424
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

An Alabama inmate would be the test subject for the “experimental” execution method of nitrogen hypoxia, his lawyers argued, as they asked judges to deny the state’s request to carry out his death sentence using the new method.

In a Friday court filing, attorneys for Kenneth Eugene Smith asked the Alabama Supreme Court to reject the state attorney general’s request to set an execution date for Smith using the proposed new execution method. Nitrogen gas is authorized as an execution method in three states but it has never been used to put an inmate to death.

Smith’s attorneys argued the state has disclosed little information about how nitrogen executions would work, releasing only a redacted copy of the proposed protocol.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gears@sh.itjust.works 35 points 2 years ago

This is interesting, and I personally feel he is fighting it only because it buys him more time. In a different article (linked in this one), where they announce Alabama's plan to use nitrogen it says:

Smith, in seeking to block the state’s second attempt to execute him by lethal injection, had argued that nitrogen should be available.

So he literally asked to use nitrogen, they said "ok" and now's he's saying "how dare you try to use me as a guinea pig"

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 16 points 2 years ago

Shocking news: man on death row does not want to die.

More at 11.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 6 points 2 years ago

"I think something should be available" is not the same as "I volunteer to test it out".

For example, I think ejection seats should be available on all fighter jets.

[-] st0p_the_q_tip@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

The correct analogy would be you refusing to get out of a fighter jet except via ejection seats, them refusing to be ejected lol. This guy apparently wasn't saying it should be available in general but that it should be an option for him.

That said, I am in principle against executions.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This guy is apparently saying that he wants to know how they are planning to use nitrogen gas, and the state is refusing to tell him.

So the correct analogy would be you refusing to get out of a fighter jet except via ejection seats. Then someone says, "Okay you can get out via 'ejection seats', happy now?". Then you say, "Hey what's up with the air quotes around 'ejection seats'? What exactly are you planning anyway? How does this ejection seat work?". Then they say, "Don't you worry about the details buddy. You'll be 'ejected' from your 'seat', LOL! Now shut up and get in the plane".

[-] gears@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago
[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If you think his inconsistent argument is ridiculous, you don't understand the legal system. It's okay, that's why there are lawyers. (1) Alternate pleading is a thing, (2) the State pulls the same shit except 1000% worse, (3) the judiciary, especially the GOP judiciary that is elected on a "tough on crime" platform (got to love politicized justice), is ABSOLUTELY the most inconsistent, as their goal is to accept any argument of the State that leads to speedy execution. It goes all the way up to the SCOTUS - former Chief Justice Rehnquist was absolutely a shining star of the death machine, regardless of actual innocence. EDIT: the thing that really pisses me off is when the media covers alternate pleading without context. It's terribly biased reporting designed to give people justice boners and pump up support for the State. EDIT2: I might be slightly off with my terms of art - I'm in transactional law, not criminal law, and it's been a hell of a long time since law school or anything involving criminal law beyond a traffic ticket.

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
424 points (98.8% liked)

News

35821 readers
1995 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS