Head Shot

Authors

Joanmarie Ilaria Davoli

Publication Date

4-3-2026

Document Type

Article

Abstract

The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that execution methods avoid “superadding pain.” The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the imposition of a death sentence should include no additional pain beyond that needed to kill. That means, for example, that while pain may be inherent in the method of killing, torture is prohibited. As concerns about the pain involved in lethal injections has increased, states have begun executions by shooting inmates in the heart and by suffocation through gas mask. These methods have been used despite evidence that they superadd pain.

The only method that truly complies with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence requiring that executions inflict no more pain than necessary to kill is execution by shooting the inmate in the back of the head. There is abundant evidence that shooting the condemned in the back of the head with a direct bullet into the brainstem would cause a faster, painless death than current methods. While a head shot avoids superadding pain to death, it raises the distressing images of a disfiguring and mutilating head wound, accompanied by blood and brain splatter, as well as the image of shooting an inmate from behind. Such images risk offending Supreme Court dicta requiring executions respect the ‘dignity of man.’

Because there is no execution method that both avoids superadding pain while also protecting the dignity of the executed, there is no possible way to execute without violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, at least given current technology, the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Recommended Citation

Davoli, Joanmarie Ilaria (2026) "Head Shot," Mercer Law Review: Vol. 77: No. 3, Article 5.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol77/iss3/5