Alabama Killed an Inmate With an Experimental Execution Method. Ohio Could Be Next.
Following the nitrogen hypoxia execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith last week, Ohio lawmakers introduced a bill to bring the execution method to their state.

After Alabama's grisly nitrogen hypoxia execution of inmate Kenneth Eugene Smith last week, it looks like another state may adopt the method in a bid to resume executing inmates after lethal injection drugs have become nearly impossible to obtain.
The bill, not yet named, was introduced in Ohio's House of Representatives on Tuesday, and state Attorney General Dave Yost has already given his support. It would allow inmates to choose between lethal injection and nitrogen hypoxia but would require nitrogen when lethal injection drugs aren't available.
The latter is the exact situation Ohio has found itself in during recent years. The state hasn't killed a death row inmate since 2018, and Republican Gov. Mike DeWine went so far in 2020 as to say that lethal injection was "impossible from a practical point of view today" due to difficulty finding drugs.
But death by nitrogen hypoxia still brings major concerns for inmate suffering. The method, which involves placing a tight-fitting mask over the inmate's face and slowly replacing oxygen with nitrogen, causing death by suffocation, is experimental. Smith, who was pronounced dead after about 15 minutes of being forced to breathe only nitrogen last Thursday, is believed to be the first person in the world executed in this way. While Alabama prison officials claimed that the execution went as planned, witnesses reported that Smith "struggled against his restraints" and "shook and writhed on a gurney."
The details of Smith's death haven't held back Ohio Republicans, who seem to view the execution method as a useful way to end the state's six-year execution moratorium.
"There must be accountability for offenders convicted of the most heinous crimes and prisoners who continue to flout the law behind bars," Yost said in a Tuesday press release. "The pursuit of justice is a journey, and closure remains elusive for victims' families until a sentence is fully executed. Ensuring that the consequences align with the severity of an offense is essential to providing solace to grieving relatives."
Rep. Brian Stewart (R–Ashville), who introduced the bill, echoed Yost's comments, arguing, "As long as capital punishment remains the law in Ohio, the law should be followed." Stewart added that "providing an additional method for carrying out capital punishments is necessary to ensure Ohio can continue to impose these sentences in response to the most heinous crimes committed in our state."
For opponents of the death penalty, many of whom have viewed the increasing difficulty of sourcing lethal injection drugs as a sign that the practice may be waning in the United States, the introduction of nitrogen hypoxia executions is troubling news. If states follow Alabama's lead and begin executing their death row inmates by suffocation rather than hard-to-source drugs, it's possible that executions could rise in the coming years.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
revocet guillotine
Nitrogen should be banned. Like HO2.
Now that everyone knows it's deadly, will we have to start buying nitrogen credits?
You wind up motivating the term "atmospheric nitrogen pollution" and we're going to have words... if we can afford the air to speak them.
Hydrogen SuperOxide?
At least they had trials. Joe Bideen tried to kill me with an experimental drug without even charging me with a crime.
What made it grisly though? I mean apart from the state taking a life, which I'm against. But I'm also against the strategy of denying executions by other means. Make the case to end executions and stop trying to ban methods.
Get over it! I don’t care how a state executes criminals as long as it is not unnecessarily cruel. Since a perfect method of killing someone is impossible, pick the most reasonable way and get on with it. The important question is, “Can any state be trusted to impose the death penalty correctly, ever?” I am opposed to totally ruling out executions altogether, but the question still remains whether the criminal justice system is too corrupt to allow them that power at this point in history. It is possible to construct a system that reliably prevents the execution of the wrong person as a result of prosecutor abuse and unscientific evidence. If that is ever achieved with an acceptable level of certainty then I will be more likely to support it.
Perfect execution to kill with is by killing them with kindness. Or something.
The rate of botched (unnecessarily cruel) executions is too high to be explained by accidents or incompetence, in my opinion. Why can't they just hire an anesthesiologist with Parkinson's?
You don't take that job if you haven't already tortured a few kittens to death and dream of torturing some people. The methods are designed for psychopaths to get off on.
That seems appropriate, since most of the executees are psychopaths.
Which ones?
Which is probably a good reason to favor the nitrogen method (if executions are going to happen anyway). Compared to lethal injections or electrocution there aren't many ways to fuck it up or deliberately inflict pain.
I’m sure little Emma has her pastors in a bunch over this. Not me. I agree.
As long as they’re guilty I don’t really care how they execute them. It isn’t complicated. A 12 gauge shotgun shell discharged point blank in the head does the job just fine.
Would it be concidered cruel if fauci got the death penalty by having his vocal chords severed then having horse flies eat his face alive? Asking for a begal friend of mine.
the method of execution is irrelevant.
The state should not have the power to take life, but if you are going to let it, they should take this guy's life. Not losing much sleep here to be honest.
Everyone has the power to take a life. If someone attacks you, you can, should, and should not be punished for, taking their life in self defense. If you should be allowed to kill someone under some circumstances, then any group of people up to and including a government agent should be allowed to kill someone under some circumstances. The question is, under what circumstances? and with what safeguards?
