A recent decision by a US appeals court has paved the way for Alabama to carry out the third execution in US history using the method of nitrogen hypoxia, scheduled for November 22. On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected a motion by death row inmate Carey Dale Grayson, who sought to halt his impending execution on the grounds that it violated his Eighth Amendment rights against “cruel and unusual punishments.” This decision upholds an earlier ruling by the US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, which similarly denied Grayson’s request for a preliminary injunction.
Nitrogen hypoxia is a controversial execution method whereby an individual is forced to breathe pure nitrogen, resulting in death by oxygen deprivation. Critics, including organizations such as Amnesty International, have expressed concern over the method’s potential inhumanity. These concerns stem from the procedure reportedly requiring the prisoner to actively participate in their own execution and the absence of precedent for using this technique on humans. Moreover, there are additional worries about seizures, the fitting of masks, and safety risks for execution staff.
Alabama Governor Kay Ivey has scheduled Grayson’s execution to occur between midnight and 6 AM. Grayson was convicted of the 1994 murder of Vickie Lynn Deblieux, alongside several other individuals who were teenagers at the time. Grayson’s legal journey has been ongoing, with his original habeas corpus motion being rejected back in 2009. He was one of five death row inmates in 2015 to challenge lethal injection as unconstitutional, seeking the option for execution using midazolam-only. This motion was also denied.
The case also highlights a broader debate concerning capital punishment for offenses committed by juveniles, especially relevant in the context of the Supreme Court’s 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, which prohibited the death penalty for crimes committed by minors. Grayson’s younger co-defendants had their sentences commuted under this ruling. As Grayson’s execution date approaches, the legal and ethical implications continue to spur discussion among legal experts and human rights advocates.
For more details, refer to the full article on JURIST.