When the Department of Justice floats the idea of bringing back the firing squad, the immediate reaction from a lot of people is predictable: shock, discomfort, and a chorus of “this feels like a step backward.”

But let’s be honest for a second. That reaction says more about how we’ve packaged capital punishment in recent decades than about what it actually is.

The United States still authorizes the death penalty. Courts still uphold it. Juries still impose it. So, the real question isn’t whether executions should feel uncomfortable. They should. The real question is whether we’re going to carry out lawful sentences in a way that’s effective, consistent, and honest about what’s happening.

For years, lethal injection has served as a kind of moral anesthetic. It allowed society to maintain the death penalty while softening its image, turning something inherently severe into something that looked clinical, almost peaceful. But that illusion has been cracking. Botched executions, drug shortages, and legal challenges have exposed the reality: the “modern” method isn’t as reliable or humane as advertised.

So now we’re left with a choice. Either we abandon capital punishment altogether, or we stop pretending it’s something it’s not and adopt a method that actually works.

That’s where the firing squad comes in, and why this debate, uncomfortable as it is, deserves a serious and clear-eyed look.

The Case for the Firing Squad: Reliable, Swift, and Honest

If you support the death penalty, then the method of execution must meet three basic criteria: it must be reliable, it must minimize unnecessary suffering, and it must be legally defensible. The firing squad checks all three boxes more cleanly than the current alternatives.

Start with reliability. Lethal injection has become a logistical nightmare. States struggle to obtain drugs, often resorting to secrecy or questionable sourcing. Procedures vary, litigation drags on, and executions are delayed or halted. A punishment that can’t be consistently carried out isn’t much of a punishment at all.

The firing squad eliminates those problems entirely. It doesn’t rely on pharmaceutical companies, complex protocols, or medical personnel who are ethically opposed to participation. It’s straightforward, controllable, and—when conducted properly—extremely difficult to botch. That alone makes it a compelling option in a system that’s currently bogged down by uncertainty.

Then there’s the question of humaneness. This is where the debate gets counterintuitive. Many assume that a firing squad must be more brutal than an injection. But in practice, a properly executed firing squad causes rapid death through catastrophic cardiac and vascular damage. There’s no prolonged struggle, no uncertain timeline, and far less risk of the kind of drawn-out suffering that has occurred in some lethal injection cases.

Even the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution doesn’t require a painless death, only that the method must not impose unnecessary or wanton suffering. In that context, the firing squad isn’t only permissible, but arguably preferable to methods that have repeatedly failed under scrutiny.

Finally, there’s a point that often gets overlooked: honesty. The firing squad doesn’t disguise what is happening. It doesn’t pretend that execution is a medical procedure. It presents capital punishment for what it is: the deliberate, lawful taking of a life by the state. That clarity may be uncomfortable, but it’s also more transparent and arguably more ethically coherent than cloaking the act in clinical language.

The Case Against the Firing Squad: This Isn’t 1875

Opposition to the firing squad as a method of execution centers on a combination of moral, psychological, and symbolic concerns, many of which reflect broader unease with capital punishment as a whole.

One of the most immediate objections is the perception that the firing squad represents a step backward in the evolution of the justice system. Critics argue that modern societies should be moving toward more humane and less visibly violent methods of punishment, not revisiting practices that are historically associated with earlier and less developed legal systems. The firing squad, in their view, carries connotations of a harsher era and undermines the idea of moral and procedural progress.

There’s also a strong emphasis on optics and public perception. Opponents contend that the visual and conceptual nature of a firing squad—multiple individuals aiming rifles at a restrained person—creates a stark and unsettling image that may erode public confidence in the justice system. Even if the method is effective, they argue that how punishment is perceived matters, particularly in a society that places a high value on human dignity, even in cases involving serious crimes.

Many critics also connect this issue to broader objections to the death penalty itself. They point to concerns about wrongful convictions, disparities in sentencing, and the irreversible nature of execution. From this perspective, the debate over methods is secondary to the larger question of whether capital punishment should exist at all. The introduction of a more visibly forceful method is seen as intensifying, rather than resolving, those underlying concerns.

Another argument focuses on the psychological and moral burden placed on those who carry out the execution. Unlike lethal injection, which can create a degree of separation through medicalization and indirect action, a firing squad requires participants to actively discharge firearms with the intent to kill. Opponents argue that this direct involvement may have lasting psychological effects on those individuals, raising ethical questions about the responsibilities placed on state actors.

