163
Alabama condemned for nitrogen gas execution: ‘They intended to torture him’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
163 points (89.8% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2831 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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:
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.