Execution by electrocution is a method of capital punishment that sends a high-voltage electrical current through a condemned person’s body to cause cardiac arrest and brain death. Seven U.S. states still authorize the electric chair, either as the default method, as an option the inmate can elect, or as a backup if other methods become unavailable. Between 1890 and 2010, more than 4,300 people were put to death this way in the United States, but lethal injection has largely replaced it since the 1980s.
States That Still Authorize the Electric Chair
No two states treat electrocution the same way. Some make it the default, some offer it as the inmate’s choice, and some hold it in reserve behind other methods. The federal government does not authorize it at all; federal execution protocols rely on lethal injection, and in 2025 the Department of Justice directed the Bureau of Prisons to expand its protocol to include the firing squad, not the electric chair.1United States Department of Justice. The Justice Department Takes Actions to Strengthen the Federal Death Penalty
South Carolina is the state where electrocution plays the largest role. Under South Carolina law, electrocution is the default method. A condemned person may elect the firing squad or lethal injection if available, but the election must be made in writing fourteen days before the execution date. Anyone who does not file that written election is executed by electrocution.2South Carolina Legislature. South Carolina Code Title 24 Chapter 3 Section 24-3-530 – Death Penalty
Florida flips the presumption. Lethal injection is the default, and the condemned person gets one chance to elect electrocution. The election must be in writing and delivered to the warden within thirty days after the Florida Supreme Court issues its mandate affirming the death sentence. If a death warrant is already pending, the window shrinks to forty-eight hours after a new execution date is set.3Florida Legislature. Florida Statutes Section 922.105 – Execution of Death Sentence
Tennessee and Kentucky limit electrocution to people whose crimes predate a statutory cutoff. In Tennessee, anyone who committed a capital offense before January 1, 1999, can choose electrocution by signing a written waiver of lethal injection.4Justia. Tennessee Code Title 40 Chapter 23 Section 40-23-114 – Death by Lethal Injection In Kentucky, the cutoff is March 31, 1998. Those sentenced before that date may choose electrocution, but if no choice is made at least twenty days before the scheduled execution, the method defaults to lethal injection.5Kentucky Legislative Research Commission. Kentucky Revised Statutes KRS 431.220 – Execution of Death Sentence
Oklahoma and Mississippi both keep the electric chair deep in a tiered backup system. In each state, the primary method is lethal injection, followed by nitrogen hypoxia if injection becomes unavailable or unconstitutional. Electrocution comes into play only if both of those methods are ruled out. A firing squad sits even further back in the queue.
How a Condemned Person Ends Up in the Electric Chair
The mechanics of the choice matter, because missing a filing deadline or misunderstanding the default can strip a condemned person of any say. In opt-out states like South Carolina, silence means the electric chair: doing nothing, or filing late, results in electrocution. In opt-in states like Florida, silence means lethal injection, and the inmate has to affirmatively elect the chair within the statutory window.
Grandfathering adds another layer. Kentucky and Tennessee both restrict the electrocution option to people whose offenses predate a specific date, so the population eligible to choose the chair in those states is aging and shrinking. Defense attorneys in these jurisdictions have to track both the offense date and the filing deadlines, which run from fourteen to thirty days depending on the state.
How the Execution Is Carried Out
Preparation is labor-intensive, and the details are what most often go wrong. Prison staff shave the condemned person’s head and one calf to create smooth skin for electrode contact. Hair acts as an insulator and can ignite from the heat generated by electrical resistance, so removal serves two purposes. Conductive gel is sometimes applied to the shaved areas to improve the connection between skin and electrode.
The headpiece contains one or two copper electrodes pressed against the scalp, with a natural sea sponge soaked in concentrated saline filling the gap between the electrode and the skull. Natural sea sponge holds saline effectively and conforms to the head’s contours. The saline lowers electrical resistance at the contact point so current flows into the body rather than building up as heat at the surface. A second electrode is strapped to the shaved calf with the same sponge-and-saline arrangement.
Substituting a synthetic sponge is dangerous. In at least two documented cases, a synthetic sponge failed to hold saline the way a natural one does, acted as a resistor rather than a conductor, and caught fire, producing flames and smoke visible to witnesses. Technicians also test wiring, connections, and the power supply, inspect the leather restraint straps, and verify secure electrode placement before the procedure.
Once the condemned person is strapped in and the electrodes are secured, a leather hood is placed over the face. The warden or a designated official signals a separate operator, typically hidden behind a wall or partition, to activate the electrical system.
Protocols vary. A common sequence begins with an initial jolt of roughly 1,800 to 2,300 volts at around 7 to 12 amperes, sustained for approximately 30 seconds, designed to cause instant unconsciousness by overwhelming the brain and central nervous system. The voltage then drops, sometimes to around 240 to 500 volts at reduced amperage, for a maintenance period of about 60 seconds. That lower cycle keeps the heart in fibrillation and prevents any recovery. A brief pause may intervene before the cycle repeats.
