Tennessee death row inmates want firing squad over lethal injection ahead of state's first execution in years
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — As Tennessee is set to carry out its first execution under the state's new death penalty protocol this month, some death row inmates say the firing squad would be more humane.
Currently, the state's main method of execution is lethal injection, but death row inmates whose crimes were committed before Jan. 1, 1999, also have the option of the electric chair.
Kelley Henry, the chief of the Capital Habeas Unit at the Federal Public Defender's Office, questions the constitutionality of the two options because they can both cause severe pain.
📧 Have breaking news come to you: →
'When that chemical enters your system, that poison, it's going to eat away the lining of your lungs, cause fluid to rush into your lungs, and then you will essentially drown in your own fluid,' Henry said. 'Or there's this other opportunity where you can be electrocuted and your internal organs will all be cooked, and it feels like you're being set on fire.'
In addition, the lethal injection drug, pentobarbital, has strict procurement, storage, transportation, and administration guidelines, which a 2022 independent report revealed the state wasn't following under its old death penalty protocol.
Henry told News 2 that, due to those issues and the potential for severe pain, many inmates would prefer the firing squad as an execution method.
'What our clients have proposed is the firing squad because that doesn't require sophisticated training. It's still brutal, it's still incredibly violent, but what we know now from science and the Department of Justice report that came out in Jan. of this year, where the United States Dept. of Justice said we are no longer going to use pentobarbital because of the ways in which it causes super added pain and suffering…' Henry said. 'With the firing squad, you're going to see a brutal death, but it will be much quicker.'
Tennessee Republicans tried to add the firing squad as an execution option in 2023, but the bill never made it out of committee.
'Why would we want correctional officers to sit there and point guns at individuals as a form of killing? It's almost legalizing first-degree murder. That is not cool,' Sen. London Lamar (D-Memphis) said in 2023.
'Some people have survived an initial volley of bullets in a firing squad execution, leading to a second volley of bullets,' Rep. G.A. Hardaway (D-Memphis) read from a lawsuit out of South Carolina during a 2023 committee hearing on the bill. 'If some of this information is accurate, we're probably going to end up in court on constitutional issues.'
A similar bill was brought this past legislative session, but it never made it to committee.
Henry and other groups will continue to push for what they call a 'constitutional execution' method.
'Even if they're going to be executed, if that's going to be the case, they're still entitled to a constitutional method of execution, and not only are they entitled to it, the citizens of Tennessee want to see a constitutional method,' Henry said.
⏩
It's unclear if lawmakers plan to bring legislation to legalize the firing squad in executions next session.
The state plans to execute death row inmate Oscar Smith, by lethal injection, on May 22.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
Fetterman Calls California Protests ‘Anarchy' as He Criticizes Democrats
Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania warned fellow Democrats that they could face a political backlash if they were seen as failing to sufficiently condemn acts of violence by protesters in Southern California, which local officials have said were limited. On Monday, he posted a photo on social media of a car engulfed in flames and a masked, shirtless person waving a Mexican flag. He suggested that Democrats — many of whom have in fact criticized acts of destruction or violence — should go further in denouncing unruly demonstrations. 'This is anarchy and true chaos,' he wrote. 'My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.' Local officials in California have described the violence as limited, under control and exacerbated by President Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard and deploy troops over the governor's objection. 'I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration — but this is not that,' Mr. Fetterman wrote. 'This is anarchy and true chaos.' Mr. Fetterman, elected in 2022, has become one of the Democrats whom Republicans love to quote as he has broken with some of his party's orthodoxies. He checked himself into a hospital for depression early in his first year in office, and his mental health has recently been the subject of both concern and scrutiny. Democrats on Capitol Hill tried to shrug off his latest comments on Tuesday. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion,' said Representative Yvette D. Clarke of New York, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Some praise appeared to arrive, however, from Elon Musk, the owner of the social media site X, where Mr. Fetterman made his comment. Mr. Musk replied to the post with an American flag emoji.
New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Flawed Message to Los Angeles
President Trump thinks he's sending a message. By deploying waves of National Guard officers and active duty Marines to Los Angeles, he's trying to show that he's powerful and in control, that anyone who protests his policies will pay a price. This is a classic deterrence strategy: hit hard in one place to scare Americans into staying home. But this strategy often backfires. If the majority of protests in Los Angeles reject violence, Mr. Trump may end up proving the opposite of what he intended: that he's afraid, that the protesters are disciplined and that the threat isn't the people — it's him. Counterinsurgency experts have long understood this dynamic. If you want to radicalize a population, there is no faster way than to use disproportionate force against civilians. David Kilcullen, a former senior adviser to General David Petraeus in Iraq, made this clear: Heavy-handed state violence doesn't pacify dissent, it inflames it. Another federal authority, the F.B.I., learned this lesson the hard way. In 1992 at Ruby Ridge in Idaho, an F.B.I. sniper shot and killed the wife of Randy Weaver while she stood in the doorway of her home, holding her baby. The F.B.I. had been called in to back up U.S. marshals who were engaged in a standoff with Mr. Weaver, whom they were trying to arrest on a fugitive warrant. A year later in Waco, Texas, federal agents engaged in a 51-day standoff with the Branch Davidians, a religious sect whose leader, David Koresh, was being investigated for alleged child abuse and the unlawful stockpiling of weapons. The siege ended in disaster: The compound went up in flames and more than 75 people, including at least 20 children, died. Public trust in federal law enforcement plummeted. Militias exploded in size and number. Timothy McVeigh later cited Waco as one of the reasons he bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. Since then, the F.B.I. has trod carefully when confronting American civilians, especially armed ones. In 2014, after the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy had long refused to pay federal grazing fees and hundreds of armed supporters faced off with federal agents, law enforcement backed down rather than risk another Waco. And two years after that, during the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon (this time led by Mr. Bundy's sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy), the bureau showed patience. For weeks agents avoided direct confrontation, choosing instead to wait, negotiate and de-escalate. It turns out that this strategy is more effective in avoiding violence. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
Hegseth Defends Deployment of Troops to Los Angeles at Testy Hearing
In response to often sharp questioning from House Democrats on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the Pentagon's deployment of nearly 5,000 active-duty Marines and National Guard members to help the police in Los Angeles quell sporadic unrest. Mr. Hegseth, a former National Guardsman, also suggested in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee that the use of the Guard, part-time citizen soldiers, for homeland defense would expand under President Trump. 'I think we're entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,' Mr. Hegseth told lawmakers. Officials in Los Angeles, as well as other major cities across the country controlled by Democrats, have expressed concern that the military deployments in California could set a precedent and serve as a test run for other urban areas where the administration's aggressive immigration enforcement could prompt large protests. Mr. Hegseth defended the deployment on Monday of 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines, telling lawmakers, 'We ought to be able to enforce immigration law in this country.' The secretary had several testy exchanges with Democrats on the committee, who challenged him on the efficacy and cost of the deployments. At one point, he ignored direct questions from Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the committee's defense panel, about the cost to deploy troops to Los Angeles. Instead, Mr. Hegseth used his time to attack Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles and the Biden administration. A clearly frustrated Ms. McCollum yielded back her time. When he was questioned again on the mission's projected costs, Mr. Hegseth deferred to the Pentagon's acting comptroller, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, who said that Marine and National Guard deployments — estimated to last 60 days — would cost about $134 million, mainly for travel, housing and food. John Ismay contributed reporting.