Never thought I'd see the day a commenter on a libertarian site would argue for State murder.
…resume executing inmates after lethal injection drugs have become nearly impossible to obtain.
What did you think was going to happen?
They literally do not care. It's the pure feels side of the argument from fucking Eloi.
If people looked past their own feels, they'd see that hundreds of people getting shanked to death, thousands more ODing and committing suicide, rapes, assaults... while being housed by the state is more of a (the same) "Let's all pretend our hands are clean together." type of situation rather than a "My hands are clean." situation.
Little Emma is clearly a soft headed idiot. Just perfect for the next generation of Reason writers. Eager to be a Koch compliant thrall.
But death by nitrogen hypoxia still brings major concerns for inmate suffering.
Fetch the comfy chair
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
grisly
I stopped reading right there. Put on your big girl panties if you're going to cover this, Emma.
I did a double take at that word. If death by nitrogen hypoxia is "grisly" then the word has lost all meaning. There could hardly exist a more medicalized and less painful way to remove a person from this world.
Personally, if we're going to go about removing people from existence, I'd rather it actually be brutal and grisly, so that no one ever becomes desensitized to how awful it is. It is not a medical procedure. No doctor should have anything to do with it. It is the forceful end to a person's life. The quicker, bloodier, and more hideous it is the better.
Personally, if we’re going to go about removing people from existence, I’d rather it actually be brutal and grisly, so that no one ever becomes desensitized to how awful it is. It is not a medical procedure. No doctor should have anything to do with it. It is the forceful end to a person’s life. The quicker, bloodier, and more hideous it is the better.
And not as a deterrent but as a statement of fact as well. If private citizens have the ability to do this, then The State, as a collection of private citizens, has the ability to do this; even if only through back channels and nods and hat tips. It's a terrible thing and it should only be done in response to terrible things. Things we all agree are terrible. So, when it comes time to ask the question "Would you kill someone to impose your law/legal will?" we're all crystal clear on exactly what we're talking about.
Fair point. From that perspective I'm even more supportive of executions being public and using more visually shocking methods. It SHOULD limit what crimes and which specific cases are eligible for a fatal sentence. It SHOULD also make the system more careful about the process. Perpetrators are not going to be as dissuaded by 20+ years of life in jail with multiple opportunities to avoid death or even gain freedom through lawfare versus a guillotine applied in a timely manner. Juries should be more careful knowing that their sentence will be carried out quickly and it won't look like putting down a baby for a nap.
It’s always better to argue from principles rather than semantics. If your principled opposition is that the state shouldn’t be killing anyone, then you’re equally offended by all deaths at the hands of the state.
But if your focus is entirely on the method, then it’s as if you’re conceding that there is a RIGHT way for the state to kill people, and encouraging them to find it. The reason nitrogen hypoxia is coming in is because there is too opposition to lethal injection as a methodology without addressing the underlying dispute. It’s fair to say electric chairs and hangings may be unnecessarily cruel, but you can’t use that cudgel on every method of execution.
If you're dishonest enough, and it looks like Emna is, then you can call anything "cruel". Muscle spasms or bowel evacuation of a completely anesthetized and unconscious person are cruel to these psychos for reasons having nothing to do with the inmate. It's why I tap out of anti-death penalty stories at 5-6 words, it's zero facts or arguments just pure emotional manipulation.
It is because the courts are not going to declare the death penalty unconstitutional, as capital punishment is explicitly provided for in the Constitution, so they are trying to nibble at the margins by attacking methods as "cruel and unusual". Trying to eleiminate the death penalty by convincing the public of all fifty states has proven to be too hard for their taste.
I agree. But it's worth noting that it isn't all that different from the approach taken by many pro-life/anti-abortion people (particularly before Roe was overturned) who support pretty much any law or legal interpretation that limits how and when people can get abortions.
I've read other coverage from similar hand-wringers and they all take the "witness" statements completely at face value, then spun them like it was more horrific than -- well killing anyone in any way. Buried deeply you see the statements are from people like the Reverend who is his "spiritual advisor", or taken slightly out of context to justify their pre-held arguments.
The dude held his breath as long as he could, and struggled. After a couple of deep breaths he lost consciousness and the rest went as you'd expect.
Nitrogen didn't cause him pain, his own fear and holding his breath for as long as possible caused him to struggle and fight. You can't stop people being afraid of punishment. He probably should have been afraid of punishment before he took the money and killed the pastor's wife, he might have made better decisions.
Not going to get into whether executions should be legal, I'm just saying that the anti-nitrogen side is the same as the anti-gas/injection/hanging/anything side in that they will literally never be satisfied by any method. They might as well just argue in good faith rather than this spurious bullshit.
He was faking it.
He fought for that method, and got it.
He expected the appeal on the method to get him out of it, and failed.
So he held his breath and faked the "struggle" just to cause this kind chaos.
I expect that was the case.
Either way, he quite literally got what he asked for.
I stopped reading right there. Put on your big girl panties if you’re going to cover this, Emma.
I logged in to say exactly this.
