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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I really would like to know: The people who object to N2, if you could pick any reasonably practical execution method (but it has to be execution, no death by old age), what would you pick?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -14 months ago

      Pick? I’m not picking anything. N2 will be found to be unsuitable for execution for several reason. When I first heard they were exploring the idea, I knew scientifically what they were going for. But knew it would be implemented poorly and would never take individuals bodies and minds into the method. Book mark this comment as I’ll be back every time this ends up “botched.”

      You know I’ve always wondered about pro execution people, do you trust government on a local and/or federal level enough to take a life? We know for a fact or justice system is corrupt, flawed, full of biases, and routinely gets it wrong. And you think they’ll get N2 executions right? It’s a simple idea but complex when actually attempted. You’re going to trust the people that couldn’t even make it as a police officer or lawyer to ensure the gas is pure enough, the room was made correctly to house the gas, or that the gas was applied long enough? These aren’t the sharpest people doing the execution and are sick enough mentally to do said execution. So how about you pick or better yet why aren’t you the person carrying out the execution since you are so knowledgeable about this?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        First of all, if after all this time electric chair and lethal injection were not found unsuitable, I have zero faith this one would be (at least for the right reasons) regardless of botched attempts.

        Second of all, I don’t advocate for our corrupt governments to handle executions. I 100% agree they can’t be trusted with this.

        But there is no issue with the method itself, which is what this article is about and I am commenting on. Purity of the gas? What for? Unless there is so much oxygen the patient survives, it should not matter. Certainly not any trace amount you would have in industrial nitrogen supply.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          04 months ago

          Uhhhhhh what? The electric chair was found unsuitable and unconditional. But sure you’re a rational party in this argument.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              04 months ago

              It was effectively outlawed in 2008 by the Nebraska Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court didn’t take up the case and effectively banned it by not accepting applies.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                This would only ban it in Nebraska. Scotus not taking appeal is not the same as scotus taking the appeal and denying it and even that is not the same as scotus ruling it unconstitutional.

                Especially if the lower court ruled based on Nebraska law or constitution. Scotus rejecting appeal to such is just standard: We don’t care what states do. Which is the default in Federalism. States can ban things the Feds allow*.

                * many exceptions may apply