Alabama condemned for nitrogen gas execution: ‘They intended to torture him’
Alabama condemned for nitrogen gas execution: ‘They intended to torture him’
State’s ‘slow and agonizing’ execution of Kenneth Smith using an untested method labeled as cruel by experts and advocates
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/14097254
Smith’s execution by “nitrogen hypoxia” took around 22 minutes, according to media witnesses, who were led into a viewing room at the William C Holman correctional facility in Atmore shortly before 8 pm local time.
After the nitrogen gas began flowing, Smith convulsed on the gurney for several minutes. The state had previously said the nitrogen gas would cause Smith to lose consciousness in seconds and die within minutes, according to the Associated Press.
“I’ve been to four previous executions and I’ve never seen a condemned inmate thrash in the way that Kenneth Smith reacted to the nitrogen gas,” Lee Hedgepeth, a journalist who witnessed the execution, told the BBC’s Newsday programme.
You're viewing a single thread.
Why on earth is nitrogen being treated as worse than the gas chamber, electric chair, or lethal injection? All of those are way more painful, akin to torture. Nitrogen suffocation is literally the method that was selected for suicide pods because it doesn't involve any discomfort (aside from, obviously, the knowledge that you're going to die.)
It turns out there is discomfort involved when the mechanism for delivery doesn't account for the CO2 being exhaled. Nitrogen isn't the problem, but the way they did it was completely asinine.
So what you're saying is they didn't scrub the CO2 that he expelled and so he basically rebreathed that, triggering the brainstem signal of hypercapnia?
Wouldn't this be resolved by having a tube with a slight negative pressure (like reverse cpap) linked to his nose for exhalation while the nitrogen was pumped via the mouth upon inhalation?
That's what I'm gathering from the articles. And yes, there are several ways it might've been done without causing suffering.
The problem seems to be (based on all the articles I read leading up to this) that they were treating Nitrogen like a poison and they were afraid of all the ways Nitrogen might leak out, harming other folks such as the clergy attending him. It's hard to tell whether that stupidity came from the journalists, lawyer, or prison officials.
But basically you are right, there are ways this can be done far more humanely (if you absolutely must execute someone, which is an argument for another day), but this wasn't it.
Well, that would certainly make it torture then.
I mean, they're prison officials in Alabama. I wouldn't expect them to do anything at all in a humane or intelligent way.
Oh shit. Yeah, that's a real problem. And yeah, if that's true that's totally asinine; they eliminated the one obvious advantage that this method has over all others when it would have been trivial to make sure it was a non-issue.
Maybe deliberately inflicting suffering was a design goal they just couldn't let go of. 😥
Edit: After looking over some of the reasons people are saying he was suffering, I don't see much reason to think so or think CO2 was recirculating. I'm sure it was horrible knowing that he was going to die. I'm against the death penalty in general, and I think a lot of people are opposed to this just because it's horrible to execute someone however you do it. But I'm pretty convinced that there's no real reason to think he suffered physically while he was dying.
Well that explains why he lived so long. He was living off the air HR started with in his lungs and as he slowly used the oxygen he started with he suffocated over 20 minutes
Do you have a source for this? I want to know more about it and I wasn't able to find a place that was saying it.
Based on the manufacturer and the descriptions of the mask used, I believe this is the design: https://www.allegrosafety.com/product/half-mask-supplied-air-respirator/
The fact that it took him over 20 minutes to die indicates something was done incorrectly. He held his breath, which certainly contributed to his discomfort, but that can't account for 20 minutes. He had to have been rebreathing his own exhaled oxygen and/or the seal allowed for fresh oxygen to enter the mask.
I'm not aware of the exactly design being publicly available so people are speculating based on what is known - primary that it was botched and he was in agony for 20 minutes, and working backward from there to figure out what they must've done wrong to create that outcome. But I'm still looking.
I amended my top-level comment to ask for more information and indicate some uncertainty, because I've been hearing conflicting things about the basic facts of the execution. Most news sources are saying he was dead by 15 minutes in. And you seem to have modified "convulsing" and generally struggling against his straps for some number of minutes, which at least a few minutes' worth everyone's in agreement about, into "in agony for 20 minutes," which I have no idea how you would know that. Wouldn't it be possible that he's struggling because he's going to die, not because he's in pain?
Can you send me a source or two on your complete picture of how it happened including the 22 minutes?
I sent you a source for 22 minutes. I also appear to have been mis-quoting "agonal breathing" when I said "in agony." It was either an honest error or I read it that way in another article (which also might or might not have been misquoting agonal breathing).
I'll quote this section of that article:
"Smith, who was on a gurney, appeared conscious for “several minutes into the execution,” and “shook and writhed” for about two minutes after that, media witnesses said in a joint report.
That was followed by several minutes of deep breathing before his breath began slowing “until it was no longer perceptible for media witnesses,” the media witnesses said."
Two minutes of shaking and writing is quite a bit different than what other articles were saying. It's two minutes longer than I'd've expected for a painless death, but I'm not an expert.
Yeah, that all lines up with what I thought. I'm sure it's horrible knowing you're going to die as it's actually happening. But a few minutes of consciousness followed by convulsions and death, that sounds like what I'd expect from suffocating on nitrogen and I see no reason to think from that that in itself means it's painful.
The 22 minutes seems like it came from his "religious advisor" and doesn't line up with what other people said. Also, there's this:
Speaking at a news conference on Friday, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said that 43 more death row inmates have elected to die by nitrogen hypoxia. People incarcerated on death row are able to chose their preferred method from electrocution, lethal injection or nitrogen hypoxia.
I'm certainly not out to demonize it or present a false narrative, but it can be easy to get a bunch of things jumbled together when you're trying to put it all together. I appreciate you pushing for facts and getting me to re-read a bit closer.
I mean, I get it. I don't think we should be killing people either. I think that's the inherent horror that's making people look for reasons why this is wrong. But I think they're unintentionally opposing a method that's less painful, with the possible result of continuing the torture that we currently put people through when they're condemned to die.
Setting aside the national shame that capital punishment is, regardless of the method used, they strapped his face with a mask. He wasn't in a pod as nitrogen levels rose. He was force fed the gas with a mask that prevented him from "breathing" normally.
And even if he was in a pod where the nitrogen level rose, making his death as physically painless as possible (or so we believe), he still knows he is going to die. That's torture. It should not be legal.
I disagree that a painless execution is torture, even if I understand where you're coming from.
My objection to capital punishment isn't because I don't believe some people deserve death.
My objection is simply that innocent people are convicted all the time, but at least unjust incarceration is situation that can be reversed.
Psychological torture is still torture. Federal agents/Secret police/Military/etc. in many countries have been known to do all sorts of painless torture methods such as sleep deprivation and constant loud music. And then there are things like waterboarding, where it is almost certain that you won't die, but you will feel like you're drowning the entire time. It is torture even if you know you're going to live through the waterboarding.
Christopher Hitchens was waterboarded and wrote about how it was torture.
Torture does not have to be painful or even involve physical contact.
So if I'm sentenced to 20 years for first degree murder, is the fear and terror I feel over losing my freedom the state torturing me?
What about if my doctor's office refuses to give me my diagnosis over the phone on a Friday, and tells me I have to wait for an office appointment on Monday. Is that torture? Should I file a legal complaint or try to get charges pressed?
You're conflating internal agony and anticipatory fear, with actual externally applied methods of torture.
I understand what point you're trying to make, but words have meaning and if everything is torture, then how bad can torture really be?
None of those are knowing for certain you will die while it is happening.
If you redefine torture into any form of discomfort sure. But that is not what the word means.
"the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something."
So solitary is for sure torture. Normal prison shouldn't be but can for sure be in some cases. It's only slightly better than the corporeal punishments (lashes, stockade) of old in my opinion.
How would actually killing someone, with the person being killed being fully aware that it happens, as it happens. Not be "externally applied methods of torture"? Asphyxiation has been used as a method of torture for millennia.
You realize that my questions were rhetorical, right?
Re-read the comment chain, maybe you meant to reply to someone else?
No. I'm saying it's you who don't understand what torture means and your "rhetorical questions" are daft and completely unrelated to what anyone in the thread is saying.
Seeing as these all flow down from my original response, I'm pretty sure it's you who doesn't understand the context of the conversation.
Also, the torture in question wasn't the execution method. So again, I suggest you re-read the comment thread.
I'd argue that depending on the victim that 'any form' of discomfort could be considered torture. What should define torture isn't a 'commonly accepted idea of torture' but what the victim considers torture. Some people are quite fine with not having any company for example, but other people if they were socially isolated would consider this a torture, especially for a protracted period of time.
I wholeheartedly agree, no-one needs to be water-boarded to be tortured. There is a number of tortures which aren't publicly considered 'torture', such as isolation but when used for a long time should really be considered a torture. The other thing is that there are a number of things which are not considered by themselves as torture but when used in conjunction (together) are so heinous that they should be considered torture. For example, sleep deprivation AND isolation from friends/family AND physical assault.
The other thing to mention is that torture should be considered as something which is dependent on the victim. If an army corporal has their fingers cut off, then most people would say that is most definitely torture. It is most certainly abusive and wrong. But lets say, an ordinary person who isn't trained to resist torture is also tortured - for example, they are deprived from their rights to live as they usually do, love as they usually do, and act as they usually would - this is also torture. Just because no-one chopped fingers off doesn't mean that torture hasn't been committed.
Agreed, the death penalty is inherently cruel, no matter what the person has done. Especially if you make people wait for decades in a prison cell before the sentence is carried out
The decades are a function of the appeals processes; some mandatory, and others initiated by inmates.
I'm not sure fast tracking the process would be an improvement...
That's just more reason to not do it at all
According to this article: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/us/alabama-execution-nitrogen-what-we-know/index.html
They started at 7:53. 22 minutes later they closed the curtain. 10 minutes later they pronounced him dead. I'm thinking that 22 minutes is the source of the 20+ minute claim.