She isn’t a big girl. She’s some dumb little leftist twat.
This is not an experimental method.
We use it on pets. So they can die peacefully in the arms of those who loved them.
They don't struggle because they don't suffocate. There is no build up of CO2 in their bodies. They CAN'T suffocate.
But you go ahead and keep on lying to whoever is still fool enough to believe you.
Unfortunately, while pets are not aware of what is going to happen when the nitrogen takes effect and simply relax, humans are acutely aware of what is going on and will react to the process by physically struggling and mentally panicking. Consider the distress that witnesses observed when viewing condemned prisoners being gassed with cyanide gas.
When nitrogen hypoxia is used to euthanize pets the comforting caresses of the owner go a long way to mitigating the distress that the animal feels from having the apparatus attached and let us make clear, the animal, unlike a human, has no comprehension of impending death, merely the vague instinctual felling of a threat to its welfare. In veterinary use the pet is further calmed by use of a sedative administered before the procedure begins.
Obviously, no one was available to give loving comfort to this prisoner – only close family and fellow crims love a cold blooded murderer, but Alabama, for reasons known only to its officials, declined to administer any sedative to prepare him for his execution. Even willing participants in voluntary euthanasia have been known to panic near the end and these were people who had accepted this end.
That awareness is not more (or less) with this method than it is with any other. You think the guys being shot, hung, poison gassed, electrocuted . . . it didn't catch them unawares.
Lethal injection has the added issue of finding a suitable vein for the injection. You can't do that and you do cause some decent amount of pain.
I don't give a shit if they’re scared or not. They certainly didn’t give a shit about their victims. Let them be afraid.
Why are we coddling these pieces of shit?
humans are acutely aware of what is going on and will react to the process by physically struggling and mentally panicking
The vast majority of people who die from nitrogen asphyxiation do so either accidentally or voluntarily; they neither physically feel anything, nor do they struggle or panic.
What you describe is a choice the convicted man makes that is unrelated to the method of execution; it's no different from throwing a temper tantrum and/or starting a fist fight on the way to the execution chamber and getting hurt.
Here's a question. Would it be more or less humane not to let them know when they are to be executed and just do it without warning? That would be pretty easy to do with N2 and a sealed cell.
Reminds me of a joke/logic puzzle.
A judge who thinks he's pretty clever sentences a man to death. He tells the man that he will be executed sometime in the next week, by Friday at the latest. He also promises that the day on which it occurs will be a surprise. The prisoner reasons that it can't happen on Friday since at that point it wouldn't be a surprise. And that by the same reasoning, it can't be Thursday either. The same reasoning eventually convinces him that he won't be executed at all and he sleeps soundly that night. The next morning he is entirely surprised when he is taken from his cell and executed.
Consider the distress that that the bastards victim experienced when he was killing them cruelly and without remorse.
That is the ONLY distress that matters.
I think the 8th amendment says otherwise.
Any ideas, fellow Reasonoids?
I suggest Will.i.am.not.
Are song titles reserved for Bureaucratic operations like Crossfire Hurricane or can they be used for anything?
Either way, I nominate Love Is Like Oxygen by Sweet. The Love Is Like Oxygen Act.
According to the authorities, fentanyl is hugely deadly, shouldn't be that hard to round up enough to knock off some death row recipients. Hypoxia, fentanyl, firing squad, guillotine, stout rope, whatever gets the job done. If you've exhausted all your appeals and you're still on death row, you're likely guilty. Your peers decided you were bad enough to get the darkness, so you get the darkness. The methods are pretty well established, get it done. I agree with an earlier commenter, that if your philosophically opposed to the death penalty, make your case and convince the public. Challenging methods is silly. I personally have little sympathy for the majority on death row who in my view earned the opportunity to be there. No system mankind invents will be perfect, and you can debate the morality based upon that view, but until that prevails, just get it done by the most convenient, humane method available and empty those cells. You should easily be able to knock out 5 or 6 executions in a shift with proper training and motivation. We're not executing model citizens. Without quick and sure justice, the deterrent effect is less, in my view. If someone murders/mutilates/etc. people without a damn good reason that everyone agrees on, put them down. The next asshole might be convinced to avoid the same eventuality and choose not to kill someone.
I agree with an earlier commenter, that if your philosophically opposed to the death penalty, make your case and convince the public.
Disagree. We are where we are because people have made the case and the only way they could win is through dishonesty. Nobody killing anybody is saying the system is perfect and shouldn’t be reformed. The people saying we shouldn’t kill anybody largely rely on broad suppositions that the system, from taxation to trial to imprisonment is flawless to the point of zero wrongful deaths and wrongful imprisonment, minimal taxation, minimal/no grift… except the relatively fewer wrongful executions among the few executions performed (which they also oppose).
To wit: I understand and don't disagree with Liz' sentiment that people shouldn't die at the border trying to enter our country, but overturning immigration law doesn't prevent people from dying.
