11mo ago

Kenneth Smith ‘struggled for life’ for 22 minutes in Alabama nitrogen gas execution: Updates

www.independent.co.uk Kenneth Smith ‘struggled for life’ for 22 minutes in nitrogen gas execution: Updates

Witness Reverend Jeff Hood told reporters he saw a man ‘struggling for their life’ for 22 minutes as Smith became the first US death row inmate executed by nitrogen asphyxia

“Kenny just began to gasp for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes total.”

Pretty compassionate way to kill a person.

Once again, the Law in the south is brutal.

You're viewing a single thread.

588 comments

America is such a funny place. They dont have a problem with execution just experimental ones...
- Many of us have a problem with all executions. And capital punishment was illegal in America from 1962-1976 until the Supreme Court reversed their original decision.
  
  Ik i should have added /s to my comment but its still disturbing to me that there are people who are okay with execution.
  
  There are but there are currently only 20 states that have the ability to execute death sentences, and that number is slowly going down luckily.
  
  The only people I'm ok with killing are the ones we have undeniable poof for. Like the Uvalde school shooter. They have footage of him in the school with the gun and know he killed the kids. In my book he's OK to execute. if there's even a shred of doubt in anyone's case then execution should be off the books period.
  
  The only people I’m ok with killing are the ones we have undeniable poof for.
  The problem with that logic is that every criminal conviction is supposed to have "undeniable proof!"
  
  No it's not. In the context of the justice system in question, reasonable doubt is a MUCH lower bar than undeniable proof.
  
  It isn't supposed to be, though.
  Edit: hey downvoter, what part of Blackstone's Ratio do you not fucking understand?
  
  A reasonable doubt is less strict than undeniable proof. If I go outside and see that the lawn and road is wet then I can beyond a reasonable doubt ascertain that it has rained, but that's not undeniable proof. If I go outside and get rained on and measure that rainfall in a scientific way then that is undeniable proof. Blackstone's ratio is irrelevant; too many people are wrongfully imprisoned and executed on dubious evidence. We seem to fucking agree about that, so calm down.
  I downvote comments that are obtuse or don't actually contribute to the conversation and I don't see anything wrong with that.
  
  I can't see the hair that you're splitting here. If proof is deniable, then it's not beyond reasonable doubt.
  
  There is a room with a candy bar in it, a biometric scan to enter, and a camera outside the only door.
  You scan your retina to go in, you come out a few moments later, and after 5 minutes a security guard goes in, finds the room intact, and also sees the candy bar gone.
  By deductive reasoning, you took the candy bar beyond a reasonable doubt.
  There is a remote possibility that after you left and before the guard arrived, a mission impossible crew came in from the ceiling and took the candy bar specifically to frame you. Or perhaps the entire candy bar quantum tunnelled or was teleported by aliens in an event that denies conventional understanding.
  The guy you replied to is making this point. If it is in any way theoretically possible that guilt is in question, no execution. Reasonable doubt as a standard assumes the natural order of the universe and logic are preserved such that inferences are possible.
  
  Reasonable doubt as a standard assumes the natural order of the universe and logic are preserved such that inferences are possible.
  But that also seems like a foundation that "undeniable proof" would rest on. If the only way for a proof to be denied is for the "natural order of the universe and logic" to not apply, then there's simply no such thing.
  
  Focus on the Mission Impossible crew stealing the candy bar:
  It’s simply preposterous. It’s not known to be impossible (like an alien candy bar abduction), though.
  See what you mean though!
  
  I don't support the execution of the Uvalde shooter.
  What does killing him accomplish?
  Justice? Not really.
  Restitution? Not at all.
  Vengeance? Not really.
  Deterrence? Not really.
  Closure for the families of the victims? I suppose.
  I don't know about this case, but some families of victims oppose the death penalty, even in the case of the murder of their children.
  Some reasons for this view could be religious beliefs, or the view that death is the easy way out, or the deterrence value of being able to point at a person in jail, or the potential for the person to do some good in the world.
  These people would object to closure for them being used as justification for killing their child's murderer.
  It's not fair to victim families to make them choose life or death for a murderer. It would be a decision they'd have to live with forever. We can't do that to them.
  My opinion is that capital punishment should only be used where a person guilty of a 'capital crime' can't be reliably imprisoned.
  Ie I'm not sure Iraqis were wrong to execute Saddam Hussein. I don't think it would be wrong for countries that struggle with corruption in their penal system to execute cartel leaders (that have been convicted of 'capital crimes'). War crimes, insurrection leaders, that sort of thing.
  
  Well said. Great point about Saddam.
  
  What does killing him accomplish?
  One thing and one thing only: saves tax payer money long term.
  
  Nope. The math has been done on this many times, and death sentence is more expensive than life without parole. And that's according to the State's own numbers.
- "Funny"

588 comments