Jonah Patel
The use of the firing squad as a means of execution has a long and controversial history. In modern times, it has been used in countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and the United States, where it is currently authorized in five states. The firing squad has been the subject of much debate, with some arguing that it is a more humane method of execution than other forms of capital punishment, while others view it as a brutal and violent practice that undermines the legitimization of capital punishment. The constitutionality of the firing squad as a method of execution has been challenged, with some arguing that it violates the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Countries where death by firing squad is authorized | Brazil, Mexico, Italy, Utah, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee |
| Countries where death by firing squad is prohibited | Spain, Malta |
| History of use | Used during World War II, Mexican Revolution, Cristero War, Second Boer War, Anglo-Irish Treaty Civil War, French and British colonial rule in India |
| Recent instances | Mikal Mahdi, Brad Sigmon, Francesco La Barbera, Giovanni Puleo, Giovanni D'Ignoti |
| Criticism | Cruel and unusual punishment, violent, brutal, mimics the very thing it is meant to discourage |
| Defended by | Quick, certain, civilized, adaptation and progress |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Firing squad executions in the US
The use of firing squads for executions in the US has a long history, with the Supreme Court ruling in 1878 that death by firing squad was permissible. In recent times, the use of firing squads has been rare due to its violent nature, with lethal injection being the preferred method of execution in all states in the modern era. However, resistance by drug manufacturers to provide the drugs used in lethal injections has led to a resurgence in the use of firing squads as an alternative method of execution.
In 2025, Idaho became the first state to make the firing squad its primary method of execution, followed by South Carolina, which executed its first prisoner by firing squad in the same year. Utah, Oklahoma, and Mississippi also allow executions by firing squad, with Mississippi scheduling the execution of its longest-serving death row prisoner without specifying the method. Tennessee has a law that allows the use of the electric chair if lethal injection drugs are not available due to legal problems or unavailability.
The return of the firing squad as a method of execution has been controversial, with some arguing that it is a defeat for death penalty supporters as it undermines the narrative of progress and adaptation in execution methods. Others argue that it is a more humane method of execution than lethal injection, which has been plagued by problems. There have been concerns about the accuracy of firing squads, with one case in South Carolina where the prisoner was shot in the heart but still suffered for an extended period before dying.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and the question of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment has been debated. Legal scholars refer to rare instances of Court rulings on execution methods, such as the Wilkerson decision in 1878 and the Kemmler decision in 1890, to guide their interpretations. The debate over whether the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment dates back to the Founding Fathers.
The Constitution's Framework for Judicial Power
You may want to see also
The firing squad's return
The firing squad has a long and controversial history as a method of execution. In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in 1878 that death by firing squad was permissible, and it has been used at various points throughout the country's history, particularly during times of war. However, in recent years, the use of firing squads has declined, with many states moving away from this method of execution.
Despite this, there are recent signs of a return to the use of firing squads in some states. In 2025, Idaho became the first state to make the firing squad its primary method of execution, and other states, including Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah have also authorized its use. This shift has been attributed to several factors, including the promise of a swift and certain death, as well as controversies surrounding other methods of execution, such as lethal injection.
The return of the firing squad has sparked debates about the brutality and constitutionality of capital punishment. Some argue that it is a violent and archaic method of execution that undermines the legitimizing story of progress and adaptation told by proponents of the death penalty. The use of firing squads also raises concerns about cruel and unusual punishment, especially in cases where the execution is not carried out cleanly or quickly, causing prolonged suffering for the condemned inmate.
However, supporters of the firing squad argue that it is a more humane method of execution than some other options, such as lethal injection, which has been plagued by problems and has been found to cause a sensation similar to drowning in prisoners. Additionally, the use of trained professionals in firing squads is seen as a more reliable method of carrying out the death penalty.
The debate over the return of the firing squad is complex and multifaceted, involving legal, ethical, and practical considerations. As the discussion continues, it remains to be seen whether the use of firing squads will become more widespread or if it will be phased out again in favor of other methods of execution.
The Judiciary Act: Creating Federal Courts
You may want to see also
The constitutionality of death by firing squad
The use of death by firing squad as a form of capital punishment has a long history, and its constitutionality has been the subject of debate and legal interpretation. While some countries have moved away from this method, others have recently reintroduced it.
In the United States, the Supreme Court initially considered the constitutionality of execution methods as they would have applied during the time of the country's founding. In 1878, the Court ruled in Wilkerson v. Utah that death by firing squad was permissible, while deeming older English practices of execution as unconstitutional. The Court further broadened its criteria in 1910 in Weems v. United States, which dealt with cruel and unusual punishment, referencing the earlier death-sentence case, In re Kemmler from 1890, which upheld the use of the electric chair as constitutional.
The debate over whether the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment dates back to the Founding Fathers. The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, but the interpretation of this clause has been a subject of legal debate. Chief Justice John Roberts offered an interpretation, stating that "to constitute cruel and unusual punishment, an execution method must present a 'substantial' or 'objectively intolerable' risk of serious harm."
