Alabama intends to put a man to death with nitrogen gas this week unless stopped by the courts. It would be the first execution attempt with the method in the United States.
Alabama, unless stopped by the courts, intends to strap Kenneth Eugene Smith to a gurney Thursday and use a gas mask to replace breathable air with nitrogen, depriving him of oxygen, in the nation’s first execution attempt with the method.
The Alabama attorney general’s office told federal appeals court judges last week that nitrogen hypoxia is “the most painless and humane method of execution known to man.” But what exactly Smith, 58, will feel after the warden switches on the gas is unknown, some doctors and critics say.
“What effect the condemned person will feel from the nitrogen gas itself, no one knows,” Dr. Jeffrey Keller, president of the American College of Correctional Physicians, wrote in an email. “This has never been done before. It is an experimental procedure.”
Keller, who was not involved in developing the Alabama protocol, said the plan is to “eliminate all of the oxygen from the air” that Smith is breathing by replacing it with nitrogen.
I don't know why this is still a controversial concept. Just don't kill prisoners. Horrific crimes are not assuaged by more death. It's never worked in history and it doesn't work now.
It’s arguably controversial because the human brain has a cognitive bias toward vengeance. There are lot of really interesting psych studies on this topic. It feels right to take an eye for an eye, and we often try to justify that urge, even if we don’t benefit from it.
It’s pretty arbitrary, too. A guy in a town I lived in killed his wife with a knife in front of their kids, and was sentenced to 40 years. This guy helped kill someone, served 35 years, and they still want execute him on top of it.
We actually do know the effect of breathing nitrogen gas. It's a hell of a lot better than injecting someone with a drug cocktail. I don't agree with the death penalty but this is about as humane as the death penalty gets.
Exactly. They make it sound as if nobody ever got exposed to low oxygen atmospheres. Absurd. Just the stories of divers is so so much. You feel absolutely nothing and then it goes black. Real simple.
Do you know that your body behaves differently when voluntarily being underwater while holding your breath and being held underwater while holding your breath knowing the person isn't going to let you breath again?
The negative side effects of the latter kick in way before you start to run out of oxygen.
That's not how it works. Your body can't detect a lack of oxygen but only build up of CO2. If you replace the air you breath with pure Helium, N2, CO, etc. you will just painlessly black out and die.
The difference is that nitrogen is odorless and colorless and we breath it in constantly. You won't notice it, you'll just start panting, get loopy, then lose consciousness.
“What effect the condemned person will feel from the nitrogen gas itself, no one knows,” Dr. Jeffrey Keller, president of the American College of Correctional Physicians, wrote in an email. “This has never been done before. It is an experimental procedure.”
We do, in fact, know what a person feels from nitrogen suffocation, and we know because nitrogen suffocation happens accidentally with some degree of regularity from workers that don't follow proper safety protocols.
At first you feel out of breath, but you don't feel panic from it; it's like exhaling everything in your lungs, and then breathing in solely from a helium filled balloon (which I'm guessing most people have tried). You feel slightly high and light headed because the oxygen in your bloodstream is rapidly depleted; you are hypoxic. As you take a second and third breath, your vision tunnels, and you pass out. Your body has a mechanism to detect a dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide in your blood, but since you're expelling the CO2 with every breath out, and breathing nitrogen back in, that panic response doesn't get tripped.
Nitrogen suffocation has been a preferred choice for right-to-die advocates.
We can argue about how the death penalty is applied, and whether it should exist at all (I believe it should, but is almost always inappropriate), but there's no serious argument about whether nitrogen suffocation is a good or bad way to die. The people continuously fighting against this execution are fighting the method because they've lost all their other avenues to prevent the execution; attempting to call this process 'untested'--when it's been tested by a large number of people using it to end their own lives, and tested via industrial accidents--is the only option that they have left to prevent this execution.
Thank you, I've been wondering why we're suddenly seeing all this hub bub around nitrogen execution when it's 100% obviously a better method than the barbaric injected cocktail that regularly fails. Thought I was taking crazy pills.
I'm not pro death penalty, mostly because we suck at not convicting innocent people, but if we're going to execute someone this is probably the best way, and have thought this is how it should be done for a while. I'm not suicidal but if I was going to do it it would be with nitrogen.
You still have to take at least 3 breaths knowing you are killing yourself as you do so, and if you so choose can make the moment more awkward by holding your breath and struggling and/or screaming.
Surely the actual best way is completely instant and unavoidable like being crushed by a giant weight that moves faster than the human reaction speed and completely obliterates the body, or having your head exploded by a cannon ball or being completely instantly atomized by a massive explosion?