I have re-read your reply, about three times now, and I still don’t get your point? “We are where we are because people have made the case and the only way they could win is through dishonesty.” Lying about suffering during death from N2 exposure? Are you arguing that it’s “painless” or humane? Or it’s detractors are arguing it isn't? Are you arguing that the system is so corrupt that everyone on death row is probably not worthy of the punishment assigned? On about taxes and grift, etc. ?? Help me out here, can you restate your position in words a third grader can comprehend? I’m not sure what your trying to tell me.
I still don’t get your point?
Don't worry about it. I can rarely understand what he's trying to say.
Death penalty lawyers tend to offer kitchen sink defenses alleging any possible discrepancy to drag out the execution process. This is why we have such perverse results as Thomas Creech, who has been on death row in Idaho for over 40 years now. Coincidentally, Creech murdered my uncle prior to his arrest and conviction.
I see zero reason to keep this murdering piece of shit alive. He should have been out down decades ago. And if it hurt a little on the way out, tough shit for him.
Long live the death penalty.
make your case and convince the public
Stop making the case and trying to convince people that murderers shouldn't be killed by the state or other broadly as policy. It's the same "logical" case that everyone should eat vegan or bike to work to save the planet or take communion on Sunday to save our souls. Make a better argument.
I'm not here to serve your desire to save irredeemable men's souls. If you've redeemed all the others, returned all my tax money saved by their redemption and release, and can demonstrate the betterment of humanity because of it and you need 10 bucks from me to keep the John Wayne Gacys and Kenneth Eugene Smiths locked up for life, then maybe we can talk. Until then, I'm being charged thousands and we kill more people in military action, via criminal apprehension, and extrajudicially via violence within the penal system by a couple orders of magnitude and your arguments in defense of your immaculate conception of The State against it sullying itself by executing the worst humanity has to offer rings hollow.
Otherwise, stick with the (relatively status quo) case that governments should be killing fewer people regardless of the source, with these being among the absolute most justified and offering among the least ROI in terms of unjustified State executions, and nobody *needs* to go vegan, but pretty much everybody could stand more veggies and fiber.
Fact: 35,000 people die from traffic accidents every year.
Insane Socialist Activist: Ban cars!
Normie: WTF is wrong with you?
Fact: The State executes ~30 people every year. Statistically speaking, one every few years is innocent.
Insane Social Activist: Ban capital punishment!
Normie: Wait, you just gave one probable accident every couple years the same weight as 35,000 accidents every year and/or backhandedly asserted that a considerable portion of the 35,000 people who were in traffic accidents were approximate peers with violent criminals and mass murderers. Again I say, now redundantly, WTF is wrong with you? You don't actually care about lives or morality or freedom. You only care about telling other people what to do in order to assuage your own, obviously flawed, sense of moral righteousness.
This doesn't even get into the upcycling of "Ban life sentences!" and "Ban misdemeanor shoplifting!" and "Ban conviction for mostly peacefully protesting buildings to the ground with people inside."
One group's will to power is not a convincing or beautiful argument.
The people saying we shouldn’t kill anybody largely rely on broad suppositions that the system, from taxation to trial to imprisonment is flawless to the point of zero wrongful deaths and wrongful imprisonment, minimal taxation, minimal/no grift… except the relatively fewer wrongful executions among the few executions performed (which they also oppose).
That's absurd and based on so many flawed assumptions that I don't even know where to start. But I'll start with: who the fuck is "we"? The government isn't us and we are not the government. I'm pretty sure you don't buy the idiotic platitude of "government is the things we do together". Government is a group of individuals who are individually morally responsible for their own actions. The argument against the death penalty is that the government shouldn't kill anyone as punishment for a crime. That doesn't mean that anyone, including agents of the state, is not still able to kill in self defense or defense of others.
But I’ll start with: who the fuck is “we”?
The People. Do you reside in AL or OH? Why shouldn't this be every inch the federated decision that abortion is and more? Right? You are not "we", you are absolved of the moral proclivities you feel for our actions as individuals, you are free to go about your business and stop bugging us.
The argument against the death penalty is that the government shouldn’t kill anyone as punishment for a crime.
Is that what the NAP says? No group of people can execute anyone as punishment for a crime? My copy doesn't clearly stipulate the 5 Ws of post-aggression, just that libertarians shouldn't initiate. But, per your own premises, we've jumped ahead of ourselves assuming "our" version of the NAP and "our" government. I pretty well can say that, libertarian-abiding communists, collectivists, and moralists, the pro-execution side has rather consistently abided the anti-execution side to the point where completely frivolous arguments are being made even as widely recognized by people who share your opinion. As above, you are free to not execute people and are even allowed pretty great leeway to insist others foot the bill to assuage your moral perceptions that they may not share. In direct violation of "your" other libertarian axioms and precepts. Safe, legal, and rare has been met in spades, unspoken, where in other places, as openly spoken and agreed it has been widely abrogated.
That doesn’t mean that anyone, including agents of the state, is not still able to kill in self defense or defense of others.