International considerations also play a role in the opposition. The United States is already among a relatively small number of developed nations that continue to use capital punishment. Critics argue that adopting or readopting the firing squad could further isolate the country from global human rights norms and reinforce negative perceptions abroad regarding the American justice system.

Taken together, these arguments reflect a concern not only with the mechanics of execution, but with what the method represents—both domestically and internationally—and how it aligns with evolving standards of justice and human dignity.

If We’re Going to Do This, Do It Right

This entire debate ultimately circles back to a more fundamental question: does the United States intend to maintain the death penalty as a meaningful part of its justice system?

If the answer is yes, then the current situation is untenable. A punishment that exists on paper but can’t be reliably carried out undermines the rule of law. It creates inconsistency, invites endless litigation, and erodes public confidence in the system.

The problems with lethal injection have exposed a deeper issue: the attempt to make execution appear “gentle” has introduced complexity, dependency, and failure points that didn’t exist before. In trying to soften the image of capital punishment, the system has made it harder to administer in practice.

The firing squad represents a course correction. It strips away unnecessary complications and returns to a method that is simple, direct, and effective. It aligns the means of execution with the reality of the sentence, rather than attempting to obscure it.

There’s also an argument to be made that greater transparency could actually strengthen the system. When the method of execution is more visible and less sanitized, it forces a more honest public conversation about capital punishment. That may lead some to oppose it, but it also ensures that support for it is grounded in reality, not abstraction.

In that sense, the firing squad doesn’t just solve a logistical problem. It restores a level of clarity and accountability that has been missing from the modern death penalty framework.

Practicality Over Optics

The objections to the firing squad aren’t trivial, and they shouldn’t be brushed aside. Concerns about optics, human dignity, psychological burden, and international perception all deserve to be taken seriously. A method of execution that feels stark, direct, and even unsettling will naturally raise questions about what it says regarding the justice system that employs it. That discomfort is real. And in many ways, it’s understandable.

But those concerns ultimately need to be weighed against the reality of what the system is trying to do. The U.S., through its laws and courts, continues to authorize capital punishment. That means the question isn’t whether execution methods feel uncomfortable, but whether they’re workable, lawful, and minimize unnecessary suffering. Discomfort alone, however genuine, can’t be the deciding factor if it comes at the expense of a system that can no longer function reliably.

Take the concern about the firing squad being a “step backward.” That argument assumes that newer automatically means better, but the experience with lethal injection suggests otherwise. The attempt to modernize executions has introduced complications that have made the process less consistent and, in some cases, more prone to prolonged outcomes. If a newer method fails to meet the system’s own standards, then revisiting an older, more reliable alternative isn’t regression but correction.

The issue of optics and human dignity is also significant. Yet there’s an argument to be made that transparency, even when uncomfortable, is more consistent with dignity than obscuring reality behind clinical language. Capital punishment is inherently serious and irreversible. A method that clearly reflects that gravity may actually align more honestly with the nature of the sentence than one that attempts to soften its appearance.

Concerns about the psychological impact on those carrying out executions are likewise important. However, the justice system already places weighty responsibilities on individuals in roles involving the use of lethal force. With proper procedures, training, and safeguards, that burden can be managed without rendering the method unworkable. The existence of moral weight doesn’t automatically disqualify a necessary function of the state.

As for international perception, it’s worth acknowledging that the U.S. will face criticism regardless of the method it uses, as long as it retains the death penalty. While global opinion matters, it can’t be the sole determinant of domestic legal policy. The central question remains whether the method is constitutional, effective, and consistent with the nation’s legal framework.

In the end, the firing squad addresses the most pressing issue facing capital punishment today: the inability to carry out lawful sentences in a consistent and reliable manner. It avoids the logistical failures of lethal injection, reduces the risk of prolonged executions, and restores clarity to a system that has become increasingly strained.

So, the conclusion is clear: the DOJ should move forward with readopting the firing squad as an authorized method of execution. Not because it’s comfortable or widely embraced, but because it’s functional, constitutionally defensible, and better suited to uphold the rule of law under current conditions.

If capital punishment is to remain part of the justice system—as I believe it should—then it must be carried out in a way that actually works, even if that requires facing realities that are difficult to ignore.