Is nitrogen execution too 'gruesome' and 'cruel?' Louisiana is about to find out
Is nitrogen execution too 'gruesome' and 'cruel?' Louisiana is about to find out A court in Louisiana ruled Jessie Hoffman can be put to death Tuesday using nitrogen hypoxia - deprivation of oxygen causing suffocation.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Nitrogen hypoxia: What to know about the problematic execution method
Alabama plans to execute inmate Kenneth Smith by nitrogen hypoxia. Here's what we know about the execution method.
Jessie Hoffman, 46, is condemned to die Tuesday for the kidnapping, rape and murder of 28-year-old accounting executive Molly Elliott in 1996.
While some states have passed or are considering legislation to allow nitrogen gas executions, it is uncertain how widely the method will be used.
Public support for the death penalty is declining, and several states with capital punishment have not carried out executions in years.
After Alabama carried out the country's first known execution by nitrogen gas last year, the state's attorney general delivered a message to other states: "Alabama has done it, and now so can you."
So far, that hasn't happened.
But Louisiana is set to perform its first execution by nitrogen gas Tuesday, after a volley of court decisions blocked and then paved the way for the execution, arguing by turns the method was cruel or humane.
A federal judge said the method could violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing witness accounts of the Alabama executions. But the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled it could go forward.
Condemned to die Tuesday is Jessie Hoffman, 46, for the kidnapping, rape and murder of 28-year-old accounting executive Molly Elliott in 1996. Hoffman's attorney has pledged to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has described nitrogen hypoxia − oxygen deprivation causing suffocation − as "textbook," "humane and effective."
Alabama has executed four prisoners using this controversial method and lawmakers in several other states have proposed legislation that would add nitrogen gas to their roster of ways to kill their inmates as official struggle to obtain drugs used for the country's primary method of execution, lethal injection.
Capital punishment experts say that while a handful of the 27 states that have the death penalty may actually adopt this method, it's unlikely to be widely used and the outcome of the Louisiana case might inform how other states may handle future legal challenges.
"I think the decision of these few states to introduce new methods of execution, including nitrogen gas, are out of line with what we've seen as a general trend to the country," said Megan Byrne, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union's Capital Punishment Project.
Texas, Louisiana both halted executions: What's going on?
Nitrogen hypoxia faces multiple legal challenges
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rescinded Hoffman's temporary reprieve, is arguably the most conservative appeals court in the nation and has become a testing ground for key causes. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously tried to rein in the News Orlean-based court but also allowed Alabama and other states to use the nitrogen method.
Alabama inmate David Phillip Wilson filed a lawsuit similar to Hoffman's last month claiming the state's plan to execute him using nitrogen gas violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, citing the "torturous" execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith in January 2024.
Witness accounts from his and other Alabama executions "describe suffering, including conscious terror for several minutes, shaking, gasping, and other evidence of distress." Chief District Judge Shelly Dick cited those accounts when delaying Hoffman's execution by nitrogen in Louisiana.
Wilson's case is pending. Smith's lawyers did not have the benefit of such evidence when opposing the then-untested method, Byrne said. Mounting evidence gathered from nitrogen gas executions could give challengers more firepower.
The Supreme Court's three liberal justices previously criticized the majority's decision to allow Smith's execution, arguing he should have had more time to pursue legal challenges and more needed to be known about the execution method.
The Constitution does not guarantee inmates a painless death. But Deborah Denno, a law professor at Fordham University, pointed out judges have deemed certain execution methods cruel and unusual punishment in the past.
The high courts in Georgia and Nebraska banned electrocution, and a circuit judge in South Carolina found both the firing squad and electric chair unconstitutional in 2022. But that decision was overturned, and the state carried out its first firing squad execution in modern history earlier this month.
The litigation over nitrogen gas might make other states hesitant to use it, Denno said. But she said death penalty states have remained "desperate" to execute their prisoners despite legal challenges and botched executions using many of the country's other methods.
"That desperation may outweigh this litigation that's going on here," she said.
Pushes for nitrogen gas executions stall
Nitrogen hypoxia is already an authorized method of execution in Mississippi and Oklahoma, although it has not been used. Steven Harpe, director of Oklahoma's prison system, visited Alabama to study its nitrogen gas protocol and told the Associated Press he would "absolutely" want to use the method if possible, but the governor later told the outlet he had no plans to change the state's process.
A bill approving the use of the method is currently awaiting Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signature. When asked if Sanders plans to sign the bill, spokesperson Sam Dubke told USA TODAY the governor "reviews legislation as it is introduced." Lawmakers in Ohio and Nebraska have reintroduced similar bills this year while another bill sponsored by Kansas' attorney general died in committee last year.
