"Utah's use of firing squads predates statehood in 1896 and is a remnant of the early Mormon belief that bloodshed is a required punishment for taking a life, said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which says it is neutral about the death penalty but critical of its application.
"Certainly no other state has continued its use or allowed people to choose it. It's the one thing that stands out," Dieter said. "It's part of the history, so there's a reluctance to change."
The notion that murder must be atoned for in blood has never been part of official church doctrine, and the Mormon church has not taken a formal position on execution methods, said Robert Millet, Brigham Young University religion professor. "
If you take that into account, an opinion of the Mormon belief and its stance on the death penalty and firing squad executions in particular is not really relevant. Not to imply anyone is targetting the faith specifically, even though this faith makes up a large percentage of Utah's population.
Deep, it wouldn't necessarily not bother me, but this is simply about this particular method. A bullet is much more violent and less civilised than an injection. I wonder why when we have the means for such a clinical and cold method, we would choose a firing squad over it? Part of it is the connotation with shooting itself. I remember whatching the program on CNN for McVeigh's execution and once 7.14am your time ticked over, I couldn't watch anymore. Even though it wasn't being shown, knowing that while the names scrolled down the screen, a man was losing his life by order of the courts was a very weird thing to behold. I'm not condoning what a criminal does to get themselves to that point, 168 lives lost and 100's more friends and families devastated by his actions is a pretty huge deal. But at least it was humane. A hard and clinical method, rather than a firing squad which strikes me as emotional and yes barbaric.