned by the government you have to be very discerning with a lot of different details.
Why are we ending this person's life
Because we have deemed their actions excessively heinous and do not want them to drain further on society by being incarcerated
In ending their life should we be causing them pain?
Huge debate, but the main reason we use lethal injection or gas executions instead now is to end their life without pain or torture. Ideally a person would just be turned off like a light without them even noticing.
How can you be sure you got the right person
Big question, but we are talking execution
What if the execution fails or goes incorrectly, now we've maimed someone and caused undue suffering, which as a people we have decided we wouldn't do.
Exactly. That's why there are so many issues surrounding lethal injection chemicals and sources. How do you create these chemicals properly and precisely, without spending excess money or profiting off govt sanctioned murder.
Why not carbon monoxide?
Short answer, it's flammable and dangerous to the people performing the executions. That's why nitrogen is a decent possibility for something like this, it is inert, common, and can be acquired and vented away with little issue.
Because we have deemed their actions excessively heinous and do not want them to drain further on society by being incarcerated
No. It costs more to execute someone than keep them incarcerated for many many decades. We end people's lives because we have a justice boner and we imagine (incorrectly) that punishing people in this way will deter others from committing the same crimes.
The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.)
That's why I had the "and heinous actions" part. Life in prison is already a thing, we don't execute people who got life, as you said it's more expensive. But I suppose I could have better phrased it as "their actions were heinous enough that we don't believe they deserve to have the right to life within our society".
ie Justice Boner. Life in prison is already separating them from society. We just like the feeling of state mandated murdering of murderers.
It was so surprising to me when that serial baby killing nurse was in the news before her sentencing and headlines were speculating that she might get a rare life sentence (she did, she got 7 consecutive life sentences). But even through all that, the British people were commenting "I hope she gets the mental health help she needs while she's in there" in sharp contrast to what US people usually say about hoping people suffer/are tortured/murdered in prison. Americans were voicing more gruesome hopes for Elizabeth Holmes' prison stay than Brits did about Lucy Letby. We're a brutal society.
I am solidly against executions and quite aware of the moral dilemata.
I was just on about how easy it actually would be.
Why not carbon monoxide?
Short answer, it's flammable and dangerous to the people performing the executions. That's why nitrogen is a decent possibility for something like this, it is inert, common, and can be acquired and vented away with little issue.
Tbh, I don't think that's an issue. Carbon monoxide is used in slaughterhouses worldwide. You'd think if it's safe enough to handle for unskilled workers at industrial scale that a few highly paid executioners could use it without blowing up the complex.
Case in point: even the nazis managed to handle it at industrial scale 80 years ago. And their budget for an execution wasn't remotely as high as the US has.
I mean, it's probably not as sexy, because it directly shows how straight-up evil the practice of state-sponsored murder is (you know, using the same methods as literally the Nazis did), but then again, if you are a murder state, you are already past the point where you had a right to discuss ethics and morals.
Tbh, yes. If you like state-sponsored murder, there is no point not using a simple, foolproof, painless method that is executed tens of thousands of times per day (on animals), just because it's the method the Nazis preferred and thus makes you look a little bad.
Mudering people already makes them look bad, and their mess with all these botched executions just makes them look bad AND incompetent.
In ending their life should we be causing them pain?
Huge debate, but the main reason we use lethal injection or gas executions instead now is to end their life without pain or torture. Ideally a person would just be turned off like a light without them even noticing.
Interestingly enough, because of certain happenings, these methods are often poorly prepared by a layman after a quick google search and mostly made to look like a quick death, with the person often suffering even for half an hour.
We already have a solution. It's called a guillotine. After 4 seconds the person is all gone, but it's a messy death for any onlookers, so it's not used.
"tens of thousands" isnt even remotely close. A few hundred is more accurate. It's important to be realistic with these figures so people don't convince themselves it is normal to do.
I didn't specify a country and I didn't specify a time frame. But your estimate of "a few hundred" is a number that would fit for "number of teens that commit suicide in the EU or the US in a 1-2 week timeframe", and that was certainly not the definition I was going for.
Brushing the issue under the table and trying to hide it will not help those who struggle with suicidal tendencies. Feeling like you are the only one going through this does not help. If you struggle with suicidal thoughts, you are seriously not alone. For everyone who does commit suicide, there are hundreds who struggle with the topic but manage to get past it. Please get help, you are worth it.
Part of the reason might be because lethal injection requires substances that are mostly manufactured in the EU and the EU refuses to sell it to the USA because they don't want it to be used for killing people.