February 9, 2015
"In praise of the firing squad"
The title of this post is the headline of this recent Washington Post commentary by Radley Balko. Here are excerpts:
[F]rankly, if we insist on executing people, the firing squad may be the best option. Before I explain why, I’ll first disclose that I’m opposed to the death penalty, and I have no doubt that my opposition to state-sanctioned killing influences my opinions on which method of execution we ought to use. So read the rest of this post with that in mind.
If you support the death penalty, the most obvious benefit of the firing squad is that unlike lethal injection drugs, correctional institutions are never going to run out of bullets. And if they do, more bullets won’t be very difficult to find. Ammunition companies aren’t susceptible to pressure from anti-death penalty activists, at least not to the degree a pharmaceutical company might be. This would actually remove a barrier to more efficient executions. As someone who would like to see executions eliminated entirely, I don’t personally see this as a benefit. But death penalty supporters might. And there are other benefits to the firing squad, benefits that I think people on both sides of the issue can appreciate.
Traditional lethal injection is more humane if you consider the humanity of the procedure from the perspective of everyone except the person being executed. There is now a storm of controversy about the procedure because those botched executions last year produced some really gruesome images, which were then relayed to the public by witnesses. Had the condemned men in Oklahoma, Ohio and Arizona suffered the same pain and agony, but under the cloak of a more thorough paralytic, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. We consider a method of execution humane if it doesn’t make us uncomfortable to hear or read about it. What the condemned actually experience during the procedure is largely irrelevant. The lethal injection likely became the most common form of execution in the United States because it makes a state killing resemble a medical procedure. Not only doesn’t it weird us out, it’s almost comforting.
By contrast, the firing squad is violent and archaic, and judging by the reaction to the bills in Utah and Wyoming, it most certainly does weird a lot of people out. And yet in only the way that should matter, the firing squad is likely more humane than the lethal injection....
This sets up a final argument in favor of the firing squad: There is no mistaking what it is. There are no IVs, needles, cotton swabs or other accoutrements more commonly associated with healing. When we hear about an execution on the news, we won’t hear about an inmate slowly drifting off to sleep. We’ll hear about guns and bullets. Killing is an act of violence. That’s what witnesses will see, and that’s what the reports will tell us has happened. If we’re going to permit the government to kill on our behalf, we should own what we’re doing.
This is where a critic might argue that as a death penalty opponent, I’m merely arguing for the method of execution that I think is most likely to turn people off to the death penalty. I’ll be honest: I hope that’s what will happen. I hope that when confronted with a method of execution that’s less opaque about what’s actually transpiring, more of us will come to realize that we no longer need capital punishment. But I’m not particularly optimistic that will happen. I suspect that there’s a strong segment of the public (and probably a majority) that will support the death penalty no matter how we carry out executions.
Regardless of its impact on the death penalty debate, if we must continue to execute people, the firing squad has a lot to offer. It isn’t just the most humane form of execution now realistically under consideration, it is the most humane from the correct perspective — the experience of the condemned. It brings no concerns about the supply of execution materials. It raises no issues about medical ethics — it doesn’t blur the lines between healing and hurting. It’s honest. It’s transparent. And it is appropriately violent.
February 9, 2015 at 10:02 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "In praise of the firing squad":
Abolitionist being silly, not effective nor even accurate. No notching, nor any suffering, delay as the infusion into tissue took longer to stop breathing than expected. From the view of victim families, the author is insufferable.
I have provided compelling abolitionist argument, one of which would end it in minutes.
None has been adopted by the abolitionists. Why? End the death penalty lose $billions in appellate advocacy fees. So one suspects this controversy is being churned for the rent.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Feb 9, 2015 10:19:27 AM
It's a good article though when determining "cruel and unusual" punishment, I think society overall doesn't just focus on the criminal though obviously that is a core concern. Society looks at all involved, including those handing down the punishment. And, those people don't as a whole now find firing squads a civilized means of killing people.
I could not access the link, e.g., on how to find "psychologically stable" executors for firing squads. But, it does seem that in various ways -- for the criminal -- a firing squad is better than lethal injection. Gary Gilmore favored a firing squad.
Others flag lethal nitrogen gas. People have a bad image of "gas" chambers more so than firing squads. Anyway, appreciate the honesty of piece to face up to the logic of the thing.
Posted by: Joe | Feb 9, 2015 10:42:28 AM