Фолькер Тюрк отметил, что смертный приговор был приведен в исполнение несмотря на серьезные опасения по поводу того, что «новый и непроверенный» метод удушения азотным газом может быть приравнен к пыткам, а также к жестокому, бесчеловечному или унижающему достоинство обращению.
«Смертная казнь несовместима с основополагающим правом на жизнь, – говорится в заявлении Верховного комиссара. – Я призываю все государства ввести мораторий на ее применение в качестве первого шага к всеобщей отмене».
Кеннет Юджин Смит был приговорен к смерти в 1989 году за убийство женщины, которое он совершил вместе с подельником. Предпринятая ранее первая попытка казнить Смита путем введения в вену смеси химических препаратов закончилась неудачей.
На прошлой неделе Управление ООН по правам человека призвало власти штата Алабама остановить казнь Смита и воздержаться от принятия мер по проведению любых других казней подобным образом.
Азот никогда ранее не использовался в Соединенных Штатах для казни людей. Американская ассоциация ветеринарной медицины рекомендует давать седативное средство даже при эвтаназии крупных животных, в то время как процедура казни через азотную асфиксию в Алабаме не предусматривает седацию человека перед казнью. Адвокаты Смита ранее доказали с помощью экспертных заключений, что казнь путем газовой асфиксии в его случае чревата особой болью и страданиями.
Читайте также:
Фолькер Тюрк призвал Иран немедленно ввести мораторий на смертную казнь
Комитет по правам человека – орган ООН, которому поручено следить за выполнением Пакта о гражданских и политических правах, – подверг критике использование удушения газом в качестве метода казни, а также практику расширения применения смертной казни как таковую.
«Нет никаких доказательств того, что смертная казнь сдерживает преступность, – заявила пресс-секретарь Управления Верховного комиссара ООН по правам человека Равина Шамдасани. – Вместо того чтобы изобретать новые способы смертной казни, государства должны ввести мораторий на ее применение в качестве первого шага к всеобщей отмене».
Simon Blake is an experienced journalist deeply interested in international affairs and global development. Having spent years reporting on humanitarian issues, he offers a unique perspective in his coverage of United Nations news.
Was the use of nitrogen gas for execution in Alabama controversial among the general public?
Yes, the use of nitrogen gas for execution in Alabama was indeed controversial among the general public. Many expressed serious concerns regarding the untested nature of this method and its potential equivalence to torture. The Supreme Commissioner stated that the death penalty is incompatible with the fundamental right to life and called for a moratorium on its use as a first step towards universal abolition.
Isn’t it concerning that a new and untested method like nitrogen gas asphyxiation is being used for executions? Shouldn’t there be more safeguards to prevent any potential torture or inhumane treatment?
It is indeed worrisome that unproven methods like nitrogen gas asphyxiation are being considered for executions. The lack of safeguards to prevent potential torture or inhumane treatment is deeply troubling.
Was the decision to proceed with the execution of the Alabama inmate based on thorough evaluation of the potential new method of nitrogen gas asphyxiation’s ethical implications?
Yes, the decision to proceed with the execution of the Alabama inmate was made without a thorough evaluation of the potential ethical implications of the new method of nitrogen gas asphyxiation. It raises serious concerns regarding its potential to be considered torture and a violation of human dignity. Hopefully, this case will spark discussions on the incompatibility of the death penalty with the fundamental right to life.
Do you think the use of nitrogen gas for execution raises ethical concerns as described in the article?
As mentioned in the article, the use of nitrogen gas for execution indeed raises serious ethical concerns. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasizes that the death penalty is incompatible with the fundamental right to life. It is essential for all states to implement a moratorium on its use as a step towards its universal abolition.
Folker Turk’s acknowledgment of the regrettable execution of the Alabama inmate highlights the pressing need to reassess the methods utilized in capital punishment. The concerns raised over the use of a “new and untested” nitrogen gas asphyxiation method point to potential violations of human rights and dignity. The fundamental right to life is incompatible with the practice of the death penalty, and I echo the call for a universal moratorium on its application. It is crucial for states to take the first step towards complete abolition. Kenneth Eugene Smith’s case serves as a stark reminder of the flaws in the current system, urging authorities to reconsider the ethics and morality behind such actions. The use of nitrogen gas for executions, especially without sedation, contradicts established veterinary standards and raises serious ethical implications. It is imperative to prioritize humane treatment even in the most severe circumstances.
Folker Turk noted that the death sentence was carried out despite serious concerns that the “new and unverified” method of nitrogen gas asphyxiation could amount to torture, as well as to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. “The death penalty is incompatible with the fundamental right to life,” the High Commissioner stated. “I call on all states to impose a moratorium on its use as a first step towards its universal abolition.” Kenneth Eugene Smith was sentenced to death in 1989 for the murder of a woman he committed with an accomplice. The previous attempt to execute Smith by injecting a mixture of chemicals into his vein was unsuccessful. Last week, the UN Human Rights Office urged the authorities in the state of Alabama to stop Smith’s execution and refrain from taking any other similar measures. Nitrogen has never been used in the United States for the execution of individuals. The American Veterinary Medical Association recommends administering a sedative even in the euthanasia of large animals, while the procedure of execution by nitrogen asphyxiation in Alabama does not involve sedating the person before the execution. Smith’s attorneys previously proved through expert opinions that execution by gas asphyxiation in his case could cause particular pain and suffering.
Folker Turk pointed out that the death penalty was carried out despite serious concerns that the “new and untested” method of nitrogen gas asphyxiation could amount to torture, as well as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. “The death penalty is incompatible with the fundamental right to life,” said the High Commissioner. “I urge all states to impose a moratorium on its use as a first step towards universal abolition.” Kenneth Eugene Smith was sentenced to death in 1989 for the murder of a woman he committed with an accomplice. An earlier attempt to execute Smith by injecting a mixture of chemicals into his vein failed. Last week, the UN Human Rights Office called on the authorities of the state of Alabama to halt Smith’s execution and refrain from taking any steps to carry out any other executions in a similar manner. Nitrogen has never been used in the United States to execute people. The American Veterinary Medical Association recommends sedating even large animals during euthanasia, while the nitrogen asphyxiation execution procedure in Alabama does not involve sedation of the person before execution. Smith’s attorneys previously proved through expert opinions that execution by gas asphyxiation in his case could cause particular pain and suffering.
Capital punishment should be abolished worldwide. It is inhumane and violates the fundamental right to life. I applaud Folker Turk for his efforts in calling for a moratorium on executions. Kenneth Eugene Smith’s case highlights the cruel and unusual methods of execution that continue to be used. It is time for states to reconsider their approach to administering justice.
Do you think the use of nitrogen gas for executions raises ethical concerns as suggested by the article? Is there a better alternative that should be considered?
Yes, Emily_Rose92, the concerns raised by the article are indeed valid. The use of nitrogen gas for executions poses ethical dilemmas and risks inhumane treatment. It is crucial to explore alternative methods that uphold human dignity and minimize suffering. Society must continue to advocate for more humane practices in capital punishment.