People also don't consider the people carrying out the execution are individuals that flunked out of college and the military. As no actual person that knows what they are doing. This will be botched every time.
Because if people actually cared about painless ways just go back to beheadings.
"All of those are way more painful, akin to torture."
And you know know this because you've experienced all of them and come back to tell us about it?
Here's a summary of some results from cyanide gas executions.
Here's for the electric chair.
Here's a short overview of lethal injection, not as heavy on gory details. But in short, the problem is that a paralyzing agent is one of the elements injected, and reports from people who survived botched executions are that it was excruciatingly painful and they were simply unable to indicate any distress.
It's absurd to say that because I haven't personally been executed I can't learn anything about it or have an opinion on it.
I quoted you, and you spoke in an absolute which you can't know. Regardless if he was feeling pain or not, convulsing for several minutes is suspect.
I can read accounts from people who've observed the results of the methods, and in some cases from interviewing people who survived partial executions, and I spoke in the belief after reading those accounts that each individual method has strong indications that it's akin to torture. It might have sounded like my strong statement was just saying some bullshit but it's actually based on individually learning about each method, and concluding for each one that there's a strong indication that it's akin to torture.
You're free to feel differently, or to bring to the table some sort of reason why what I said was wrong, if you like.
In this case, I responded to a comment that said all other methods were akin to torture, as if this one is not.
This article specifically states that the guy convulsed for several minutes before dying, as well as pulling on the restraints. It's certainly possible he was completely unconscious during these convulsions and felt no pain. But it's also possible there was some severe suffering, we just don't know. The long convulsions are simply another data point that this might not be as humane as was thought.
I see no other information from any experts or other data saying the convulsions were simple reflexes and he was perfectly unconscious. We simply don't know, and I have to assume the possibility that there was pain.
Hypoxia without elevated CO2 in the blood is painless until the point of unconsciousness; that's been long-established based on countless different types of deadly and non-deadly situations people have found themselves in. It's actually part of what makes certain types of situations (e.g. low oxygen on an airplane) dangerous, is that it's hard to even know there's a problem until it's too late.
I can easily believe that the state fucked up the methodology of the execution so that the CO2 he was breathing out was recirculating into his gas mixture. If that happened, then yeah, they tortured him for no reason and that's fucked up. If that didn't happen, I'm pretty confident in saying that the execution was as painless as they could make it. Do you have a specific reason for thinking that might have happened?
I could be wrong, for sure; I'm open to counterarguments, but just throwing "well you can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt" shade at me in an attempt to say I'm not allowed to have an informed opinion on it is not a counterargument.
The most important data point here is the convulsions and pulling at the restraints. This points to the possibility of pain. I see no conclusive data saying he would be absolutely unconscious during this.
You admit to the possibility or even likelihood that they implemented the method wrong, resulting in a higher possibility of pain.
If it was implemented correctly you're "pretty confident" it was "as painless as they could make it". You're confidence and opinion is irrelevant here. You're certainly not an expert, and there's enough info to doubt how humane this is. If they ever implement it "correctly" maybe we'll get more data.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. The counterarguments are all there.
Personally I'm strongly against the death penalty as I hope is obvious. Even if actual experts say it was done perfectly, and there was absolutely no pain. Well that's certainly better but the convulsions are still gruesome and as others have pointed out the suffering can be the lead up to the execution. Also if future inmates are going to be executed similarly and are made aware of the convulsions they could be afraid of the possibility of pain regardless of what they hear from experts or people like you and your confidence.
You're confidence and opinion is irrelevant here.
Does this apply equally to you?
Are we allowed to make statements to one another based on our understanding? Or not?
What opinions am I providing? I'm simply Rejecting yours based on the data in the article.
You said "convulsing for several minutes is suspect" and "This points to the possibility of pain." Those are both affirmative statements I'd disagree with.
I've looked over enough data at this point that I'm pretty firm in my conclusions; my top-level comments reflect my sources and thinking on it. You're free to think whatever you like.
Just because you don't know shit about how executions work doesn't mean nobody else does.
You should volunteer to experience all these methods of execution until right before your heart gives out, then be resuscitated. After that you can come and inform us all on which is most humane. Then you will truly know "how executions work".
I'm sure you and your republican christian friends who support the death penalty would be happy to volunteer lol.
The fuck are you talking about?
All the common execution methods have been shown to fail often and result in great suffering for the person being executed. I don't need to experience them to know that.
I actually agree with you lol. So what the fuck are you talking about.
My entire argument is about Rejecting all the confidence these people have saying this is humane.
They managed to find a way to make it inhumane. That just goes to show that malicious people can fuck anything up if they really want to.
Still, if I were going to be killed and got to choose the method, nitrogen would be high on my list of options, as long as it's actually just nitrogen and not nitrogen with a side of CO2 poisoning.
I agree completely. I wouldn't trust our justice system to do it correctly though either, especially a state like Alabama.