Firing Squad Versus Lethal Injection

Mar 11, 2015 - 0 Comments

Death by firing squad versus lethal injection is a debate currently heating up in some states where concerned lawmakers firmly believe the latter is anything but efficient or humane.

In truth, firing squads do make quick work of eliminating undesirables from the face of the earth, but this tried-and-true practice has become somewhat outmoded now, in favor of killer drugs and chemicals.

Firing Squad and dying prisoner, circa 1900

In recent years though, there’s been some seriously gruesome injection bungles that have brought many criminal justice critics and human rights groups to question the efficacy of using a needle.

The cases in Oklahoma and Arizona where two death-row inmates were each painfully suspended between life and death for many minutes after supposedly-lethal drug doses were administered, "prove just how cruel and unusual these executions really are," advocates for firing squads insist.

States like Utah and Arkansas appear to agree: Prisoners there facing the executioner may soon be able to opt for dying by rapid-fire, instead of being strapped onto a medical slab and running the risk their injections get botched.

But firing squads have naysayers too, and many of these are simply calling the old-fashioned method of execution “disgusting” and “barbaric.”

Some also point out that, despite death by firing squad being billed as foolproof in comparison to the iffy nature of lethal injection, a target could still move at the very last minute, or, worse, the shooters might fail to hit the heart.

But is that statistically-improbable scenario actually more inhumane?



Total views: 3480