Idaho Likely To Authorize Execution by Firing Squad
"The firing squad, in my opinion, is beneath the dignity of the state of Idaho," said one state senator. "We have to find a better way."

Idaho is set to begin executing inmates by firing squad in cases where the state is unable to obtain lethal injection drugs. The move will make Idaho the fifth state to reauthorize executions by firing squad. As fewer and fewer pharmacies are willing to sell execution drugs to states, increasing numbers have opted to pivot—at least in theory—to alternate methods of killing death-row inmates.
H.B. 186, a bill to reinstate execution by firing squad was passed on Monday with a veto-proof majority of the state's Legislature. While the bill would mandate execution by firing squad in cases where lethal injection drugs are not available, it also contains a provision stating that firing squad will become the state's default method of execution should lethal injection be ruled unconstitutional.
The legislation was introduced last month by the Idaho Legislature's Ways and Means Committee, which wrote that the bill would "ensure that the State of Idaho can carry out timely, lawfully ordered executions now and in the future." According to the Associated Press, Republican Gov. Brad Little has not commented on the legislation, though he has voiced his support for capital punishment in the past.
As pharmaceutical companies have grown increasingly wary of allowing their drugs to be used in executions, several states have begun to expand their possible execution methods. If signed, Idaho would join Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah in allowing execution by firing squad in cases where other methods are unavailable.
Seven states allow for execution by electric chair, though only seven people have died by this method since 2010. Other states, like Alabama and Nebraska, have come up with other methods for killing inmates. In Alabama, the state built a gas chamber for executing prisoners by nitrogen hypoxia—though the method remains unused. In Nebraska, an inmate was executed in 2018 with an experimental drug cocktail.
While anti-death penalty advocates have long expressed concern for the torturous deaths of those killed by lethal injection, the reintroduction of the firing squads is a mixed victory. While the reauthorization of alternate methods like death by firing squad makes it easier for the state to kill people, it is broadly considered a more humane method than death by lethal injection, electrocution, or gas chamber.
"Death by firing squad is nearly instantaneous," Corinna Barrett Lain, a law professor at the University of Richmond, told Scientific American last year. "That's certainly better than being electrocuted for five or six minutes or being gassed to death for six to 10 minutes or being slowly suffocated under a veneer of peacefulness for 10 to 20 minutes."
Regardless of the method's supposed advantage when compared to lethal injection, many are still concerned by the bill.
"I've seen the aftermath of shootings, and it's psychologically damaging to anybody who witnesses it," said state Sen. Dan Foreman, (R–Moscow). "And the use of the firing squad, in my opinion, is beneath the dignity of the state of Idaho. We have to find a better way."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just magically, companies become wary? Not anti-death penalty activists waging lawfare to make companies wary? This is on you and the rest of the zealots that fight the delivery mechanism and not the cause you dishonest twat.
Also, used in strictly American criminally punitive executions or are they equally wary about supplying Canadian Health Service death squads (even if the death squad accidentally kills someone who might've been able to be saved)?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
It would be curious to know who supplies the MAID folks in Canuckistan.
If upvotes were available I'd give you one, you curmudgeonly, politically incorrect . . . . I favor a 9 mm HP to the lower occiput causing loss of consciousness and destroying the respiratory center. Failure is almost unheard of with that method. A carefully placed heart shot would be favored by some, as the convicted would have about 10 seconds to contemplate what has happened to him before his brain ceased to function from hypoxia.
The antis (those who are anti-lethal injection) just found out (yet again) that one should be careful of what one wishes for
360 grains of Trepanazine always does the trick!
As an opponent of the death penalty, I support this. Also,out it on TV for everyone to watch.
We'll be done with this quickly enough if everyone has to confront it.
(Not that there are not those who deserve the death penalty. Many more probably deserve it than receive it.)
I'm not a fan of the death penalty either. In many ways, a death penalty is the easy way out. It's probably much crueler to give a life without parole sentence and leave them in solitary for most of their remaining natural lives to sit, think, and rot. Minimal human interaction for as long as they may live.
Sounds worse than death. Almost sadistic.
It's also, intentionally or not, from society's view, pretty inhumane and torturous. Like the zombie films where they keep the zombie of a loved one locked up because they can't bring themselves to kill them, they aren't getting any more domesticated and any chance you have of redeeming them is running out. Agreed we shouldn't be shouting "Zombie!" and executing everyone with a scratch, but just like with the issue about execution method, doing justice or trials better is a separate question.
Along those lines, it's pretty well documented across all kinds of crimes and legal situations, that if you lower the sentence for any given crime, the justice system is more likely to (wrongly) convict.
Can you imagine how modern democrats would handle a ‘Walking Dead’ type of zombie outbreak?
Mask-wearing. Lots of mask-wearing.
I was actually just thinking about that the other day while watching/playing The Last of Us.
True. They would likely sear that zombies can’t hurt anyone who is masked.
So basically they'd all become Whisperers.
It’s probably much crueler to give a life without parole sentence and leave them in solitary for most of their remaining natural lives to sit, think, and rot.
That's already been proven to not be true by watch-what-they-do vs listen-to-what-they-say metrics.
Unfortunately modern prisons are not the punishments they used to be. Like, its cruel and unusual punishment for prisoners to not have tv.
More recently, a child rapist was awarded millions when a court found his rights were violated by the prison not giving gender affirming so he could become a she.
Finally, how long until they go after life without parole? John Fetterman (Pennsylvania's recently elected potatoe) wishes he could eliminated that. And the Innocence Project does its damndest to get actual murderers off, no matter how much they have to lie to do it.
So I'm becoming more and more pro-death penalty if only because I fear lefties letting murderers free do to social justice or some other shit.
We’ll be done with this quickly enough if everyone has to confront it.
Dream on.
Yeah, some of these people have cut unborn babies from the wombs of their mothers, killed dozens of people they didn’t know, even their own kids, spouses, and parents. The idea that a televised execution is going to make them a little squeamish about killing someone else is ludicrous.
Oh… you meant televising the executions would sway “normal” people not to support the death penalty. Uh… sure, whatever. Silly me, I thought the problem was weeding out the irredeemably pathologically guilty and punishing them selectively.
Disagree. Revenge and justice are both widely accepted in egregious cases, think red SUV in Wisconsin.
Not everyone disagrees with the death penalty. Especially in view of overwhelming and admitted to evidence.
I for one am fine with it, when the evidence is not solely circumstantial, such as red SUV guy. It should be metered to only the most firm of evidence.
“…Also, out it on TV for everyone to watch.
“We’ll be done with this quickly enough if everyone has to confront it.”
They used to make hangings public, and even the tortuous deaths of convicted traitors.
The stuff many people have become accustomed to on the screen is fairly gory…admittedly they know it’s made-up, of course, but combine that with the willingess of people in the past to attend public hangings, and it makes me wonder if televising the procedure would really have an anti-death-penalty effect.
And whoever gets the contract to broadcast the execution could do a split-screen with the murder victims’ photos on one side and the offender being executed on the other.
At the same time, people are squeamish about learning that someone had to kill and gut the chicken they are having in their salad.
There is a huge gulf between boomers and genX folks who grew up in a suburban or rural life more closely connected to the farm and millennials and post-millenials who don't realize how food gets to the table.
There was a viral Twitter thread about a European effort to restrict farming, with some extreme youths proposing a complete ban on farms. "Why does anyone need to farm?" one young activist asked.
Yeah. That is the audience I refer to. Not principled philosophy students. Emotional children who are increasingly deciding how things work in our country.
It would be the highest rated show of all time. Make the MASH finale #s look like a TJ Hooker rerun.
The brass at CNN and MSNBC would kill for the ratings of even the worst TJ Hooker rerun.
