Alabama stands on the precipice of a significant, yet contentious, moment in the history of capital punishment in the United States. The state is poised to carry out the first execution using nitrogen hypoxia, a method untested in the realm of capital punishment. This week, Kenneth Smith, convicted in the 1988 murder-for-hire of Elizabeth Sennett, is scheduled to face this new method, which replaces the air an inmate breathes with pure nitrogen, theoretically leading to a painless death. However, the uncertainty surrounding this process has raised serious ethical, legal, and humanitarian concerns.
The adoption of nitrogen hypoxia by Alabama, alongside Oklahoma and Mississippi, reflects the ongoing struggle states face in implementing lethal injection. This struggle is primarily due to difficulties in procuring lethal drugs and finding usable veins, which have led to botched executions in recent years. Alabama failed their attempt to execute Smith by lethal injection in 2022 due to an inability to establish IV lines, which has led to the alternative. However, this pivot to nitrogen hypoxia, while perhaps a solution to the practical challenges of lethal injection, raises a host of ethical dilemmas.
Critics argue that the method, which is heavily redacted in public protocols, lacks transparency and testing, thereby increasing the risk of a cruel and unusual execution, prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Experts, including anesthesiologists and human rights advocates, express concerns over potential complications such as seizures or choking, which could result in excessive pain or even torture. Additionally, the United Nations and other international bodies have raised the alarm, suggesting that the execution could constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international human rights law.
On the other hand, proponents argue that nitrogen hypoxia is a more humane alternative to lethal injection. They point to its quick and painless nature, as evidenced in industrial accidents and assisted suicides in Europe. Alabama officials, including Governor Kay Ivey, assert that the method has been thoroughly vetted and is ready for use.
The case of Kenneth Smith is particularly complex. Initially, Smith expressed a desire for execution by nitrogen hypoxia, only to later challenge this method, fearing it could leave him in severe pain or a vegetative state. This flip-flop reflects the broader uncertainty and fear surrounding the new method. Furthermore, the legal and ethical implications of a judge overriding a jury’s decision to spare Smith’s life adds another layer of complexity to the case.
The move towards nitrogen hypoxia also speaks volumes about the state of the death penalty in the U.S. While some states have moved towards its abolition, others persist in its use, navigating an increasingly difficult landscape marked by legal challenges and public scrutiny. This shift in execution methods is reminiscent of historical transitions, such as from hanging to electrocution and then to lethal injection, each time prompted by the pursuit of a more humane method of execution.
Alabama’s scheduled execution of Kenneth Smith by nitrogen hypoxia is not just a procedural change in capital punishment but a significant ethical and legal turning point. It raises profound questions about the nature of justice, the pursuit of humane methods of execution, and the role of transparency and public scrutiny in the most solemn act a government can perform. As this method is put to the test, the nation will be watching closely, pondering the future of the death penalty in America.
