Magistrate Claims Firing Squad is the Most Humane Execution Method

David Duncan, a former federal magistrate appointed by Governor Katie Hobbs to review Arizona’s execution methods, claims he was let go for revealing uncomfortable truths: lethal injection is inhumane. Duncan’s dismissal came after he was tasked to investigate issues surrounding the state’s use of lethal injections, specifically focusing on execution protocols and staff training.

Initially, Duncan’s mandate was to evaluate what went wrong in past executions that led to perceptions of botched procedures. He indicated that his findings suggested substantial problems with the humane nature of lethal injections, contradicting the narrative promoted during their authorization by voters in 1992. The secrecy surrounding execution protocols, he argued, exacerbates these issues.

In a communication from Hobbs, she asserted that Duncan had deviated from her request to focus strictly on procedural aspects. She highlighted his controversial recommendation of using a firing squad as a more humane alternative to lethal injection, citing ongoing problems with intravenous drug administration. Duncan contended that this recommendation aligned with the core of the review’s objectives.

Hobbs had announced the independent review following increasing media scrutiny of recent executions that had ended poorly. Reports had noted significant difficulties in the intravenous setup, which ultimately led to prolonged and distressing execution processes.

While the governor’s office maintains that Duncan’s yet-to-be-completed report is unnecessary, it claims steps have been taken to improve execution protocols. Ryan Thornell, appointed to lead the prison system, reportedly completed a thorough review establishing new training requirements and documentation standards. However, questions linger regarding whether Arizona’s execution methods can genuinely be considered humane.

Duncan asserts that the current practices fail to ensure humane outcomes. He criticized the reliance on non-trained personnel for execution processes, warning that it contributes to “botches” and inefficiencies. In his view, the public’s perception of lethal injection as a compassionate alternative is misleading, as it does not parallel the humane euthanasia practices for animals.

The discourse surrounding execution methods in Arizona is further complicated by the historical context. Following the 1992 approval of lethal injection, the state had to address several challenges, including drug sourcing. In 2015, a mishandled attempt to obtain lethal drugs exemplified the difficulties faced by the Department of Corrections.

Execution attempts resumed in 2022, though persistent issues with administering lethal injections raised alarm. Duncan indicated that a successful execution should not involve the chaotic situations witnessed in recent years, where staff struggle to establish functioning intravenous lines seemingly at random.

Azionans are split on the death penalty debate, yet recent controversies demand a reevaluation of execution practices. Duncan highlighted the inherent flaws in maintaining a secretive process devoid of transparency—an environment that discourages sharing of best practices and learning from mistakes.

Despite the ongoing scrutiny, both Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes assert confidence in the revised execution protocols. Their statements suggest a commitment to ensuring that, should an execution warrant be issued, it will comply with legal and constitutional standards, although the definition of humane methods remains contingent on ongoing discussions.

The option for inmates to choose the gas chamber still exists, though using it raises ethical concerns, according to Duncan. He described it as a brutal method akin to heinous acts observed in history, casting doubt on its appropriateness within contemporary practice.