SOUTH CAROLINA — In a recent article, Verdict reports that South Carolina’s execution of death-row inmate Stephen Bryant has reignited longstanding concern over the use of the firing squad, which Justia’s Verdict publication notes remains an authorized method in five U.S. states: South Carolina, Utah, Mississippi, Idaho and Oklahoma.
The Verdict explains that while firing squads have existed throughout American history, they have become exceedingly rare, with only six executions carried out using this method in the last half-century. Despite this decline, the five states continue to authorize such executions under certain circumstances.
Bryant was executed on Nov. 14, 2025, for a triple murder committed in 2004, selecting the firing squad over electrocution or lethal injection. The Verdict emphasizes, however, that this choice does little to mitigate what scholars describe as the inherent violence and brutality of the act.
According to the Verdict, attorney David Weiss — who witnessed another firing squad execution in South Carolina earlier this year — characterized the method as a “horrifying act that belongs in the darkest chapters of history, not in a civilized society.”
Firing squads have historically been used as instruments of fear and repression around the world, including in the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, mirroring what the Verdict describes as the deeply embedded legacy of gun violence in American life. Professor Deborah Denno explains that firing squads are among the nation’s oldest execution methods, along with hanging, tracing their use back to the colonial era.
The Verdict reports that Denno noted, “Prior to 1789, there were thirty firing squad executions recorded, most in Louisiana and California… Early accounts of firing squad executions noted that the squad was composed of five volunteer marksmen, yet only four would receive rifles with live rounds. A fifth rifle would contain a blank so that no single member of the squad would experience personal guilt for the killing.”
Historian Mark Smith added that these executions “were often done at a crossroads, some kind of field, some kind of public, open space — and that was the intention because they were largely directed against deserters.” In the Verdict’s reporting, Smith continued by noting that they “were typically shot simultaneously by three or more fellow soldiers — one of whom might have been issued blanks, rather than live rounds — to blur the lines of responsibility for the death.”
Smith also noted that even during their historical peak, firing squads were inconsistent and, at times, ineffective. In a Civil War case cited by the historian, a soldier who survived the initial volley had to be shot again at closer range, the Verdict reports. Smith emphasized that “witnesses could also find the spectacle difficult to watch… Sometimes soldiers charged with firing the deadly rounds deliberately missed their target, the burden of killing in this fashion proving too much.”
The Verdict further highlights how scholars and commentators, including Angela Davis, have argued that the firing squad has historically played a significant role in maintaining racialized violence, with Davis describing it as “violence that kept white supremacy in place.”
Underscoring the troubling history that resurfaces each time the method returns to use, the Verdict argues that the revival of such execution techniques does not signal renewed support for the death penalty, but instead exposes the impossibility of finding any method of execution that is humane.
Brad Sigmon, another South Carolina death-row prisoner, was executed by firing squad earlier this year. One of his attorneys described the scene as “horrifying and violent,” adding that the barrage “shattered his bones and destroyed his heart.”
The Verdict reports that just one month later, the state also executed Mikal Mahdi using a three-person firing squad. Citing reporting from NPR, the publication notes that Mahdi’s autopsy revealed two bullet wounds instead of three. Neither bullet struck his heart directly; instead, “the wounds caused damage to his liver and other internal organs and allowed his heart to keep beating.”
In the Verdict’s account, Professor Corrina Lain summarized the broader moral implications of the method, stating that “the firing squad shows what the death penalty is, which is the state shedding blood in your name.”
Bryant’s execution followed a similar pattern of extreme physical trauma. The Verdict reports that he was strapped to a chair, made no final statement and was shot at close range. The target placed over his heart reportedly flew several feet forward from the force of impact, blood spread across his chest, and he was pronounced dead several minutes later.
The execution draws attention to what the Verdict describes as an unsettling reality: Bryant was killed in a manner eerily similar to the violence he inflicted on his victims. “One we call murder, the other justice,” the publication contends, capturing the moral tension raised by this form of execution.
The state’s continued use of the firing squad, the article underscores, reveals deeper unresolved questions about capital punishment, including its historical ties to violence, the risk of procedural failure and the enduring debate over whether the government can ever be justified in carrying out the death penalty.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
