The myth of the ‘humane’ firing squad execution 

President Trump, who under military law must approve any death sentence a court-martial imposes, has ordered that former Army Maj. Nidal Hasan be executed by firing squad.  

Hasan was convicted in 2013 of the Nov. 5, 2009, mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. The military had adopted lethal injection as its method of execution; the switch to shooting came without explanation. The U.S. military last used a firing squad in 1945. Hasan, paralyzed from the waist down after being shot during the attack, will likely be seated when he is shot. 

The choice will be defended as clean and quick. That reputation is unearned. The firing squad’s reputation as a cruelty-free method was not built on evidence — it was built by condemned prisoners whom the courts forced to name a less cruel way to die. I know, because I testify as a medical expert in those cases.  

When it comes to cruel execution methods, Hasan’s case inverts the discourse. Civilian prisoners proposed the firing squad because the law left them no other option. When asked recently why the firing squad, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s reply was simply: “No-brainer.” Historically, the firing squad was considered an honorable death for a soldier, while alternative execution methods like hanging were disgraceful criminal punishments. It is uncertain if Hasan considers his impending execution an opportunity to show bravery and exhibit honor. Judged by Hegseth’s rhetoric, an honorable, cruelty-free death for Hasan does not appear to be the goal. The violence is the message.

The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and that includes the way the state kills. But in capital punishment, the law has shifted the duty to prove and disprove cruelty in punishment from the state to the prisoner. In Glossip v. Gross (2015), the Supreme Court held that a prisoner who challenges a method of execution as cruel must also........

© The Hill