Better idea, do it in an open field and sell tickets. Make it a family affair. It will serve three purposes; raising money, entertaining the masses, and provide a warning to future lawbreakers.
Alabama, the state built a gas chamber for executing prisoners by nitrogen hypoxia
That's one of the best methods—takes a few minutes, but it's sure and painless.
Fentanyl should also be an option.
Guillotine was apparently remarkably effective.
Shoot them up with a solid wad of morphine, and as the eyes close, drop the blade. Cheap and recyclable.
Whether or not you support the death penalty, or what criteria you might use to apply it, why should the method be friendly? Whatever deterrent state executions offer, they should be scary as shit.
Because imposing a "scary as shit" method can be harmful to those imposing it. Also, making a spectacle of the execution emphasizes the importance of the offender, like the media do with their glamorizing coverage of the killers. More appropriate to treat their deaths as a housekeeping chore, no more significant than taking out the trash.
Okay, here's a proposition: Take a killer already on death row and offer them life in prison in exchange for killing those appointed for execution, cleaning up the mess, and disposing of the remains. We can give them a big pit behind the prison and some quicklime. No one who isn't convicted of horrible crimes has to deal with it. If the executioner quits, the next one to raise their hand for the job finishes them off first.
No muss, no fuss, no trauma for people who matter, and no questions how they get it done as long as it results in the disposal of the human trash.
Everyone on death row is innocent, what makes you think any of them will volunteer?
Seriously, your solution has a lock condition.
The anesthesiologist in the linked article about Alabama using nitrogen asphyxia is a lying moron.
We have accidentally killed numerous people with hypoxic nitrogen gas mixtures in many different industrial settings.
A common one is the anchor locker of large ships.
The rusting of the anchor chain removes all the oxygen in the compartment, leaving a room filled with only the nitrogen in the air.
The room is supposed to be ventilated before anyone enters, but workers often violate this rule.
The first one in collapses and dies and the next one to enter collapses and is dragged out.
They uniformly report no sensations at all before they pass out.
As for the safety of workers in an execution using nitrogen, we routinely use monitors that can detect oxygen and nitrogen levels in real time in any space.
This is the ideal method of execution as it is completely pain free and requires no expertise in starting I.v’s, loading guns or anything else.
Strict adherence to filling and emptying a room with nitrogen gas and reading the levels of a gas monitor is all that is needed.
And no psychic trauma for onlookers or messy clean up needed
Seems ideal to me that people who need killing are executed in this way
“The state should not be sanctioning unproven and untested methods for treatment of any kind, especially not to kill people,” he [ACLU Spokesperson] added.
Unless you’ve got a bunch of old people and a novel virus, then lock the fuckers in and throw away the key even if that could quite reasonably cause more people to die.
We have to fix Social Security somehow.
Yeah, that is a really tone-deaf quote.
The first one in collapses and dies and the next one to enter collapses and is dragged out. They uniformly report no sensations at all before they pass out.
Also pretty retarded about being able to test it. People pass out from hypoxia, suffer nitrogen narcosis, and survive, completely unharmed, all the time. Just step down the oxygen in nitrox tanks, hook them up to regulators with mouthpieces. EZPZ. Even for undergrad college students, it’s not uncommon to work over huge insulated tanks and Dewer flasks of liquid N2 without any issue.
Or just blast them in the back of the head with a 12 gauge shotgun at point blank range.
Messy.
I agree. When I first was given instruction about the fire suppression system at the university computer lab back in the 80s, I realized this was the easy way to do executions and suicides.
In fact, this was one of Kavorkian's machines.
The body responds to rising CO2 levels, not falling O2. So you don't even notice that you have no oxygen. You just get tunnel vision and pass out.
I agree. I've known of sick pets put down with this method. No trauma for anyone. No oxygen = no CO2 triggering panic.
If pharmacutical companies are "wary of allowing their drugs to be used" for any legal purpose and are actually able to do anything about that, maybe you need to reconsider the patent laws that grant them such sweeping power. Intellectual property is supposed to be a social trade - a short term monopoly in exchange for increased innovation. IP "rights" have been so grossly extended that they are now an active inhibitor to innovation. This is merely another example.