As indicated in my post, this is not the sum total of the argument even by "your" own standards. If the state executes no one, but jails twice as many, doubling the number of extrajudicial killings among the prison population, which are already an order of magnitude higher than executions, is that an acceptable or ideal outcome by your standards? Even if they manage to keep the extrajudicial killings where they are by spending 10X the amount of taxpayer dollars is that acceptable by your standards? Are accidental executions an order of magnitude or more immoral than collateral damage? Or is are all accidental deaths approximately the same and executions are some of the most guarded against accidents we perform?
So, either executions and especially false executions are some exceptionally heinous moral abomination that besmirches all of "our" souls, whether we were involved or not, or the whole system is flawed and leaking accidental kills like a leaky sieve and it's really a rather simple optimization problem in terms of costs expended for safety achieved/accidents reduced and rather than see it as such and prevent the maximal number of accidental deaths possible, you insist on patching this one hole, which is possibly the most patched hole we've got and isn't exceedingly leaky, to the detriment of the other comparatively massive leaks.
I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. You don't want the good to be the opponent of the greater or lesser evil, but of the perfect.
you’re likely guilty
...unless you're not.
.
The pain and panic isn’t caused by either oxygen deprivation or by nitrogen. It’s caused by the CO2 buildup in the mask.
Years before the Aqualung, people used a device called a re-breather. It worked by absorbing the CO2 from exhalations and allowing the user to re-breath his air. The danger came because the wearer of the re-breather felt little distress as the oxygen ran out and only nitrogen was left. Modern re-breathers add small amount of oxygen to the exhaled air before it is re-inhaled.
Halon fire extinguishers were used in areas with expensive computers. The danger was if the halon gas was accidentally released replacing the normal atmosphere in the room, people would drop dead before they realized something was wrong.
If they want a relatively humane way to execute prisoners, a gas chamber utilizing a halon gas would probably do the job. Unfortunately, these gases supposedly can cause ozone holes and have been banned for use as fire extinguishers. No sense in a humane execution method if the environment is “endangered”.
By the way, I am opposed to the death penalty in general.
The pain and panic are also caused by the sense of impending death that the prisoner knows is coming as soon as the mask is strapped on. In fact, he knew it as soon as he was brought from his cell. As I noted in a previous comment "Unfortunately, while pets are not aware of what is going to happen when the nitrogen takes effect and simply relax, humans are acutely aware of what is going on and will react to the process by physically struggling and mentally panicking."
Oh, and by the way, I too am opposed to the death penalty in principle. While I subscribe to the view that killing a person who is attempting to kill you is self-defense and therefore legitimate, I do not believe that the state killing a captured and convicted murderer sends a legitimate message that "killing is wrong."
sends a legitimate message that “killing is wrong.”
Sending that message is not the purpose. The purpose is retribution.
I can’t think of a single reason to keep most of these people alive.
I'm sorry, but I disagree that "the purpose is retribution".
My understanding of the justice system is that it is to remove offenders from the general population so they can't cause any more harm and to deter people from committing offenses against other people, not to cause pain and suffering to satisfy an atavistic desire for revenge.
not to cause pain and suffering to satisfy an atavistic desire for revenge
There is nothing "atavistic" about a desire for revenge; such desires are a basic part of human behavior and human morality.
You are wrong. More precisely, your understanding is incomplete. There are five generally accepted "objectives of a criminal judicial system":
1. Retribution
2. Deterrence
3. Rehabilitation
4. Incapacitation
5. Restoration.
Your preference for 4 and 2 (incapacitation and deterrence) does not invalidate the other three.
Retribution by the state is foundational to acceptance of the justice system. The deal is: in order to have a more orderly and peaceful society, citizens agree to refrain from taking revenge against those who have harmed them or their loved ones. In exchange for this forbearance, the state agrees to assume the duty of retribution, after a fair and just process to prove the guilt of the accused. The public accepts that not all offenders will be punished due to lack of proof of their guilt as the price to pay for a more peaceful society without private revenge and blood feuds. If the state does not deal with convicts in a way that adequately satisfies the victims' need for retribution, then this contract is broken and the justice system will not enjoy wide public acceptance, leading to a more disorderly and violent society.
If the mask is like any other respitory mask, it has a one-way valve to allow exhalation overpressure to go out. There's no build up of CO2 possible.
The struggle was, according to the witnesses, in the begining where the victim tried to hold their breath. *That* is the cause of the discomfort and they would have gone unconscious within less than 2 minutes (and probably around 1 minute). The rest of the 15 minutes was to ensure death was complete.
If they want a relatively humane way to execute prisoners, a gas chamber utilizing a halon gas would probably do the job.
Is this your engineering training talking? Why use as close to the lethal amount of gas as necessary employing at technology that, by your own telling, has been effectively killing people without them knowing it for over 80 yrs. when we could phenomenally complicate the issue, make it take way longer, and potentially kill more people on accident by building a whole room and using way more gas than necessary?
Lemme guess, just bolt on a couple extra O2 meters and everything’ll be fine, right? Engineering!