In recent years, the Court has provided further clarification on capital punishment, ruling in a series of decisions in 1976, known as the Gregg cases, that capital punishment was legal but only under limited circumstances. The Court rejected automatic sentencing to death and emphasized that death sentences must be characterized by careful consideration. Subsequently, the Court has excluded certain classes of people, such as the mentally handicapped and juveniles, from capital punishment and removed rape and felony murder as capital crimes.
While some states have moved away from the death penalty altogether, others have reintroduced the firing squad as an execution method. In 2025, Idaho became the first state to make the firing squad its primary method of execution, followed by South Carolina, which executed individuals using this method in the same year. The revival of the firing squad has been met with criticism, with some arguing that it undermines the legitimization of capital punishment and highlights the brutality of state-sanctioned killing.
Understanding the Constitution: Congress and the Law
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Supreme Court's take on cruel and unusual punishment
The Eighth Amendment in the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishments on those convicted of crimes. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause broadly, holding that it prohibits punishments that are "cruel and unusual" in relation to contemporary standards of decency.
The Supreme Court initially considered the Founders' intent when interpreting the Eighth Amendment. In Wilkerson v. Utah (1878), the Court ruled that death by firing squad was permissible, but it drew the line at old English practices of execution, such as public dissection and burning people alive. The Court broadened its interpretation in Weems v. United States (1910), which dealt with cruel and unusual punishment but not capital punishment. The Justices referenced In re Kemmler (1890), which held that the electric chair was constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. They stated that "punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death; but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution."
The Supreme Court has also addressed cruel and unusual punishment in the context of prison conditions. In Estelle v. Gamble (1976), the Court established that the Eighth Amendment may be violated due to factors related to a prisoner's confinement. For example, deliberate indifference by prison guards to a prisoner's serious illness or injury would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This interpretation was further expanded in Brown v. Plata (2011), where the Court held that prison overcrowding in California was unconstitutional because it resulted in inadequate medical care, violating the Eighth Amendment.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has continued to shape the landscape of cruel and unusual punishment. In the Gregg cases (1976), the Court confirmed that capital punishment was legal in the United States but only under limited circumstances. It rejected automatic death sentencing and arbitrary death sentences. Subsequently, in Baze v. Rees (2008), the Court upheld lethal injection as a legal form of capital punishment. The Justices' opinions highlighted that "an isolated mishap" in an execution would not violate the Eighth Amendment as it does not indicate cruelty.
While the Supreme Court has never found a method of execution to be unconstitutional, state courts have declared some methods unconstitutional. The debate over the constitutionality of specific execution methods, such as lethal injection protocols, continues to evolve as societal standards of decency change over time.
The True Meaning of Marriage in God's Eyes
You may want to see also
Firing squad executions in other countries
Execution by firing squad is a method of capital punishment that has been used in various countries throughout history, particularly in the military and during wartime. While it is no longer as prevalent as other methods such as lethal injection, it is still authorized as a means of execution in some states within the United States, including South Carolina, Idaho, and Utah.
In South Carolina, there have been recent instances of firing squad executions, notably the case of Mikal Mahdi, a 41 or 42-year-old inmate convicted of two separate murders in 2004. Mahdi's execution in April 2025 sparked controversy as an autopsy suggested that the firing squad missed the intended target area, causing prolonged suffering and a more extended death process than expected. This has led to legal challenges by Mahdi's attorneys, who argue that the execution amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment."
In Idaho, Governor Brad Little signed a bill in March 2025, making the firing squad the state's primary method of execution. This decision was based on the increasing difficulty of obtaining drugs used in lethal injections, with drug companies refusing to provide their products for executions.
Utah is another state where firing squad executions have been carried out in recent years. In 2010, Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by a firing squad at Utah State Prison. In this case, one of the rifles was loaded with a blank cartridge, unknown to the shooters, to provide a sense of diffusion of responsibility and plausible deniability.
Outside of the United States, historical instances of firing squad executions include the execution of Manuel Dorrego, an Argentine statesman and soldier who governed Buenos Aires in the 1820s. He was convicted of treason and executed by a firing squad in 1828.
Get SHD Tech in Constitution Hall: Quick Guide
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Death by firing squad is constitutional in the US. The Supreme Court ruled in Wilkerson v. Utah in 1878 that death by firing squad was permissible.
Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah allow executions by firing squad.
Other methods of execution in the US include lethal injection, the electric chair, hanging, electrocution, and the gas chamber.
Critics of death by firing squad argue that it is a violent and brutal method of execution that mimics the very thing it is meant to discourage. There is also a risk of causing prolonged pain and suffering, as seen in the case of Mikal Mahdi, who was executed by a firing squad in South Carolina and suffered for an extended period before dying.
