After Alabama became the first state to execute a death row prisoner via nitrogen gas in January, the state is set to perform the second-ever execution on Thursday.

Alabama is set to perform the second-ever nitrogen gas execution in the United States on Thursday.

Alan Eugene Miller, 59, was sentenced to death for the 1999 murders of his then-coworkers Lee Holdbrooks and Christoper Scott Yancy, and his former supervisor Terry Lee Jarvis.

Miller was to be executed in September 2022 via lethal injection, but it was called off after officials had trouble inserting an intravenous line to administer the fatal drugs and were concerned they would not be able to do so before the death warrant expired.

  • ImADifferentBirdEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    Absolutely not. But you’ll agree this guy is not innocent. At all.

    Perhaps. But the question of the death penalty is larger than just this guy.

    That line of reasoning would be paralyzing. There’s a reasonably high chance that you’ll kill an innocent person while driving, but you’re still driving. I suppose the alternative is even worse.

    And there, I suppose, is the difference between you and me. You are willing to murder people, some portion of whom you know are not murderers, because somehow you’ve decided that their deaths are worth it in this instance. I am not. I find the murder of even one innocent immoral. And frankly, in a democratic system where the state acts on behalf of the people, we all have that innocent blood on our hands. We are all murderers; we are made that way by the state. Should we all, then, die?

    You’re also comparing accidents to deliberate acts in order to justify their murder. Those two things should not be conflated. No execution is an accident.

    • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
      1·
      2 months ago
      1. Killing innocent people is wrong.
      2. The death penalty has a chance of killing innocent people.
      3. Therefore, the death penalty is wrong.

      Versus:

      1. Killing innocent people is wrong.
      2. Driving a car has a chance of killing innocent people.
      3. Therefore, driving a car is wrong.

      Clearly, this argument is not sound. You’ll need to come up with another.

      For a more nuanced discussion on this topic I’d recommend a modern Ethics textbook, such as Shafer-Landau’s Living Ethics, which breaks down arguments over the death penalty to their syllogistic form.

      EDIT: more examples.

      1. Killing innocent people is wrong.
      2. Practicing medicine has a well known chance of killing innocent people.
      3. Therefore, practicing medicine is wrong.

      Etcetera

      • ImADifferentBirdEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        When I set out to drive, or paraglide, I do not set out to kill a person.

        If I were to execute the death penalty, I would set out to kill a person.

        Intent matters.

        • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
          1·
          2 months ago

          Here, let me help you.

          1. Intending to kill a person is always wrong.
          2. The death penalty involves intending to kill a person.
          3. Therefore, the death penalty is always wrong.

          This argument is valid. It is not sound.

          I’m actually against the death penalty. But I am also against forming strongly held beliefs for no reason and occasionally stumbling on the correct conclusion by accident.

            • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
              1·
              1 month ago

              I’m against the death penalty, so I’m not sure what “moral position” of mine you’re attacking exactly. Our only point of friction so far has been over the use of basic logic when formulating strong opinions.