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.

  • Odelay42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Odelay42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The human brain has a lot of cognitive biases that we have collectively decided to legislate against.

        This is one of the easiest to move on from. It takes significantly more effort to justify and carry out judicial murder than it does to ban it.

        We banned dueling to the death over honor centuries ago, and that’s a very similar cognitive bias. Arguably a lot less impactful on society at large too, since a duel requires 2 willing participants and by definition has no collateral consequences, but it was still deemed wrong ages ago. There is no clear argument killing someone for their alleged crimes.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Agreed. The problem is that voters and politician have that same damn DNA and those same biases.

          We can totally use higher level reasoning to think through that old ass amygdala wiring. But doing that often takes work, or showing people that some other low level need is being threatened by giving into the feels of vengeance.