特朗普总统根据军事法必须批准军事法庭所判的任何死刑，他已下令以枪决方式处决前陆军少校尼达尔·哈桑。哈桑于2013年被判有罪，罪名是2009年11月5日在得克萨斯州胡德堡发生的枪击事件。此前，军方采用注射死刑作为执行方式；而此次改用枪决却未作任何解释。美国军方上一次使用枪决是在1945年。哈桑在袭击中身中枪弹，腰部以下瘫痪，因此他很可能在行刑时处于坐姿。
President Trump, who under military law must approve any death sentence a court-martial imposes, has ordered that former Army Maj. Nidal Hasan be executed by firing squad. Hasan was convicted in 2013 of the Nov. 5, 2009, mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. The military had adopted lethal injection as its method of execution; the switch to shooting came without explanation. The U.S. military last used a firing squad in 1945. Hasan, paralyzed from the waist down after being shot during the attack, will likely be seated when he is shot.
军方将辩称这一选择干净利落。但这种声誉并无根据。枪决之所以被视作一种不残忍的处决方式，并非基于证据，而是源于被判处死刑的囚犯们被迫向法院指出比枪决更残忍的死亡方式。我对此深有体会，因为我曾作为医学专家在这些案件中作证。在残酷的处决方式问题上，哈桑的案件彻底扭转了讨论的方向。平民囚犯之所以提议枪决，是因为法律没有给他们留下其他选择。
The choice will be defended as clean and quick. That reputation is unearned. The firing squad’s reputation as a cruelty-free method was not built on evidence — it was built by condemned prisoners whom the courts forced to name a less cruel way to die. I know, because I testify as a medical expert in those cases. When it comes to cruel execution methods, Hasan’s case inverts the discourse. Civilian prisoners proposed the firing squad because the law left them no other option.
最近当被问及为何选择枪决时，国防部长皮特·赫格塞思的回答仅仅是：“这还用考虑吗？”从历史上看，枪决曾被视为士兵光荣的死亡方式，而绞刑等替代处决方式则被视为可耻的刑事惩罚。目前尚不清楚哈桑是否将他即将面临的处决视为展现勇气与荣誉的机会。但从赫格塞思的言论来看，让哈桑获得光荣且不残忍的死亡显然并非其目标。
When asked recently why the firing squad, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's reply was simply: “No-brainer.”Historically, the firing squad was considered an honorable death for a soldier, while alternative execution methods like hanging were disgraceful criminal punishments. It is uncertain if Hasan considers his impending execution an opportunity to show bravery and exhibit honor. Judged by Hegseth’s rhetoric, an honorable, cruelty-free death for Hasan does not appear to be the goal.
暴力本身才是其传达的信息。美国宪法第八修正案禁止残酷且不寻常的惩罚，这包括国家实施处决的方式。但在死刑问题上，法律已将证明或推翻惩罚残酷性的责任从国家转移到了囚犯身上。在“格洛西普诉……”一案中，在Gross案（2015年）中，最高法院裁定，任何质疑某种执行方式是否残酷的囚犯，都必须提出一种已知且可行的替代方案，该方案能显著降低遭受剧烈痛苦的风险。
The violence is the message. The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and that includes the way the state kills. But in capital punishment, the law has shifted the duty to prove and disprove cruelty in punishment from the state to the prisoner. In Glossip v. Gross (2015), the Supreme Court held that a prisoner who challenges a method of execution as cruel must also identify a known and available alternative that significantly reduces the risk of severe pain.
在Bucklew诉Precythe案（2019年）中，法院重申了这一规则。州政府无需证明其执行方式并不残酷；而是由囚犯提出更人道处决方式的责任。一些州的做法更为宽松，允许囚犯直接选择执行方式。但《统一军事司法法典》并未提供类似途径。Hasan根本没有任何机会提出针对执行方式的诉讼。作为Bucklew案的专家证人，我亲眼见证了这一规则的实际影响。
In Bucklew v. Precythe (2019), the court reaffirmed that rule. The state does not have to prove its method is not cruel; the prisoner has to propose a better way to be killed. Some states go further and let prisoners choose a method outright. The Uniform Code of Military Justice offers no comparable path. Hasan has no way to bring a method claim at all. I saw firsthand what that rule does as an expert witness in Bucklew.
当时，密苏里州死刑犯Russell Bucklew患有巨大的血管畸形：他喉咙中充满血液的肿瘤不断扩张，逐渐堵塞了他的呼吸道。我在密苏里州死刑监禁期间对他进行了检查。他无法平躺。我警告称，注射死刑可能导致他因吸入自身血液而窒息，也可能在证人面前吐血。这一可能性足以让他获得暂缓执行并继续诉讼。随后，Bucklew必须提出一种替代的执行方式。
Russell Bucklew, on Missouri’s death row, had cavernous hemangiomas: expanding, blood-filled tumors in his throat that were slowly closing his airway. I examined him while he was on death row in Missouri. He could not lie flat. I warned that lethal injection could cause him to choke on his own blood, and that he could vomit blood in front of witnesses. That prospect was enough to win him a stay and further proceedings. Bucklew then had to name an alternative means of execution.
他提议使用氮气，法院则问我这种方式是否会更人道。作为一名恪守职业道德的医生，我无法推荐任何处决他人的方法，美国医学会也提交了一份支持这一立场的法庭之友意见。但法院并不在意。它认为我的拒绝使得Bucklew的论点存在漏洞。此外，氮气当时也尚未具备使用条件；实际上，法院要求Bucklew自己建造一个气室。
He proposed nitrogen gas, and the court asked me whether it would be less cruel. As a physician practicing ethically, I cannot recommend a way to kill a person, and the American Medical Association filed an amicus brief supporting that position. No matter. The court found that my refusal left a hole in Bucklew’s argument. Nitrogen gas was also not yet available; in effect, the court required Bucklew to build his own gas chamber.
