Firing Squad: The Future of Arizona’s Death Penalty?

By  Zoey Sheedy. 

Arizona’s death penalty system faces renewed scrutiny—not only over its current methods but over its future. Following controversial executions and a legislative push to reintroduce firing squads, Arizona voters may soon have a direct say in how the state carries out death sentences.

Aaron Gunches’s Recent Execution

On March 19, 2025, Aaron Brian Gunches, 53, was executed by lethal injection, becoming Arizona’s first inmate put to death since 2022. He was declared deceased at 10:33 A.M. While a clemency hearing was set for March 10, Gunches chose to waive his right to it, eliminating his last chance at reprieve.

State officials said that the execution went “according to plan,” but others raised concerns. Dale Baich, a public defender turned death penalty law professor at Arizona State University, witnessed the execution and believes Gunches likely suffered from pulmonary edema—a condition where fluid fills the lungs, causing a sensation similar to drowning.

Gunches’s road to execution was complex. After pleading guilty to a 2002 kidnapping and murder, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Gunches’s death sentence in 2016. In 2022, Gunches requested that the Supreme Court issue his execution warrant, citing closure for the victim’s family. Months later, however, he withdrew the request. He referenced newly elected Attorney General Kris Mayes’s intention to pause executions and pointed to other executions in Arizona that year which he said had “amount[ed] to torture.” Mayes withdrew the state’s warrant. In December of 2024, Gunches reportedly requested to skip legal formalities, saying his execution was “long overdue.” The Arizona Supreme Court rejected his request, eventually setting his execution for March 2025.  

Capital Punishment in Arizona

Arizona’s relationship with the death penalty spans over a century. Executions were first carried out by hangings and then by lethal gas by 1934. After a nationwide pause following Furman v. Georgia, the Arizona Legislature revised and enacted a death penalty statute by 1979. In 1992, voters chose to offer lethal injection as the state’s alternative to lethal gas. By law, inmates sentenced prior to November 1992 can opt for the gas chamber.

When Arizona refurbished its gas chamber in 2021, critics denounced the chamber as an archaic and cruel means of execution, emphasizing that it requires the same chemicals and method Nazis used to kill millions. Commenters noted, however, that there were 17 remaining prisoners sentenced before 1992 who still must be offered the option of lethal gas.

In 2023, Governor Katie Hobbs halted executions pending a review of the state’s death penalty protocols. Retired Judge David Duncan was appointed to lead the review, but he was dismissed before completion, partially because of his recommendation to adopt firing squads (which was inconsistent with the current law). Although the official review remained incomplete, Arizona resumed executions in 2025.

Lethal Injection’s Controversy

Lethal injection remains Arizona’s primary execution method. The United States Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 2008, finding that the typical three-drug protocol did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. But mounting evidence suggests the method is far from humane.

Death penalty abolitionists oppose capital punishment in all forms, citing its disproportionate use against people of color and low-income defendants and the ongoing risk of wrongful executions. On average, one person is exonerated for every 10 who are put to death. While lethal injection is more palatable to the public, they argue that protocol issues and the history of botched procedures should serve as proof of its danger.

Even those who favor capital punishment for certain offenses have reason to be wary of lethal injection. One study found pulmonary edema in about three-quarters of the gathered autopsy reports. Another study in the same article found that a majority of reports showed anesthesia levels below what is required for surgery, amplifying the likelihood that inmates were aware during the process. The forensic pathologist who devised lethal injection in 1977 has expressed regret, calling himself an “expert in dead bodies,” not in how to kill people. 

The Future of Arizona’s Death Penalty Could Lay in Voters’ Hands

Like Judge Duncan, who conducted the initial review, some Arizona legislators envision a different future for the state’s death penalty. Representative Alexander Kolodin introduced House Concurrent Resolution 2024, co-sponsored by Laurin Hendrix. This type of resolution can place a question directly before voters—in this case, whether Arizona should replace its primary method of execution with firing squads.

HCR 2024 has passed the House. If it clears the Senate, the resolution would be on the 2026 ballot. Instead of the Governor signing a bill, this resolution would give Arizona voters the option to approve firing squads as the primary manner of execution. If passed, Arizona would join five other states that allow firing squads as a permissible execution method. Idaho recently became the first state to make it the preferred method.

Journalist Jeffery Collins has witnessed 11 executions, covering three different methods. In March 2025, he attended his first firing squad execution—an experience for which he said none of his previous coverage prepared him. He describes his heart pounding as the prisoner’s attorney read a final statement. A hood was placed over the prisoner’s head as the volunteer shooters were unveiled. After about two minutes, they fired—with “no warning or countdown.”

Gunches’s execution, less than a month after Kolodin’s resolution passed in the House, has reignited debate over Arizona’s death penalty and its future. One opinion piece acknowledges Kolodin’s justification that firing squads are cheaper, quicker, and have a lower failure rate. This makes them, in Kolodin’s view, “by far the most humane and expeditious way to dispatch the command.” The author questions, however, whether firing squads are truly more humane. She concedes that she might prefer it as a manner of execution, but only if the executions were mandatorily live-streamed. In her view, if voters choose to mandate a manner of execution, they also bear responsibility to witness the result—to “fully understand what is being done in our name, with our approval.”

According to a 2024 study, national support for the death penalty is at its lowest point in half a century. The death penalty has a 53% support rate overall. While there were minimal differences between age groups for two decades, recent studies show that the death penalty has a 47% support rate within millennials and a 42% support rate within adult Generation Z voters.

As younger groups increasingly do not support the death penalty, and almost half of the states have abolished it completely, expect controversy if the firing squad reaches the 2026 ballot. The resolution would require voters to decide whether prisoners should be killed in a gruesome, but potentially less painful manner, or if lethal injection, which appears peaceful but realistically is often agonizing, should remain the preferred method.

Currently, 111 people remain on Arizona’s death row. There are no currently scheduled executions, however. HCR 2024 raises the possibility that the next person executed could face a firing squad. As younger generations express growing opposition to capital punishment, Arizona may rethink whether the death penalty has any place in its justice system. As the state considers its options, it confronts a deeper moral question. Is Arizona poised to take a step backward—or is it merely looking for a solution to an unsolvable problem?