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
    72
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year 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
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year 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
        6
        ·
        1 year 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?

        • joel_feila@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          yes more then once. Most recently the supreme court ruled you can’t bring new evidence to an areal. Why? because it would undermine the state right to be sure of their decision. Also note that the most successful way to win an appeal on a criminal case was to bring new evidence that showed your defense did not do their job or the prosecution withheld evidence that showed your innocence.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Shinn V Ramirez, 2022.

          They were arguing ineffective counsel post conviction because evidence wasn’t submitted that could have shown Ramirez was innocent. Lower courts agreed, citing previous SCOTUS rulings. SCOTUS decided federal courts must be bound by the original evidence only.

          Money Quote -

          Two of those costs are particularly relevant here. First, a federal order to retry or release a state prisoner overrides the State’s sovereign power to enforce “societal norms through criminal law.” Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U. S. 538, 556.

          Second, federal intervention imposes significant costs on state criminal justice systems. See, e.g., Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 90. Pp. 6–8.

          (Separated for clarity)

          Personally I love how they say we need to respect a state’s right to enforce social norms. With the death penalty. Because those are equivalent things. Betty doesn’t like to mow her lawn. She likes to let her neighbor Lucy do it. Off to the chair for her! Okay jokes aside what they mean is their power to make laws, enforce laws, and have a court system.

          And then it’s too expensive? Really? I’m not going to be surprised when we end up with the purge only instead of being everywhere it’s actually when the air raid siren goes off during yard time at the prison.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah you need to be in a chamber where your exhaled co2 is so immediately diluted that you get no feedback from it. I believe the current attempts used normal medical masks

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      If “right to die” laws become more of a thing, this would be the most compassionate way of doing a home suicide kit. I wonder if the manufacturers would oppose that as well, or only executions.

      Like you said, there’s not much in it for them either way.

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It sounds like a reasonable way to die when the individual doesn’t know what’s going on or is accepting/willing. As an execution method it’s shit.

      • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, disregarding the normal fear of death that would be there regardless of the method, I think the issue is the mask. It would be much better to just fill the room with N2. You can do this easilly enough by evaporating liquid N2. Of course, this would not be “medical grade” so people would complain just to complain.

        • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          We could also just not kill people. Kinda seems to be at the root of this problem.

          • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I could not agree more. People should stop murdering people so there is no need for the death penalty.

            Keep in mind this guy thought it was fine to kill someone for $1000. Not any hatred or psychological issue or ideology. Just a bit of cash.

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

              “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”

              -Holly Near

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Or we could just not retaliate with execution. We could follow the evidence that execution doesn’t reduce crime rate or severity and to not make murderers of the state

              • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Its this flawed argument on repeat. You just start assuming that killing a murderer (“life for a life”) is somehow automatically wrong and then use it to show death penalty is wrong.

                Why is “life for a life” somehow unfair demand for the premeditated murderers? What is this based on? Or just repeating it because you heard it so often.

                • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Youre Right I’m just parroting the idea that killing is bad. Definitely not from a belief that punitive justice is ineffective at reducing crime, that we as a society must be better than our worst people, and a deep terror informed by history at the idea of a government having the power to decide to kill its own citizens.

                  Like seriously this is fucking gas chambers in Alabama and some people aren’t just horrified by where that might go?

            • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              this guy thought it was fine to kill someone for $1000

              And we have the capacity to be better than that.

              There was no compelling need to execute him. If such a compelling need did exist, it would have presented itself in the past 36 years where he was in custody but not executed. But it didn’t, so the state just waited until some arbitrary time to tick a box that didn’t need to be ticked.

              • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                My fundamental issue is with the “better than that”. I really don’t see why letting a cold blooded murderer off lightly would be the better way.

                • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What do you mean by “off lightly?” They’re still getting punished while serving a life sentence. The punishment stops when the lights go out.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well prison for decades doesn’t seem very light to me. I have never been granted but from those that have I have heard most wouldn’t recommend it.

            • quindraco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              People should stop murdering people so there is no need for the death penalty.

              What need is that, exactly?

              Keep in mind this guy thought it was fine to kill someone for $1000. Not any hatred or psychological issue or ideology. Just a bit of cash.

              You don’t know that. You think that, and there’s evidence to support it, but you don’t know it.

              • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                As I wrote in a different thread, yes, I agree we should not have death penalty due to the high possibility (inevitability?) of executing innocent people.

                I just don’t see any moral issue with executing actual murderers with N2, just the practical issue of not being able to precisely determine who the murderers are.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Still not enough. I have had the same stance for a long time. The death penalty should only be used, if ever, for crimes so bad that to not use it is to say thr crime was as bad as regular murder. Warlords who commit genocide level.

            • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why do you even care which way they kill people then? Trying to take the moral high ground, when you’re just as blood thirsty as the condemned.

              • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a ridiculous argument. If I believe a bank robber should be stopped from robbing a bank using force, can’t I also demand the force is not excessive?

                Thinking death is an appropriate punishment and torture isn’t is not contradictory.

        • Gork@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah the mask and timing is what caused that one prisoner to be in so much suffering since he knew it was going to happen imminently so he held his breath.

