The proposal to livestream the execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan sparked immediate outrage across the country for a simple reason: justice should not be entertainment. Had the Pentagon moved forward, it would have turned one of the government’s most serious responsibilities into a public spectacle. The decision to cancel the livestream was the right one because it protected both the dignity of the justice system and America.
The controversy began when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Hasan’s firing squad execution would be available for the public to watch. Hegseth defended the proposal by saying, “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things,” according to NPR. While accountability and transparency are important, there is a significant difference between informing the public and broadcasting a person’s death.
As the death penalty has long been a controversial issue in the United States,people will continue to disagree about the issue and whether the death penalty is appropriate, effective or moral. But a livestream would not have settled any part of that debate; it would have just shifted attention away from the justice being done toward spectacle.
With the role of government being to enforce laws fairly and responsibly, publicly broadcasting an execution risks transforms what would be a private punishment into a show of government power and performance. Additionally, as we are in an age of social media, repostings and clips of the execution would spread instantly, inviting reactions and commentary that could overshadow the seriousness of the event, possibly desensitizing or traumatizing those who would watch it.
Many experts warned that simply proposing the idea was troubling. Julie Ingersoll, a professor of religion at the University of North Florida, told NPR, “I think one of the most worrisome parts of this development is that … it pushes the boundaries of what’s acceptable. Just saying it out loud moves the boundary.” Her concern is highlighting the danger of normalizing practices that were once widely viewed as incompatible with modern democratic values.
America has often presented itself as a nation built on constitutional rights and the rule of law. A nationally broadcast execution would send a different message. Rather than demonstrating strength, it could project intimidation and vengeance. Critics from both political parties argue that public executions are relics associated with authoritarian governments, not democratic societies. That same concern was said by a University of Idaho student, who would like to comment anonymously, who said, “This is not how America deals or shows justice, it harms how we are viewed as a nation, as it brings us down to the same level of countries that we see as enemies.”
Even some survivors of the Fort Hood attack opposed the livestream. Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times during the 2009 attack, told the BBC, “As far as the families of the fallen and the families of the survivors, and the survivors themselves, yes, I think we should be able to look at it uncensored.” However, he questioned making the execution available to the general public, with concerns over the message it could send to younger audiences. The execution would also overlook the impact that such a large broadcast could have on the victims’ families, as it would turn a painful chapter into a nationally viewed event.
Ultimately, America should be judged not only by how it punishes crimes but also by how it exercises power. The debate over capital punishment will continue, but broadcasting an execution crosses a line between justice, fear and spectacle. By canceling the livestream, they have kept the peace, but damage has already been done by entertaining the idea.
Cameron King can be reached at [email protected].