Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer UpdatesRecent executions in South Carolina have brought renewed attention to the mechanics, costs, and constitutional questions surrounding the death penalty. In particular, the 
state’s authorization of the firing squad — a method not used in decades in the United States — has raised new legal and policy questions that extend well beyond the prison walls.
While North Carolina has not carried out an execution since 2006, the subject of capital punishment remains relevant here. The issues raised by how and when a person is put to death touch on legal procedures, constitutional protections, and the broader functioning of the criminal justice system.
Death Penalty Execution Methods and the Return of the Firing Squad
South Carolina’s decision to authorize execution by firing squad has drawn national attention. When lethal injection drugs became difficult to obtain, the state revised its protocols to include alternatives. The firing squad now joins electrocution and lethal injection as legally approved options for carrying out death sentences.
The method follows a state-authorized procedure that includes aiming at the heart and using multiple shooters. While the process is carried out according to protocol, it remains inherently physical and lacks medical oversight. The person sentenced to death is secured in a chair, a target is placed over the heart, and a team of marksmen fires simultaneously, with at least one using a non-live round. The intended result is death by cardiovascular trauma.
What is the Felony Murder Rule in North Carolina?
Execution by firing squad does not involve layers of medical professionals such as trained physicians, anesthesiologists, or standardized physiological monitoring during lethal injection. Instead:
-
A physician or medical examiner is typically present only to pronounce death after the fact.
-
There is no active medical role during the actual execution process — no vital sign monitoring, no administration of drugs, no confirmation of unconsciousness or instant death.
-
In recent firing squad executions, including the most recent one in South Carolina, death was not instantaneous, and it reportedly took several minutes before a medical professional declared the person deceased.
While a physician is present to pronounce death, the process itself is not medically managed. Reports from recent executions indicate that death may not be immediate, raising questions about the extent of suffering before a final declaration is made.
One of the more unusual aspects of this method — and one that has raised legal and ethical debate — is the choice to target the heart rather than the head.
The rationale for avoiding a headshot appears less about the defendant’s suffering and more about the psychological and logistical discomfort for those administering the execution.
A shot to the brain may result in more immediate death, but it may also involve more visible damage and pose practical complications. Choosing to shoot at the heart instead reflects a prioritization of perceived order, not necessarily minimizing suffering.
This decision raises questions about how “humane” execution is defined in practice and whether the appearance of procedural control has overshadowed the goal of minimizing pain.
These are questions that courts have been called to consider under the Eighth Amendment (Article I, Section 27 of the North Carolina State Constitution), which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, though courts have historically granted states some latitude in selecting execution methods.
The Death Penalty, Appeals, and Constitutional Framework
Although the execution itself receives the most public attention, it is only the final step in a lengthy legal process. In both North Carolina, the imposition of a death sentence sets in motion years — sometimes decades — of post-conviction litigation.
In capital cases, defendants are entitled to heightened procedural safeguards at trial and on appeal. This includes a bifurcated trial (guilt phase followed by a sentencing phase), mandatory direct appeals, and access to post-conviction relief mechanisms such as motions for appropriate relief and federal habeas corpus review. These layers exist to prevent wrongful execution and to ensure that constitutional rights are protected at every stage.
Social Media Evidence at Trial
The result is that the average time between sentencing and execution tends to be measured in decades. Appeals are not a delay tactic — they are part of the system. In fact, they are an acknowledgment that the consequences of error in death penalty cases are irreversible.
Because of the volume and duration of appellate litigation, it is generally accepted that pursuing the death penalty likely costs more than sentencing someone to life without the possibility of parole.
Indeed, capital prosecutions, even when they do not result in an execution, consume far more judicial and administrative resources than non-capital murder cases. The cost is not limited to defense — it includes prosecution, expert witnesses, court time, jury selection, and incarceration on death row, which involves higher security protocols.
Capital Punishment in North Carolina: Status and Questions
North Carolina currently retains the death penalty. While the law remains on the books, a combination of litigation, political hesitation, and systemic scrutiny has placed an effective pause on executions. As of now, approximately 121 people remain on death row in North Carolina.
North Carolina has not carried out an execution since August 2006, a year that saw four executions in total. Although the death penalty remains legal in the state, executions have effectively been on hold for nearly two decades.
The pause began with legal challenges involving the role of physicians in the administration of lethal injection. In 2007, a North Carolina Superior Court judge determined that a licensed doctor must be present to monitor an inmate’s vital signs during an execution to ensure that no unconstitutional pain occurs.
That same year, the North Carolina Medical Board adopted a position that any doctor who actively participated in the process — beyond passive observation — would be subject to disciplinary action for violating medical ethics. This combination of legal and regulatory conflict has contributed to a long-standing de facto moratorium on executions in the state.
The delay reflects a complex series of legal challenges, changes in the state medical board’s position on physician involvement in executions, and ongoing questions about the fairness and reliability of capital convictions. Some prosecutors continue to seek the death penalty, but these cases are less common than they were a generation ago, and fewer juries return death verdicts.
This context is essential in any discussion of modern execution methods. North Carolina has had several high-profile exonerations of people who were sentenced to death — cases where wrongful convictions were later uncovered through new evidence, DNA testing, or re-examination of flawed forensic techniques.
These exonerations have shaped the public and legal conversation about whether the risk of executing an innocent person can ever be fully eliminated, no matter how many procedural safeguards are in place.
The accuracy of convictions matters in all cases, but it takes on added significance when the punishment is permanent. In North Carolina, as in many states, there is growing recognition that even a single wrongful execution would represent a failure in the criminal justice system.
The Eighth Amendment and Evolving Standards
Execution by firing squad also brings the Eighth Amendment back into focus. The constitutional standard is not whether a method eliminates all pain, but whether it involves unnecessary or wanton infliction of pain beyond what is required to cause death.
Courts have upheld various execution methods over the years, often deferring to legislative decisions and historical practices. Still, the question of what is considered “unusual” — or unacceptable — remains.
The Art of Plea Negotiations & Plea Bargains
Execution methods once regarded as routine are no longer used. Hanging, once the default method in many states, is now effectively obsolete. The electric chair is rarely used, and even lethal injection has come under increasing scrutiny due to botched procedures and concerns about drug availability.
With that background, the firing squad stands out not just for its historical rarity, but for the open questions it raises:
- Is a method more acceptable because it is fast?
- Because it is bloodless?
- Because it’s easier on witnesses or on the personnel assigned to carry it out?
These are not abstract debates. They go to the heart of how the state exercises the most extreme form of punishment, and what role dignity — both for the person executed and for the society carrying it out — plays in that process.
Looking Ahead: What the Return of Execution Methods Signals
The return of the firing squad in South Carolina and the broader resumption of executions do not necessarily signal a shift in public consensus. Polling on the death penalty shows variation, and support has declined overall in recent decades. But the continued presence of the death penalty on the books, and its occasional use, means that states must still wrestle with the realities of how executions are conducted.
Withdrawing a Plea for Manifest Injustice
Whether North Carolina will resume executions remains uncertain. Legal challenges are ongoing, and the political appetite for restarting executions appears limited. But the state’s death penalty statute remains active, and prosecutors in certain counties continue to seek capital punishment in appropriate cases.
That means the practical, legal, and moral questions raised by South Carolina’s actions are not confined to its borders. They are part of a larger, continuing debate about how — and whether — the ultimate punishment should be carried out. For North Carolina lawyers, judges, lawmakers, and residents, that conversation is not hypothetical.