          If it were done gradually over a period of like 30 minutes, he likely wouldn’t have noticed and just drifted into unconsciousness.

          • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            …No, you’d notice. When you’re in that “not quite enough oxygen in the room” scenario, you get tingles and headaches and such. It kinda sucks. Though I think I’d rather die that way than those gas station lethal injections they’ve been doing.

        • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just not true! The execution method requires a willing or unconscious victim. Why do people think any type of asphyxiation will be nice and peaceful regardless of the gas used? (yes I understand the “science” behind using this gas.) but what if the person holds their breath, or account for the added adrenaline, or the person hyperventilating. I can go on. It’s not medically sound way to execute people. Honestly, this is the same lies they pushed about previous humane execution methods. “it’s painless, the science is sound.” I promise you, after about 5 more “botched” executions using this N2 method it’ll be abandoned.

          • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            “What if the person holds their breath?”

            Then it’ll take maybe a minute longer, and their last words are gonna be “BUH! Huh! Huh! Huh! …huh.”

            “or account for the added adrenaline”

            No oxygen in brain, brain die. I think you lied about understanding the science.

            “or the person is hyperventilating”

            Yeah, what if they breathe no oxygen faster?

          • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Is there a medically sound way? What does “medically sound” even mean? Theere is no patient who is supposed to survive.

            It is the best way of execution I can think of short of explosives near brain.

            • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s the point you pull out and try to focus on? “Humane” executions always had a medical backing for why it world work.

              Then the you try to say “is the best way of execution I can think of short of explosives near the brain.” oh really that’s the best you can think of? Shows how flawed and warped your understanding of this is. If you honestly want to make it as quick and painless in pretty sure the French figured that out back in 1789. But Ya let’s blow up people’s heads with c4.

              • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Your brain can function without oxygen for over 30 seconds. I see no reason why it wouldn’t in a detached head.

                The guillotine suffer from the same issue most execution methods used until now, they only seem “quick and painless”. Nitrogen gas actually is painless.

                • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nitrogen gas will be found to be unsuitable for execution. I just hope people wake up to this before more people are tortured to death.

              • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ah yes, the ole “let’s bring back the guillotine that left you alive and semi conscious for up to 30 seconds while your head rolls around” argument. Such humane, much wow

  • anon6789@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    AirGas, Air Products, and Matheson are the manufacturers, for anyone interested.

    My job’s vendor is also mentioned:

    Other manufacturers of medical nitrogen in the US were more circumspect. Linde, a global multinational founded in Germany and headquartered in the UK, would not say whether it was willing to sell its product for use in US death chambers and declined to comment.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder which tactic Republicans will take when it inevitably turns out they’re buying it from China- lie that they’re doing it or insist that they have to due to the evil liberal elite?

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year 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
      8
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • I_poop_from_there@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are plenty of options to ‘put down’ a human as well, but most of those require medical expertise to administer.

      Medical personnel generally frown upon the whole idea of putting people down, so they’re not really an option

  • Tolstoshev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nitrogen is almost 80% of air so it’s hardly in short supply. Also why would you need medical grade? This is like alcohol swabs at the IV insertion site for lethal injection. They just don’t want the bad publicity of being associated, but it’s not going to stop anything.

    • homura1650@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah. It is one thing when the state needs a controlled substance like execution drugs. In that case, there are only a handfull of places to get it, and they are all required to vet their purchasers anyway.

      For Nitrogen, anyone who wants some can just order a canister off of Amazon and get it delivered no questions asked. Or, for a few thousand, have their own N2 generator.

      Would defense lawyers raise hell about non-medical N2 being used? Sure, but they raise hell about everything; its their job. You would delay all executions for a few years while the appeals process plays out. Then end up with a final ruling saying that consumer grade N2 is good enough.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t need medical grade for any practical reason. It is just something people who are against death penalty to complain about and there may be legal technicalities that would require it.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seems sensible enough. Even if you agreed that there should be a death penalty and nitrogen is a humane way to do it the tiny amount of money you could potentially make supplying it would not be worth the potential PR hit.

  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Okay folks, it’s execution day and you know what that means… Everybody pass around the Fart Bag.”

  • otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate headlines.

    Spent many long seconds trying to figure out which US bar would have nitrogen manufacturers.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only reason I opened this past the title was because I put that comment in there. The headline didn’t interest me even after I figured out what the garden path sentence meant, lol

        Nobody reads every post and every link that pops up in their feed.

  • RainfallSonata@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, I’m glad, but at the same time, I can’t help but wonder why these corporations care, when they’re killing people in so many other ways outside of prisons.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    How about two deathrow inmates are put together in a room with a whole bunch of things that look like door knobs but are actually one way gas knobs. You open and they don’t close. The gas part is easy just go to a welding shop. Tell them it’s for “welding”. They’ll understand.

    • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The detail about having two inmates in the same chamber… I don’t know, I think one would help the other think about escaping by trying the next knob cuz the previous one didn’t do anything. You probably want some loud music or a mixing fan to mask gas hissing.