Move follows Alabama’s recent killing of death row inmate Kenneth Smith using previously untested method

Three of the largest manufacturers of medical-grade nitrogen gas in the US have barred their products from being used in executions, following Alabama’s recent killing of the death row inmate Kenneth Smith using a previously untested method known as nitrogen hypoxia.

The three companies have confirmed to the Guardian that they have put in place mechanisms that will prevent their nitrogen cylinders falling into the hands of departments of correction in death penalty states. The move by the trio marks the first signs of corporate action to stop medical nitrogen, which is designed to preserve life, being used for the exact opposite – killing people.

The green shoots of a corporate blockade for nitrogen echoes the almost total boycott that is now in place for medical drugs used in lethal injections. That boycott has made it so difficult for death penalty states to procure drugs such as pentobarbital and midazolam that a growing number are turning to nitrogen as an alternative killing technique.

Now, nitrogen producers are engaging in their own efforts to prevent the abuse of their products. The march has been led by Airgas, which is owned by the French multinational Air Liquide.

  • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Nitrogen hypoxia sounds like one of the best ways to die, without pain or panic, but I completely understand why no company wants to be the supplier of the means of executing people. Small volume, small profits, extreme controversy. What’s to want there?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Sure. If it was done correctly and we could trust the justice system to not kill innocent people. However they figured out the cruelest way to do it and SCOTUS ruled we have to kill innocent people even if all the evidence says they’re innocent because it might hurt the court’s reputation of they back down.

      • Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        SCOTUS ruled we have to kill innocent people even if all the evidence says they’re innocent because it might hurt the court’s reputation of they back down.

        I’m not familiar with this. Is this something that actually happened?

        • lemon_space@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I believe they’re referencing this:

          The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that state prisoners have no constitutional right to present new evidence in federal court to support their claims that they were represented at trial and on appeal in state courts by unqualified or otherwise deficient lawyers. The vote was 6-to-3, along ideological lines.

          . . .

          On Monday Thomas wrote the majority decision hollowing out that 2012 ruling on behalf of the court’s new six-justice conservative super majority.

          He said that federal courts may not hear “new evidence” obtained after conviction to show how deficient the trial or appellate lawyer in state court was. To allow such evidence to be presented in federal court, he said, “encourages prisoners to sandbag state courts,” depriving the states of “the finality that is essential to both the retributive and deterrent function of criminal law.”

          . . .

          Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision “perverse,” and “illogical.” The Sixth Amendment “guarantees criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial,” she said. “Today, however, the court hamstrings the federal courts’ authority to safeguard that right.”

          NPR Source

          This is so from 2022.

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is an honest question. In the US we probably put down thousands of household pets each month. Many of them have their owners right there beside them holding their paw. It isn’t tramatic for the pet or the owner.

    How can it be this difficult for us to humanely execute a human?

    • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Because we’re kill our pets out of love, and we kill inmates out of hate. Humane treatment isn’t difficult, the cruelty is intentional.

      So long as were still using the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned murder, the practice itself will remain barbaric. The only solution is to eliminate the death penalty like the rest of the civilized western world.