The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that firing squad, lethal injection, and electric chair executions are legal, paving the way for the state to resume executions after a decade-long hiatus.

This decision ends a ten-year suspension on executions, driven by drug shortages and legal disputes over execution methods. Despite unified agreement on the legality of lethal injections, the ruling has drawn criticism over the use of firing squads and electric chairs, considered by some as cruel and unusual. The state has made legislative efforts to protect the secrecy of lethal injection drug sources and adopted a single-drug protocol. As legal battles and ethics debates continue, the timetable for resuming executions remains uncertain.

The South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling marks the first significant movement toward resuming executions in the state since 2011. Executions had primarily been paused due to a scarcity of the drugs needed for lethal injections. Despite this unanimous ruling, there was some internal dissent among the justices regarding specific methods of execution. Two justices objected to the legality of the firing squad, while one deemed the electric chair cruel and unusual punishment.

Governor Henry McMaster expressed his support for the Supreme Court's decision, stating it was an essential step to ensure that lawful sentences are carried out. His endorsement comes amid a backdrop of increasing legal and ethical scrutiny surrounding the death penalty, as some experts and attorneys argue that methods like the electric chair and the firing squad are inhumane.

In 2021, South Carolina introduced the firing squad as an alternative execution method due to persistent difficulties in acquiring the necessary drugs for lethal injection. More recently, the state legislature passed a shield law in spring 2023 to maintain the confidentiality of drug suppliers for lethal injections, aiming to mitigate the obstacles that had previously stalled the process. Following this legislative change, the state announced it had secured the sedative pentobarbital and would use a single-drug lethal injection protocol.

Despite these preparations, the Supreme Court's decision also allows inmates to challenge the shield law, arguing it lacks transparency regarding the drugs' safety and lethality. This aspect of the ruling has provided a continued avenue for legal contestation, suggesting that further delays and appeals may occur before any execution is carried out.

Currently, South Carolina has 43 inmates on death row, with executions having been paused since 2011. Historical data reveals that nearly all inmates who faced execution since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 opted for lethal injection. However, the introduction of the firing squad and ongoing debates around the electric chair highlight significant shifts in the methods available to carry out sentences.

Legal challenges against execution methods continue, with four inmates actively suing the state over the use of the electric chair and firing squad. In addition to these legal battles, four more inmates have exhausted their traditional appeals, though the exact timing of when these executions might resume remains uncertain. Two of the inmates facing execution are currently undergoing competency hearings to determine their fitness for execution.

The statewide approach to capital punishment has also seen a shift in sentencing patterns over the years. Prosecutors have only sent three new prisoners to death row in the past 13 years, often opting for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole instead. This shift has been influenced by rising costs, a steady lack of lethal injection drugs, and more robust defense strategies employed by attorneys.

As the legal system navigates these complexities, the state remains at a crossroads regarding the future application of the death penalty. While the Supreme Court's ruling provides a legal framework for resuming executions, ongoing legal challenges and ethical debates will likely shape how and when this ultimate form of punishment is administered.