In fairness, though, that's not something state legislators can fix. Changing the method of execution is probably the best they can do.
We could also change laws that restrict the administering of the drugs to medical professionals. People trained in the use of the drugs for death penalty purposes could do so just as well, sidestepping the rules and ethics of doctors and medical technicians.
no state should have the power.
What about a private institution?
amenable to arguments in favor. too many decades into Twilight Zone reruns to believe l'Etat should have the power though, ever.
Pretty far down on my list. Well below conscription/war and abortion which, IMO, have a better ROI.
I would be very much on board if the worst crimes in society were poaching the king's deer and we were executing people for it. As it stands, I don't lose a lot of sleep over the guy, too mentally unfit to defend or even care for himself, found at the scene steeped in the victim's blood. People are gonna die any way around and the distinction of innocent people getting killed by criminals, vigilantes, corporations, or governments is kind of a moot point. Locking (more of) them in cages for life doesn't really change the calculus much, if any.
It's in the terms of service.
"The firing squad, in my opinion, is beneath the dignity of the state of Idaho," said one state senator. "We have to find a better way."
Bullshit, if I were facing execution and had to choose, firing squad would be #1 on my list. Cigarette, no blindfold.
Yeah. Some people actually mean "Give me liberty or give me death." when they say it. Can you imagine?
"No thanks, I'm trying to give up smoking."
Are you referencing something there?
Only if I can have cheese and pepperoni on my Tombstone.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…
Read all about it here………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
They should call Canada and find out where they are buying drugs to kill their old people.
Maybe they can sentence the convicted to death by second hand smoke.
Methods that people widely choose for suicide should all be ok. That includes gun fire, nitrogen, and fentanyl.
I determined carotid collapse via zip tie and two round rods to be least liable to fail and be most short duration of unpleasantness when I was planning mine.
'....or the torturous deaths of those '...- convicted for first degree premeditated homicide - many committed by unspeakable and horrific methods and slow torture carried out by people who enjoyed doing it - '...killed by lethal injection...'
Serious question: Instead of a firing squad shooting somebody in the heart, wouldn't it be faster, less painful, and have a lower risk of a botched execution to simply shoot the convict behind the ear with a pistol?
And for that politician who says that a firing squad is beneath the dignity of the State of Idaho: You are taking a helpless human being and killing him, an inherently violent act, so matter how you try to disguise it for the sake of the witnesses. Shooting them is arguably the best combination of quickest onset of death, minimal suffering (mainly due to the speed of death, admittedly), and minimal risk of a botched execution. If it's too traumatic for you, perhaps you should rethink whether or not your state has a death penalty at all.
Since when is a squad required to shoot someone to death? A single person with a single gun is all that is needed. Anything else is just bureaucratic government bloat.
The theory has always been that the squad takes the responsibility for killing someone off the individual shooter.
Bullshit.
You can do it perfectly well with one guy and a bullet to the back of the head. And in a state like Idaho I'm sure you'd get hundreds of volunteers who would do it. Probably for travel and food money. They'll bring their own gun and ammo.
One to the head on the courthouse steps at noon.
Why are states so bad at getting the drugs? Takes 3 drugs to do a lethal execution, right? Order one each from three different places. Don't tell them you need it for executions. Easy peasy.
It is so effing easy to kill someone - you'd think we were trying to invent a flying whale. No squad, just a rifle barrel right up against the back of the head. Exploding rapid fire rounds - plural. God knows theres' nothing unusual about people dying of gunshot wounds in this country. Low tech is best - stop trying to be clever.
Senator Foreman says that death by firing squad is "psychologically damaging to anybody who witnesses it.." As an opponent of capital punishment, I think that is a feature rather than a defect. If we as a society are willing to impose the death penalty, we should be clear what we are about - - killing a human, albeit one who deserves his fate.