Alabama wants to be the 1st state to execute a prisoner by making him breathe only nitrogen

MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 470 points –
Alabama wants to be the 1st state to execute a prisoner by making him breathe only nitrogen
abcnews.go.com

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.

281

You are viewing a single comment

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.

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

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.)

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/76th2011/ExhibitDocument/OpenExhibitDocument?exhibitId=17686&fileDownloadName=h041211ab501_pescetta.pdf

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.

you're absolutely not past the point to discuss morals wtf?

you think just because people are executed the methods don't matter?

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.