One documented state protocol applied 1,825 volts at 7.5 amperes for 30 seconds, then 240 volts at 1.5 amperes for 60 seconds, with a 5-second pause before repeating the full cycle. Other states have used somewhat higher initial voltages. There is no single national standard. Personnel monitor the electrical output from a control room, and if a physician or monitoring equipment indicates continued cardiac activity after the cycle completes, the sequence can be repeated.
When Executions Go Wrong
Electrocution has a documented history of procedural failures. Between 1890 and 2010, researchers identified 84 botched electrocutions out of 4,374 total, a failure rate of roughly 1.9 percent. In practice, “botched” means prolonged suffering visible to witnesses, repeated jolts because the initial cycle failed to kill, smoke or flames coming from the body, and the smell of burning flesh in the witness room.
The causes fall into a few categories:
- Human error, including improperly connected cables or jacks that prevented sufficient current from reaching the body and required additional cycles.
- Equipment and material failures, including corroded components in the headpiece, substitution of synthetic sponges for natural ones, and dry or insufficiently saturated sponges that produced flames rather than clean electrical conduction.
- Inadequate current, where the initial jolt simply did not kill the condemned person and repeated prolonged jolts followed, with visible signs of distress between cycles.
- Physical factors that prison officials sometimes cited, attributing failures to the condemned person’s body type or claiming unusual resistance to electrical current.
These failures helped drive the shift toward lethal injection in the 1980s and 1990s, and they continue to fuel litigation.
Challenging Electrocution in Court
Anyone challenging an execution method under the Eighth Amendment today faces a demanding standard. In Glossip v. Gross (2015), the Supreme Court held that a condemned person cannot simply argue the chosen method risks severe pain. The prisoner must also identify an available alternative that would meaningfully reduce that risk.6Justia. Glossip v Gross, 576 US 863 (2015)
The Court sharpened this test in Bucklew v. Precythe (2019), applying it to every Eighth Amendment method-of-execution challenge, whether general or as applied to a specific individual. Under the Baze-Glossip framework, the prisoner must show three things: that a “feasible, readily implemented” alternative exists, that the alternative would “significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain,” and that the state has refused to adopt it without a legitimate reason. The Court emphasized that the Constitution does not guarantee a painless death and that states receive meaningful deference in choosing how to carry out executions.7Justia. Bucklew v Precythe, 587 US 119 (2019)
The framework makes striking down electrocution through litigation exceptionally hard. A prisoner has to propose a specific, proven alternative and demonstrate the state has no good reason to reject it. Courts have rejected alternatives they considered “insufficiently detailed” or “untried and untested.” A prior botched execution alone is not enough.8Legal Information Institute (LII). Execution Methods
The constitutional foundation goes back to In re Kemmler, decided after New York adopted the electric chair in 1888 and carried out the first electrocution on William Kemmler at Auburn Prison in 1890. The Supreme Court rejected Kemmler’s challenge, reasoning that cruel and unusual punishment meant “torture or a lingering death” along the lines of burning at the stake or breaking on the wheel, and that simply ending a life did not meet that standard.9Legal Information Institute (LII). In re Kemmler
Medical Ethics and Who Participates
A physician must pronounce death at the end of an electrocution, but the two largest medical professional organizations in the country say their members should have nothing to do with the process.
The American Medical Association’s ethics code prohibits physicians from participating in executions. The AMA defines “participation” broadly to include not just actions that directly cause death, but anything that assists, supervises, or contributes to another person’s ability to carry out the execution. Specifically prohibited acts include monitoring vital signs on-site or remotely, rendering technical advice about execution procedures, attending or observing an execution as a physician, and determining whether a condemned person is competent to be executed.10American Medical Association. Capital Punishment
The American Nurses Association takes a similar position. In a stance reaffirmed in 2024, the ANA opposes both capital punishment and any nurse participation in carrying it out. The prohibited activities mirror the AMA’s list: assessing the individual or equipment, monitoring the procedure, procuring or preparing medications, and pronouncing death. The ANA adds that a nurse who chooses to witness an execution must not identify as a nurse or assume any nursing role during the process.11The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing (OJIN). ANA Position Statement – Capital Punishment and Nurses Participation in Capital Punishment
The ethical prohibition has no force of law. No state requires that the person pronouncing death be an AMA member in good standing, and medical boards have generally not disciplined physicians for participating in executions. States rely on physicians willing to participate despite the guidelines, or assign the pronouncement role to a coroner or other official who is not bound by AMA or ANA rules.