Alabama's Death Penalty: Politics Over Principle

Alabama's approach to the death penalty has become more about political posturing than upholding justice. This is evident in the state's recent actions and the case of Joseph Clifton Smith, who is set to be executed despite clear evidence of intellectual disabilities. The state's use of nitrogen hypoxia, a method not used anywhere else in the world, has raised serious concerns. Witnesses reported convulsions and gasping for air during the first execution using this method. The United Nations has even warned that this method may constitute torture. Yet, Alabama's Attorney General, Steve Marshall, has championed this method and urged other states to adopt it. The case of Joseph Clifton Smith highlights the state's disregard for established legal principles. Smith has documented intellectual disabilities, with IQ scores ranging from 72 to 78 and significant educational limitations. Under previous Supreme Court rulings, executing a person with such deficits is unconstitutional. However, Alabama insists on using only Smith's highest IQ score to justify the execution, disregarding the rest of the clinical evidence. During oral arguments, even conservative justices expressed skepticism about Alabama's approach. Justice Samuel Alito warned that Alabama's standard could lead to instability and chaos. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned how Alabama's "highest score wins" rule could coexist with previous rulings that rejected rigid IQ cutoffs. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Alabama's solicitor general on why the state elevates one IQ score over an entire clinical history. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that Alabama's approach might eliminate the protection recognized in previous rulings. This situation reflects a broader trend where punishment has become a performance and constitutional restraint is optional when it interferes with political ambition. The founders of the United States feared the unrestrained use of state power and designed a republic that values restraint and humility. Alabama's actions today defy these principles and risk hollowing out the moral core that gives the Constitution its meaning. Alabama must choose whether to stand with the principles that built this nation or with the politics threatening to undo them. The state's death penalty practices reveal more about those who operate it than about the people it seeks to punish. It is a moment of reckoning for Alabama and a test of its commitment to justice and human dignity.