Opinion: Idaho legalized firing squad executions for death row inmates, causing ethical complications to arise. 
———-

Idaho is now one step closer to using a firing squad for execution. On March 24, Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed House Bill 186, which permits the use of a firing squad on inmates awaiting execution when lethal injection is unavailable. The death penalty is already known to be a controversial topic, yet this new form of execution questions new levels of morality.

The law gives the director of the Idaho Department of Correction a five-day period to verify if lethal injection is available for a death warrant. If inaccessible, the department must use the firing squad. 

The House of Representatives passed the bill with a 24-11 vote and a 50-15 vote in the Senate. It plans to go into effect on July 1. However, House Assistant Minority Leader Lauren Necochea expressed her concerns after the vote. 

“This would open Idaho up to lengthy, expensive legal challenges related to the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment,” Necochea Tweeted.
Idaho isn’t the first state to authorize execution by a firing squad; the state joins Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah and South Carolina. Fortunately, the implementation of this method of execution is uncommon. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, only three executions by firing squad have transpired since 1976, compared to 1,387 from lethal injection and 163 from electrocution. 

The push for HB 186 amplified after Idaho death row inmate Gerald Pizzuto Jr. had his execution postponed repeatedly. Pharmaceutical companies have barred correction departments from using their drugs for lethal injections, as they intended them to save lives.

Republican Gov. Little aims to not only speed up Pizzuto’s sentence but death warrants as a whole. 

“For the people on death row, a jury convicted them of their crimes, and they were lawfully sentenced to death. It is the responsibility of the state of Idaho to follow the law and ensure that lawful criminal sentences are carried out,” Little said in his transmittal letter.

The firing squad controversy boils down to its ethical complications. The goal of death row is to make execution as painless as possible. Yet execution from firing squads is far from that. Anestheologist Joseph Antognini found the inmate can remain conscious for 10 seconds and the shots can be “severely painful, especially related to shattering of bone and damage to the spinal cord.”

Thirty-eight percent of the U.S. population already view the death penalty as morally unacceptable. Putting death row inmates through a painful, gruesome death isn’t going to be very popular.

Aside from the convict, the method would negatively impact individuals involved in the executions. Firing squad executions traumatize those who carry them out, those who witness and those who clean up afterward.

“I’ve seen the aftermath of shootings, and it’s psychologically damaging to anybody who witnesses it,” Republican Sen. Dan Foreman said. “The use of the firing squad is, in my opinion, beneath the dignity of the state of Idaho.”

In extreme cases, I find a death warant to be a justified penalty. However, no human should undergo a painful execution against their will. The crime they committed is irrelevant.   

The state will need to pay a one-time $750,000 cost for the department to recondition its execution facility. But even with a new death chamber, firing squads come with legal and moral challenges. Directors are already hesitant to ask their staffers to participate in upcoming executions.

The death penalty isn’t going anywhere as of right now. The current issue we must address is how these warrants are occurring. Ultimately, firing squads challenege the Eighth Amendment as painless deaths aren’t guaranteed. But if the lethal injection scarcity continues, neighboring states are destined to consider other options.