The easy way would be to use a hyperbaric chamber and simply increase the pressure to about 5 atmospheres before dialing down the oxygen. That way they’d first get nitrogen narcosis which would reduce the ability to think clearly which in turn would likely reduce any tendency to act out, struggle against restraints, writhe, or shake. They might get euphoric, giddy, or dizzy but keeping them warm should eliminate most all anxiety or terror which typically only happens on deep cold water dives when people aren’t suited up properly.
Why do we need to go through all that?
No, the easy way would be bullets, strangulation, drop from height, smash skull with a sledge, etc. Any of these could be preceded by general anesthesia if you insist on not causing pain. Doing things the hard ways has been made necessary by the disingenuous objections of those opposed to the death penalty by any means.
Not experimental. Not grisly. Not even painful. We have extensive evidence on this topic from the history of industrial accidents (mostly maintenance worker entering nitrogen filled rooms without knowing it). The mammalian suffocation reflex is caused by the build-up of CO2. Your body has no mechanism at all to recognize that the O2 level is too low. You simply pass out.
Unless, of course, you want to hold your breath and struggle wildly before you've even inhaled the first whiff of N2.
I oppose the death penalty because I don't trust government to administer it fairly. But if you're going to have a death penalty, this is about the most painless method of execution imaginable.
“Unless, of course, you want to hold your breath and struggle wildly before you’ve even inhaled the first whiff of N2.”
But that is exactly what a human is going to do when he is strapped down to a gurney and has a mask that he knows is going to administer an asphyxiating agent.
The least the state could have done was administer a sedative sufficient to make the prisoner comfortable (something that vets do when euthanizing dumb animals by the same method) and indifferent to his fate.
Dude stabbed a woman to death. Did he give the victim a sedative? Fuck him.
Jeez, I'm not sure where sentences subjecting the convicted offender to the same suffering as his victim might lead.
I'm not sure that's a world that any of us would like.
Sign me up.
The murderer wasn't subjected to any suffering during his execution. He was given the option of leaving this world completely painlessly and peacefully. He chose instead to throw a temper tantrum one last time and hurt himself (briefly).
There was a science fiction story years back where that was the precise case. Murder someone by shooting and a marksman (properly dressed in protective gear to avoid the danger of ricochets) would shoot the condemned in the same spots in the same order.
It was fiction but as a thought experiment, it did not lead to anything especially bad. The broader societal outcomes were generally positive. Certainly no worse than when executions were holiday-like events that you brought your family and a picnic lunch to (which was the case not very long ago in our own history). Years later, I started to wonder about the impact of such a protocol on the executioners but that also is not a novel problem.
the impact of such a protocol on the executioners
The maximum security prisons are full of psychopaths who would suffer no ill effects from serving in that capacity and could be relied on to volunteer.
Which is no different from the human going to be executed by any method. All your proposed protocol is going to do is to move the anxiety and thrashing back from the actual execution to the administration of the sedative.
All your proposed protocol is going to do is to move the anxiety and thrashing back from the actual execution to the administration of the sedative.
And this is shaggy dog/tar baby/salami tactics idiocy. We're executing him via nitrogen because his veins collapsed previously.
Gotta love the anti-death penalty idiots that, knowingly or not, engage in and demonstrate a background level of bad faith/distrust of humanity that makes sympathy for murderers seem even more misplaced.
But that is exactly what a human is going to do when he is strapped down to a gurney and has a mask that he knows is going to administer an asphyxiating agent.
Plenty of humans inhale pure nitrogen voluntarily. He understood the process, he made his choice and he (briefly) suffered the (minor) consequences.
The least the state could have done was administer a sedative sufficient to make the prisoner comfortable (something that vets do when euthanizing dumb animals by the same method) and indifferent to his fate.
This is a man being executed for murder, not a dumb animal.
Dude held his breath. Obviously, he was trying to hook up other prisoners.
No, obviously, he was trying to survive. Most certainly a futile attempt but perfectly consistent with the natural survival instinct of humans. Could most certainly have been mitigated by administering a sedative beforehand, something that vets do when euthanizing animals by the same method.
Now that there is a new shiny way for the state to kill people - every state is going to want to kill at least one.
That's OK—there's a huge backlog.
I'll be glad for my tax dollars to go for that.
Better that than providing housing, food, medical care, and legal fees all at the elevated expense of the taxpayers for decades.
I'd rather see every undisputed egregious murderer take a bullet tomorrow so we as a society can be done with them. I believe there are individuals and violations so irredeemable that stiffing the public with supporting that person for life is immoral.
I think libertarians being against the death penalty often ignores the initial violation of the NAP and denies the right to defense and equivalent retaliatory force.
A man who tortures someone to death does not deserve 30 years more life than him victim. He doesn't deserve a "humane" death years down the line. He deserves the same pain and suffering his victim experienced and he deserves it immediately upon completion of the act.
In my opinion, the question isn't about the morality of dp but about properly identifying the acts deserving of it and putting safeguards against improper convictions. Our current system is bad at being fair and rational while typically failing to deliver due justice
Good. Plenty of scumbags that need to die.
>Alabama Killed an Inmate With an Experimental Execution Method.
1. Camp, why do you call it 'experimental'? Do you call a firing squad 'experimental' too - because where're the studies and FDA approval showing its efficacy and safety?
2. Its not experimental. We know hypoxia kills. We know nitrogen is an inert gas. We know that you need oxygen to survive. Replace air with nitrogen - no oxygen, you won't survive. We know this already because of centuries of people dying of hypoxia.
3. You want to make an argument against the death penalty - make that argument. Don't muddy the waters with hyperbole about a specific method - one that is known to be quick and painless. So quick and painless people will fall unconscious without ever knowing they were in danger.
> causing death by suffocation,
No, the cause of death is 'asphyxia'. If you're going to pose a medical argument against lethal injection, get your technical terms correct.
But you don't want to do that do you? Because if you say 'asphyxia' then the game's up, isn't it? You want to use 'suffocates' to evoke 'smothering', which isn't what happens here.
You also keep repeating 'tight fitting' - again, to invoke some discomfort a person might have from a mask jammed onto their face. But its just a respitory mask held on by a couple straps to keep the victim from shaking it off. Its held on like on oxygen mask.
Little Emma is an idiot.
If only she was just stupid. She's a malicious leftist activist making a point dishonestly because she knows the facts are not on her side.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suffocate
"Suffocation" is a completely accurate way to describe killing a person by replacing oxygen with nitrogen.
You just hate it when your preferred policy is described *accurately* and it makes you wince, doesn't it?
While “suffocation” is colloquially sometimes used for “asphyxiation”, the term “suffocation” suggests physical obstruction and difficulty breathing, causing suffering. It is therefore not a “completely accurate way” of describing nitrogen asphyxiation since it deliberately misleads people; it is an instance of equivocation.
The term “asphyxiation” is the correct term, since there is no physical obstruction, no difficulty breathing, and no suffering. Using the term “suffocation” is a deliberate attempt to mislead people.
I'd only push back to the extent that the average person doesn't know the difference. Most people will say someone was electrocuted when they mean someone was shocked.
I'm not sure when it comes to Emma whether the terminology is emotional manipulation or her genuine ignorance. As dishonest as she is, she also seems stupid and clumsily advocates her positions.
Jeffy doesn't understand that dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive. That's why he's always quoting them as some kind of final authority.
You also like to repeat the claims of witnesses who have specific interests in exagerating they severity of the event - the 'spiritual advisor to the deceased', some death penalty opponents - but you fail to repeat the claims of other people who said it was about as clean as you can get when it comes to murdering another human being.
If you don't think the death penalty is a deterrent here's the weird case of Dmitry Smirnov,
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/dead-woman-found-in/1924901/
Man Researched Death Penalty Before Killing Woman
The Illinois death penalty had recently been abolished,
Yeah, like "life in prison without parole" is a party.
https://youtu.be/slm_YDzx4vI?t=85
"You know if they only knew how much fun I was havin they'd turn me loose" - Richard Speck (murderer of 8 nurses).
If you don’t think the death penalty is a deterrent here’s the weird case of Dmitry Smirnov,
"Both sides" defense, the death penalty isn't generally a deterrent to other criminals. There are absolutely cases where people chose their crimes and jurisdictions carefully, but generally they're going to find a way that they think they can get away with it with or without the death penalty.
What the death penalty *is* a deterrent to is to the lax thinking of both frivolous "just ban [undesired ends]" without the thought that bans come at a cost and contain an implicit threat of violence and frivolous "just let [preferred person] off easy" as equality before the law is a lot more meaningful when we're talking about executing or jailing people for life for the same act relative to fining on person $100 and fining the next $0.
Well others have already said it better than I could so I'll just say this: I have always been opposed to capital punishment because I don't trust the state to be correct on anything let alone who we collectively kill. But. A firing squad or a guillotine is a quick and guaranteed resolution to the problem. All of this reinventing of the method doesn't change anything. Put capital punishment on the ballot and I'll vote no. Everything else is just a waste of time.
I go along with this logical argument.
I will add an additional objection to the death penalty on my part that as I noted in a previous comment, I do not believe that the state killing a captured and convicted murderer sends a legitimate message that “killing is wrong.”
Not always. But murder is.
re: "killing is wrong"
No, it's not. Sometimes it's wrong but lots of times it's not.
Thank god nobody told Elisjsha Dicken that killing is always wrong.
Only a tiny minority of nutcases think that "killing is wrong".
Most people believe that unlawful killing, or killing in violation of the NAP, is wrong. We call that murder.
That is certainly the Western and Christian view: "Thou shalt not murder."
Sounds like a lot of question begging. There is considerable disagreement among Western Christians on whether executions are morally justifiable killings and what killings ought to be legal.
Only complete pacifists believe that all killing is always wrong. And there are very few people who actually believe that. But the fact that almost everyone thinks that killing is sometimes justified does not make it obvious that state executions are justified. For example, I would say it's pretty reasonable to argue that killing is only justified when it is necessary to preserve life or limb. That's how self defense claims are judged.
You think that we should stop executing murderers because it does not send the message that "killing is wrong." Very well.