与此同时，他急需进行气管切开术，以避免窒息死亡。一旦装上气管切开管，他就可以平躺，其诉讼核心所涉及的窒息风险也因此不复存在。密苏里州于2019年执行了对他的死刑。如果既不是注射死刑，也不是氮气，那么还剩什么选择？2017年，大法官Sonia Sotomayor在一份反对意见中写道，枪决或许比注射死刑更可靠。
Meanwhile, he needed an urgent tracheostomy to keep from choking to death. With the tracheostomy tube in place, he could lie flat, and the choking risk at the center of his claim lost its force. Missouri executed him in 2019. If not lethal injection and not nitrogen gas, what is left? In 2017, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent that the firing squad might be more reliable than lethal injection.
从那时起，囚犯们在投诉中越来越频繁地提到这一方式，目前已有五个美国州批准使用：爱达荷州、密西西比州、俄克拉荷马州、南卡罗来纳州和犹他州。当一名囚犯选择由枪决队执行死刑时，他只是在满足一项法律要求，而非认可这种方式的仁慈性。没有任何实际数据表明这一方式并不残酷，也没有任何前瞻性研究支持任何处决方式。
Since then, prisoners have increasingly named it in their complaints, and five U.S. states now authorize it: Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah. When a prisoner offers the firing squad, he is satisfying a legal requirement, not vouching for its mercy. No real data shows the method is not cruel, and no prospective study supports any method of execution.
现有的证据也并不可靠。2025年4月，南卡罗来纳州通过枪决队处决了米卡尔·马赫迪。他的辩护团队委托进行尸检，并由独立病理学家乔纳森·阿登医生报告称，子弹击中的位置偏低，甚至完全未击中心脏。子弹穿透了肝脏、胰腺和肺部下部。马赫迪并未立即死亡。目击者称，他在中枪后还发出呻吟声。这一规定仍在产生同样的结果。
The evidence that does exist is not reassuring. In April 2025, South Carolina executed Mikal Mahdi by firing squad. An autopsy commissioned by his defense team and reported by independent pathologist Dr. Jonathan Arden concluded that the shots struck low or missed the heart entirely. Bullets pierced the liver, pancreas and lower lung. Mahdi did not die immediately. Witnesses heard him groan after he was shot. The rule is still producing the same result.
2026年9月30日，田纳西州试图用戊巴比妥处决克里斯塔·派克，但未能成功。我作为派克的医学专家证人出庭。在书面报告以及随后的法庭作证中，我警告称，她过去存在静脉穿刺困难的问题，再加上血液容易凝固的病症，意味着致命注射过程可能漫长而痛苦，甚至可能失败。法院无视了我的担忧，田纳西州仍继续执行。
On Sept. 30, 2026, Tennessee tried and failed to execute Christa Pike with pentobarbital. I was an expert medical witness for Pike. In a written report and then on the stand, I warned that her history of difficult IV access, combined with a condition that made her blood prone to clotting, meant lethal injection could be protracted and painful, and could fail. The court set my concerns aside, and Tennessee proceeded.
在实施过程中，她的静脉导管发生渗漏，药物渗入皮下组织，导致严重的灼痛和水泡。戊巴比妥从未以足以致死的剂量到达她的大脑。她被转送至纳什维尔的一家医院重症监护室，目前正回到田纳西州的监狱继续恢复。对派克而言，仅仅质疑这种执行方式是不够的。她同样必须提出一种可行且容易获得的、能够无痛致死的方法。
During the procedure, her IVs infiltrated, leaking into tissues under the skin, causing significant burning and blistering. The pentobarbital never made it to her brain in sufficient quantity to kill her. She was transferred to intensive care at a Nashville hospital and is now back in her Tennessee prison undergoing further recovery. For Pike, challenging the method was not enough. She, too, had to name a feasible, readily available method that would kill her without cruelty.
她的律师最初基于宗教原因表示反对。派克信奉佛教，而佛教的第一戒律禁止杀害或伤害任何生命体，包括自己；如果她指定自己的死亡方式，就等于自己参与了这一过程。
Her lawyers first resisted on religious grounds. Pike is Buddhist, and her faith’s first precept forbids killing or harming any living thing, oneself included; naming the means of her own death would make her a participant in it.
无论是军事系统还是民事系统，均须遵守禁止施加残酷刑罚的规定。民事法庭并不要求国家证明其所采用的处决方式不属残酷；相反，它们要求囚犯自行提出一种相对不那么残酷的处决方式。而哈桑连这样的机会都得不到。当他端坐着等待行刑时，我们理应认清这种处决方式的真实面目：选择行刑队处决方式，并非基于其能确保受刑者免受痛苦的证据，而是因为其他处决方式均已不可行，囚犯们只能在此处填写这一选项罢了。
Military and civilian systems alike are bound by the ban on cruel punishment. Civilian courts do not make the state prove its method is not cruel; they make the prisoner name one that is less so. Hasan does not even get that. When he faces the firing squad, seated, the method’s reputation should be understood for what it is. The firing squad was not chosen on evidence that it produces a death free of cruelty. It was written in by prisoners who had to fill in a blank with nothing else left to write.
乔尔·齐沃特医学博士是亚特兰大的一位麻醉学与外科学教授。在克里斯塔·派克即将被执行死刑前，她所在的辩护团队聘请他担任医学专家。
Joel Zivot, MD, is a professor of anesthesiology and surgery based in Atlanta. He was retained as a medical expert by Christa Pike’s defense team prior to her attempted execution.