As someone who has been a bit too close to a leaky nitrogen tank, it just felt like I had stood up too quickly. There was nothing painful about the experience, and if I had been hit with a higher dose I imagine I would have been unconscious before feeling anything.
Don't get me wrong, capital punishment is bad, but this feels like one of the least bad ways to go.
thank you. the number of incorrect statements by people who just don't get the physiology in this article was driving me nuts. As long as no CO2 buildup happens, you have no feeling of air starvation. That's why certain types of re-breather accidents can get out of hand so quickly.
Nitrogen narcosis is caused by the high pressure exposure to nitrogen in the air divers breathe underwater. Its different to hypoxia, which is a lack of oxygen. It can cause a euphoria and can be dangerous if the diver loses focus and makes a mistake. The effects are completely reversed by ascending and have no long term effect.
IMHO, executions don’t make sense given the amount of innocent people that we keep finding on death row.
It makes even less sense given that we need to have a long expensive, and highly imperfect, appellate process to double check that we’re not killing innocent people.
Also, we don’t really have any good data to support the claim that the death penalty deters people from committing terrible crimes. People that are going to do something -that- bad are usually going to do it.
But in order to make that statement of values, are you willing to execute innocent people and to divert money away from other public programs that uphold other important values?
A way of saying some things are not games or forgivable
Whats the point of saying that if its not meant as a deterrent? Who are we telling this to? Is it all to show upstanding citizens that "look, we're the good guys, we're killing the bad guys!"?
Is that really worth peoples lives, especially with the chance that those people aren't actually bad guys?
That's why you lock them up forever. Unless of course later evidence vindicates them, since the justice system is imperfect and innocent people do occasionally get wrongly convicted. Y'know what totally prevents later vindication if someone was wrongly convicted?
Whether or not some crimes deserve the death penalty, so long as it's possible for innocent people to be convicted, the death penalty is morally unjustifiable.
We know exactly what happens when people experience nitrogen hypoxia. They get confused, then they lose consciousness, then die only if deprived of oxygen for quite some time.
We know because many people have experienced it and survived (because the oxygen was switched back on). I personally know someone who experienced this in a controlled test with the military.
Voluntarily having that happen is confusing at best.
Knowing it is going to happen is terrifying, because the person knows why they are slipping away.
Like the difference between choosing to be underwater and someone forcing you underwater. The latter is going to feel like drowning immediately because of anticipation.
Sure but that’s because of execution itself rather than the method of execution. This is physically painless even though obviously the emotional impact is bound to be intense.
The pain might not be there but the realisation is.
He's able to state that he doesn't want to die, but needs help putting the mask on.
It's a slow mental death, even if not a physically painful one, it's slow.
The humane way to kill someone is quick and painless. Not slow and painless. This is better than the injection which is slow and painful but still not humane.
Your video shows exactly how painless it is, and in fact how it can cause euphoria instead. Besides, this execution method is fundamentally different because it removes oxygen completely while maintaining normal pressure, causing unconsciousness to happen much faster with fewer physiological responses.
Obviously execution is heinous at its very core, but your criticisms don’t seem to line up with the scientific facts.
Fast and painless are not the only criteria. Looking at how america typically kills it's citizens it also clear that it has to look peaceful and respectful. Thats why they put a bag over people getting electrocuted and why they don't just fire a shotgun at your head from a close distance.
How can you reform someone who raped, tortured, killed and then raped again (while dead) more than 100 minors?
Put yourself in the position of a father who knows this guy raped his kid, then tortured him with mutilation, and then raped the corpse.
Imagine knowing that this person is in jail, probably getting decent food and watching TV... Probably jerking off to the memories of the mutilated body parts of your child... while you have to live knowing he is still there.
Revenge is not a good motive though. It doesn't bring those children back. Removing people like him from society while not forgetting our humanity is all we can do.
I get that there are horrible people out there. No doubt. But the first thing societies like the US (and Colombia in this case) should do is to reform society to produce fewer of these people.
Much of Europe seems to have found a good recipe. Remove the desperation, especially economic desperation. Create equality. Promote health and community and less selfishness and greed. Focus on rehabilitation and productivity instead of punishment and passivity in prison systems.
Unfortunately, a lot of American leaders and voters see revenge as justice, many in the name of Christianity. Not exactly the Christian way from where I'm sitting, but that's reality.
You lock em up and just leave them there. Current estimates put the faction of innocent death row inmates at about 2%. That's completely unacceptable. Is killing a bad person out of revenge worth innocent lives when you can just lock them up for life instead?
For most of human history we didn't have the option of keeping someone imprisoned for life, so killing evil people was really the only permanent solution. It's understandable that that desire would be engrained in us. But if we don't have to kill them, shouldn't we avoid doing so so that we don't get innocent people killed?
That is not how the law works. if the law worked based on how you would feel if you put yourself in the place of a person, you'd get "it would feel bad to be stolen from, but it would feel good to steal, therefore they are the same." If you could only place yourself in the place of the victim, no one would be innocent because it would feel bad, and thus they must be guilty. It's a ridiculous concept. What if I imagine myself as the father and I also imagine I don't care, should murder be legal?
He killed and raped x many people
So did the US army. Rape isn't punishable by death, for good reason. It's only added here as an appeal to emotion with no reflection on how it would impact legal process. Rape is very hard to prove, and also way more common than murder. Based on the average number of rape cases and the average length of a death penalty case you'd have half a million 20-year-long cases a year every year forever in the US alone.
Then when it comes to killing lots of people - obviously I'm not defending it, but lots of people kill lots of people. Tobacco manufacturers, car manufacturers, armies, secret services, the police, doctors when things go wrong - or even when things go right but the person can't be saved...
It's all well and good to look at one guy and say "this person should die," but the problem is the law has to be administered fairly and for everyone or there'll be no law, so when you look at 16,000 people per year every year, it looks very different .
While I abhor the death penalty, the science is pretty solid on nitrogen being more humane from a medical perspective. What gives someone the feeling of suffocation is excessive CO2, not the lack of oxygen.
It's actually a problem with closed-circuit rebreathers. If the CO2 scrubber keeps working but the Oxygen tank runs empty, the person on the rebreather will feel fine until they pass out.
The worst thing for the victim in the execution will be the psychological horror from wearing the mask and knowledge of what's happening. If they're goikg to do this, they should just change out the air in a sealed chamber while the victim sleeps.
The problem is that we don't have a good way to measure if something is humane. They observe, they see the victim not doing anything like thrashing about or screaming, they assume everything is okay.
But all that tells us is that the person is unable to show any suffering. Not that they're not suffering.
What we really need is to study where people get mostly suffocated by nitrogen, but then brought back, and ask them how it felt.
I think critics being negative, raising doubts and being vocal is important. Sure, they might not be the brightest or have a degree related to whatever they criticize but they raise concerns, give different points of view that experts could neglect and spark debate on such subjects. When it's something as touchy and final as a death penalty, I'm glad they're around.
The critics are by definition the people raising doubts though. It's a non-statement. The state should not be trusted with the power to kill people, but if you absolutely must have a death penalty, this is the way to do it.
I want to recap the long sequence of events that has led up to this point:
In the beginning of this narrative, every death penalty state was doing lethal injections with a three drug protocol.
Italy and maybe some other European nations start arresting pharmaceutical executives and charging them with murder, because their drugs are being used for these lethal injections in the United States.
Drug companies stop selling their drugs to state penitentiaries. States are not able to perform executions.
Death penalty states start amending their protocols to switch to different drugs and sometimes a single dose barbiturate protocol.
Those drugs become harder and harder to source. Pharma companies become completely unwilling to dispense the drugs at all. State legislatures start allowing corrections officials to change the protocol without amending state law, in an effort to keep up.
States resort to buying drugs from shady compounding pharmacies in secret. Having prison guards write dosage protocols turns out to have been a bad idea. Because, guess what, anesthesiologists are a highly compensated medical specialty, because what they do is highly complicated. So some exit l executions are botched, which delays things even more.
It's in this environment that this nitrogen idea migrates from internet boards into the state legislatures.
The big picture here is that if execution remains legal, but you take away all the options, death penalty states will go looking for alternative options.
It kills innocent people, and the appeal process that we put in place, to try our best not to kill innocent people, costs a shit load of money. Money we could spend on other things we desperately need. Oh, and studies show that it doesn’t deter people.
The only thing it really does is satiate our amygdala’s ancient bias for vengeance. Our biology tells us that it feels right, but the data shows that individuals and societies don’t really benefit from it.
The distraction is the point. By making the execution look less grotesque, they believe it will make it more palatable to their mouth-breathing constituents. They want the delusion of the condemned drifting off to sleep to slake their bloodlust without their pesky consciences feeling the guilt.
Er...I suspect that part of the point is that their previous method of execution was lethal injection, and there was a pretty well-documented shortage of the drugs for that. They got really expensive. I suspect that's around the point where someone looked into alternatives and came up with this.
I think you're probably right that the method seeming maybe more humane to some critics was part of the appeal of this particular method, but I think the main goal was probably cost reduction and ensuring that supply chain issues couldn't interrupt their murdering any more.
If it's pure nitrogen it's as painless as it can get. Make sure there is no O2 in there, get rid of exhaled CO2. Simple. But still, your country should think about death sentences in general. If you think nitrogen is too inhumane just shoot them im the head with a shotgun from a close distance, that too should do the trick.
