The execution of Carey Grayson, scheduled for November 21, 2024, will be the third time nitrogen has been used to carry out a death sentence. Experts have repeatedly expressed concern about this method.
The first person executed in this manner, in February 2024, Kenneth Smith, reportedly died in convulsions for more than 20 minutes.
“We reiterate our call for an urgent ban on execution by nitrogen asphyxiation, which is contrary to international law,” the experts said, reminding the United States of its international obligations as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading treatment or punishment.
Experts also expressed concern that defendants who challenged the use of this method of execution would have to prove the availability of an alternative method.
The prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute and independent of alternatives
“We emphasize that the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute and independent of alternatives,” the independent UN human rights defenders said.
Experts stressed their serious concern that other US states are moving towards adopting this method of execution.
They also noted the lack of effective legal assistance and conditions guaranteeing fair trials and due process in criminal cases against persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. Grayson suffered from bipolar disorder in his youth.
Statements were made by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, Morris Tidball-Bintz, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Alice Jill Edwards, as well as a number of other human rights defenders.
Special Rapporteurs are not UN staff and are not affiliated with any government or organization. They work in a personal capacity and are not paid for their work.
What are the ethical implications of requiring defendants to prove an alternative to nitrogen gas executions in the legal system?
Guest 1: Dr. John Smith, a leading expert in criminal justice and legal affairs.
Guest 2: Ms. Jane Doe, a human rights lawyer and activist.
Section 1: The Use of Nitrogen in Executions
Host: Can you both provide insights into the use of nitrogen in executions and the controversy surrounding it?
Guest 1: Dr. Smith: The use of nitrogen in executions is a relatively new method, and it has raised concerns among experts due to its potential for prolonged suffering and uncertainty regarding its effectiveness. While there may be arguments for alternative methods such as lethal injection, death penalty opponents are trying to push for a more humane approach. My own view is that we should focus on abolishing the death penalty altogether.
Guest 2: Ms. Doe: Absolutely, as a human rights lawyer, I strongly oppose any form of execution that may cause unnecessary suffering. The fact that there have been reports of prolonged convulsions during the first execution by nitrogen asphyxiation raises serious questions about its humaneness. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the international law obligations of the United States to respect the absolute prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The use of nitrogen in executions clearly violates these principles. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Section 2: Concerns over Lack of Alternatives
Host: Can you elaborate on the concern that defendants who challenge the use of nitrogen gas executions may have to prove the availability of an alternative method?
Guest 1: Dr. Smith: The issue here is that defendants are being forced to argue against the use of nitrogen gas based on the absence of a clear and readily available alternative method. This puts them in a difficult position, as they are essentially being asked to prove that there is a more humane method of execution. The whole premise is flawed, as there should be no executions at all, but this requirement is yet another reason to reject this method and work towards abolishing the death penalty.
Guest 2: Ms. Doe: Exactly, the Special Rapporteurs have made it clear that the prohibition on torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is absolute