It's possible some of these bills may become law, particularly in Arkansas, but just because a state has an execution method on the books doesn't mean officials will use it, said Austin Sarat, a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
"The thing that we need to remember is that nitrogen hypoxia is authorized, but it's not the only method of execution available," he said.
Nitrogen executions could face long term issues
States like Louisiana turned to nitrogen hypoxia or other alternative methods like the firing squad after struggling to procure drugs for lethal injection, but if those drugs were readily available, prison officials may not need to use nitrogen gas.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January directing the attorney general to help states secure the lethal drugs. Experts said it's not clear what the federal government could do because the primary issue is that pharmaceutical companies do not want to publicly provide drugs for lethal injections.
Though it does not yet appear to be an issue, states could eventually run into the same problem securing gas for executions. Multiple manufacturers of medical-grade nitrogen gas told The Guardian last year they would not allow their product to be used in capital punishment.
"Nitrogen gas is easier to get than lethal injection drugs, but that's only right now," Denno said.
Public support for the death penalty lags
Even as Trump has pledged to revive the death penalty, experts said the country is generally moving away from support for capital punishment. Several states that have the death penalty have not executed anyone in years, and a 2024 Gallup poll found support for the death penalty in the U.S. has fallen to 53%, a level not seen since the early 1970s.
Several experts and human rights organizations including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International criticized Smith's execution as particularly inhumane. Hoffman's execution has drawn protests from Jews Against Gassing Coalition, which says the method bears painful similarities to the gas chambers used during the Holocaust, CNN reported.
Sarat said nitrogen gas isn't likely to become the "safe, reliable and humane" execution method the country has long been searching for.
"Is it likely now to fix the problems of executions? I don't think so," he said. "So the story of a broken system, I think, is likely to continue to include methods of execution that will prove to be unreliable or will prove to be more gruesome than Americans can stomach."
Contributing: Maureen Groppe and Amanda Lee Myers, USA TODAY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Utah judge rules a convicted killer with dementia is competent to be executed
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A convicted killer in Utah who developed dementia while on death row for 37 years is competent enough to be executed, a state judge ruled late Friday. Ralph Leroy Menzies, 67, was sentenced to die in 1988 for killing Utah mother of three Maurine Hunsaker. Despite his recent cognitive decline, Menzies 'consistently and rationally understands" what is happening and why he is facing execution, Judge Matthew Bates wrote in a court order. 'Menzies has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his understanding of his specific crime and punishment has fluctuated or declined in a way that offends the Eighth Amendment,' which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, Bates said. Menzies had previously selected a firing squad as his method of execution. He would become only the sixth U.S. prisoner executed by firing squad since 1977. The Utah Attorney General's Office is expected to file a death warrant soon. Menzies' lawyers, who had argued his dementia was so severe that he could not understand why he was being put to death, said they plan to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court. 'Ralph Menzies is a severely brain-damaged, wheelchair-bound, 67-year-old man with dementia and significant memory problems,' his attorney, Lindsey Layer, said in a statement. 'It is deeply troubling that Utah plans to remove Mr. Menzies from his wheelchair and oxygen tank to strap him into an execution chair and shoot him to death.' The U.S. Supreme Court has spared others prisoners with dementia from execution, including an Alabama man in 2019 who had killed a police officer. Over nearly four decades, attorneys for Menzies filed multiple appeals that delayed his death sentence, which had been scheduled at least twice before it was pushed back. Hunsaker, a 26-year-old married mother of three, was abducted by Menzies from the convenience store where she worked. She was later found strangled and her throat cut at a picnic area in the Wasatch Mountains of northern Utah. Menzies had Hunsaker's wallet and several other belongings when he was jailed on unrelated matters. He was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes. Matt Hunsaker, who was 10 years old when his mother was killed, said Friday that the family was overwhelmed with emotion to know that justice would finally be served.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a "runaway spying operation." The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. "For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media," Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes "the allegations very seriously." Read more: Will these drones 'revolutionize' 911 response? L.A. suburb will be first to test The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. "The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private," said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. "Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?" he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to "burdensome litigation." The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. "I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property," Waldman said. "We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction." The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch "discretionary proactive investigations," the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Read more: Police drones could soon crisscross the skies. Cities need to be ready, ACLU warns Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she "became confused and worried," the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. "This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," Schmitz said in a statement. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me." A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that "when we see something like that, we turn around," according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that "we don't put that in the camera footage." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Government drones used in ‘runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a 'runaway spying operation.' The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. 'For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media,' Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes 'the allegations very seriously.' The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. 'The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private,' said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. 'Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?' he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to 'burdensome litigation.' The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. 'I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property,' Waldman said. 'We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction.' The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch 'discretionary proactive investigations,' the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she 'became confused and worried,' the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. 'This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security,' Schmitz said in a statement. 'I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me.' A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that 'when we see something like that, we turn around,' according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that 'we don't put that in the camera footage.'