Too many innocent people ending up on Death Row is a fault of how easily we condemn people to death.
That said, the death penalty should still exist.
We absolutely unequivocally know Dahmer did it. To death.
We 100% without question know Trump attempted to overthrow American law, prove it in court. To death.
We absolutely without question know Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Putin are pieces of shit and committed, in my opinion, crimes against humanity. Prove it in court. To death.
I see no problem with the death penalty or this method only what we consider justifiable for death.
I think life without parole is more evil than the death penalty, life without parole also encourages horrid behavior in prison because what more will they do to you?
Did they get the idea from the Sarco Pod (AKA the Swiss Suicide Booth)? I know inert gas deaths aren't a new concept but it seems like an odd coincidence since the pod was just making news a couple years ago.
There's a great Jacob Geller video about how methods of execution have evolved and why they've evolved.
I wouldn't do it justice but it points out how every time we make a 'more humane' way of killing it often just reduces the person's ability to show suffering, rather than reducing the suffering itself. In many cases the suffering is increased as we say the method is less barbaric; a firing squad has the highest success rate and likely the fastest death.
Pretending no one knows what happens when people breathe pure nitrogen until they die is absolutely ludicrous. Especially because what you're breathing right now is mostly nitrogen.
We know what happens because it happens to mine workers and scuba divers and others by accident. It's pretty pain/panic-less, which is normally why it's such a big deal to try and avoid. It's advocated for as a method by right-to-die proponents because it's so painless. Pretending this is random human experimentation just gives leverage to dismiss the entire argument.
We, as many other families before us at the Hillcrest palliative care hospital in San Diego, had to pull the plug on my Dad because the insurance company thought he wouldn't recover so they used a psycho asshole to convince the family to just pull the plug. It's not worth loosing your house over loosing the person who worked his ass off to buy it.
Now imagine how awesome one of us would feel if dying from oxygen deprivation was actually more painful than other means? Wouldn't we then start asking for squad style send offs at the hospital?
I've been through pulling the plug and my dad didn't speak English so he's not gonna be mad if I joke about it...like you would go up to him and whisper some last words..."hey dad what's the admin password to the router again? And he would say " I'm tired, I'll tell you tomorrow. Then you would say, no you won't dad, no you won't, I'm so sorry". He might ask what do you mean I won't, you come back here you little shit and clarify that for me! But by that time you and your six siblings would each have cocked the guns already. One one of the guns would have the bullet and everyone would be blindfolded. Off they six pops go and then you grieve. Other things happen like the cleanup crew would have to do their job. The facial reconstructionist would come in with the hot glue gun and do his thing with spray paint and lipstick. I mean after they removed the gag.
But sure maybe lethal injection was the way to go. A little cleaner. You still gotta remove the gag later. I can't imagine electrocution as a proper way. But maybe a last palliative sunset view with Dynamite on the bed and a dead man's switch. That would be a real quick and painless way to go. Plus if you do it on a boat in Florida waters the circle of life would take care of it...and no awkward funeral!
Okay gotta go start the day 😁. This is all sarcasm and like I said, my dad doesn't or didn't speak English... with the gag and all...so anyway....
Okay, can someone explain to me why states with capital punishment don't just inject someone with a bunch of morphine and they just go to sleep and never wake up again? I hear all the time about the horrific shit they inject into people and the horrible deaths they suffer, while one easy drug can execute the person with no fuss? I just don't understand.
Or just shoot them, or decapitate them. We've known how to kill people for centuries, but "humane" here usually just means what's prettiest to look at, not what kills the quickest or cleanest.
Drug companies refuse to supply states with execution medications. Not sure if it’s liability, legality or ethics (probably not the latter). I’d think states could synthesize their own or use drugs they confiscated, though.
Some of the drugs are not manufactured in the US. There has been an EU wide ban for selling drugs used in executions to the US without making sure they're not used for executions. Which also is the reason why medical organizations were very unhappy few years ago when states lied to them in an attempt to get those drugs - as they risk getting cut off for legitimate medical use.
Reason for the EU ban is simple: We consider executions a human rights violation over here.
there isn't. There is no good argument for killing anyone. Even a child can grasp "who watches the watchmen."
Sometimes violent people need to be secured from society to prevent pain/suffering/death — we have non lethal methods. And they are cheaper, more accurate, slightly less racist-influenced, and more effective than murder.
A large percentage of death row executions are later exonerated. A large percentage of executions are botched causing undue suffering to victim, executioner, staff and witnesses. The death penalty does nothing to dissuade any crimes from happening.
All it does is give people an excuse to talk tough, "Yeah well I'd kill him with my bare hands."