Do you also think that we should stop imprisoning kidnappers because that does not send the message that "grabbing people and holding them against their will is wrong?"
Do you also think that we should not impose financial penalties on thieves because that does not send the message that "taking people's money is wrong?"
There is a moral difference between crime and the punishment of crime, even if the action done (killing, imprisoning, seizing property) is the same.
One has to also consider the psychological trauma knowing that one will be murdered in a horrible fashion. It is not simply a matter of how fast it is done.
I seriously doubt that Alabama has enough nitrogen to kill the whole state of Ohio.
Thread winner.
prisoners who continue to flout the law behind bars
How *dare* those incarcerated prisoners "flout the law" by filing legal appeals! Only Trump is allowed to file whatever legal case he wants for whatever reason without reproach or criticism. But not prisoners. Oh no no no.
Asking for execution by nitrogen gas and then, when approved, arguing that it is cruel and unusual punishment is reasonably considered "flouting the law", in the sense of a frivolous legal argument. That's why the appeal was tossed out and the man was executed.
A truer headline:
"Alabama executes inmate with method of his own choice"
But at least it gives us Reason's new tagline:
Reason: Libertarians against the freedom of choice.
I love it that the people complaining about the argument against the method of execution is dishonest when they really oppose all executions, and the people who continue to insist that their concern about immigration is really really really just about "illegal immigration", have an overlap of near unity.
I don't know what you think your point is here, but it seems like a reach. You could do a bit more work in making it cohesive.
Yes, conservatives are pro-death penalty and anti-illegal-immigration. Conservatives also oppose increasing legal immigration beyond the current limits and want to see it more focused on skilled immigrants from non-hostile countries.
And progressives are anti-death-penalty and pro-mass-immigration-by-any-means-including-illegal.
What's your point? How is any of this either news or surprising?
But death by nitrogen hypoxia still brings major concerns for inmate suffering.
No, it doesn't. The method is quick and painless.
experimental
No, it is not experimental. Nitrogen asphyxiation has been widely used for suicides, assisted suicides, and euthanasia.
witnesses reported that Smith "struggled against his restraints" and "shook and writhed on a gurney"
Yes: he held his breath as long as he could. That was his choice and may have caused him discomfort. But that is not a problem with the execution method.
Pretending that there is any problem with nitrogen asphyxiation as a method of execution is a progressive fairy tale. We might call it "misinformation". Why are you spreading such nonsense?
Because she is dishonest, stupid, and emotionally invested in "don't kill the bad guy!"
Semiserious suggestion: Use nitrous oxide instead of nitrogen.
LOL! Stop it! You're killing me!
If you're going to execute people, stop pretending you're not a barbarian and go back to the gilotine and/or the firing squad. They are at least as (if not more) humane to the victim but don't hide the horror from the witnesses.
At the time it was introduced in the late 18th century, the guillotine was considered the humane, minimally painless, scientific method of execution for progressive Leftists, as opposed to hanging or beheading by axe or sword.
Even when I supported the Death Penalty, I always took issue with the fact that our execution methods are designed to spare the witnesses trauma rather than kill the convict as quickly and painlessly as possible.
We've known for a long time that shooting somebody in the back of the head has a VERY high rate of success at killing somebody quickly and with a minimum of suffering.
(My opposition to the Death Penalty is based due to my lack of faith in the government to not fuck up at any/all stage of the process, since our criminal justice system has a history of cops pinning crimes on innocent people, malicious prosecutions where the prosecutor KNEW the person he was prosecuting was likely innocent, the withholding of exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys, and botched executions).
This issue isn't how they do it. It's that they do it at all.
This is just outrage porn meant to tap into emotive reflex on the subject. (And never mind the cognitive dissonance when it comes to abortion or MAID or whatever.)
Wouldn't the true libertarian perspective be to privatize executions and allow execution providers to select their method of choice without government regulation or interference?
Most libertarians consider criminal justice to be one of the few legitimate government functions. You're thinking of an-caps.
It seems like it's not that hard to buy a rope in a hardware store, or a few rifles at the gun store. Hanging and firing squad still do the job, folks.
What kind of drivelis this article?
As others have said, nitrogen hypoxia is not suffocation.
And killing people or animals with nitrogen is not experimental at all.
If you’re going to kill someone, nitrogen is by far the least painful and most humane method.
Obviously, the author, Emma, is against the death penalty.
She should argue against the death penalty, rather than against this most humane method of administering the death penalty.
GOOD! Killing a prisoner, instead of forcing me to support him the rest of his life is the REAL libertarian position, Twinkie!
With so many people dying of Fentanyl over doses, why don't the authorities simply use opioids; put the guy to sleep and then finish him off with lethal doses of Fentanyl. Personally, I oppose the death penalty.
The problem is that the medical profession has a monopoly on drugs and procedures, and they refuse to cooperate.
I honestly don't care how they killed him. If he was guilty he got what he deserved. IN fact, I think we are too kind sometimes. Rope or a firing squard worked for centuries. Seems like we don't need to re-invent the wheel here. Dead is dead.