Defendants choose the firing squad for a variety of reasons, he said. "There have been a couple in the past that have bought into the blood atonement issue. I think some have made the choice to make it as painful as possible for those carrying it out," said Yengich, who added that he personally is opposed to the death penalty.

Those who carry out the death penalty typically want to make that process as clinical as possible, Yengich added, and there are always legal challenges.

"Whether it's the electric chair that doesn't work, or the gas chamber that doesn't work, or the guys that shoot the guns that miss," he said. "There are legal and moral challenges to lethal injection as well."

In anticipation of that, lawmakers also narrowly passed an amendment to HB180, which retains the firing squad as a legal option should a judge rule lethal injection unconstitutional or if a medical situation makes it difficult to use lethal injection.

Allen opposed the amendment, pointing out that of the 38 states that impose the death penalty, 25 of them retain no alternative to lethal injection. Idaho retains the firing squad as an alternative, but has not used it, nor has Oklahoma, which can empanel a firing squad, but only after both lethal injection and electrocution are deemed inviable.

Utah's Sentencing Commission, which asked Allen to carry the bill, did not discuss the need for retaining a second legal option to executing during its drafting of the legislation, commission director Ron Gordon said. However, he added that he did not anticipate commission members would object to the amendment.

The firing squad is a relic of Utah's pre-statehood days and reportedly draws on an early Mormon belief that justice was only done if a murderer's blood was also shed. In drafting HB180, the sentencing commission did consult The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which said it had "no objection" to abolishing the firing squad.

---

E-mail: jdobner@desnews.com