E
Ender
Guest
It doesn’t matter in determining such a thing as a “slow death”, but it does matter in regard to how your perception was formed by this article.
Bucklew contended that with his alternative (nitrogen asphyxiation) he would be conscious for 20-30 seconds. He would likely experience the same symptoms as with pentobarbital (the state’s method). The State’s expert testified that pentobarbital would render him unconscious in 20-30 seconds. Bucklew’s expert, in trying to rebut the state, relied on a study on horses, which he misinterpreted.
The real relevant point is this: the Eighth Circuit Court explicitly told Bucklew that it was his responsibility to come up with a viable alternative to pentobarbital that would lessen his pain. He chose nitrogen asphyxia, which has not been tested on humans and is not used by any other state.
In sum, even if execution by nitrogen hypoxia were a feasible and readily implemented alternative to the State’s chosen method, Mr. Bucklew has still failed to present any evidence suggesting that it would significantly reduce his risk of pain.
Had he actually been interested in securing a less painful way to die it was well within his ability to do so. Instead he appears to have chosen an alternative that would have permitted a subsequent appeal. He lost the gamble.
In other words, an inmate who contends that a particular method of execution is very likely to cause him severe pain should ordinarily be able to plead some alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce the risk of severe pain. At oral argument in this Court, the State suggested that the firing squad would be such an available alternative, if adequately pleaded.
There is nothing about this case that can be properly comprehended from the author’s overwrought article.
Last edited: