An Analysis of and Cautions against Broadcasting Executions
15 years after killing 13 unarmed soldiers (among whom was a pregnant mother pleading for the life of her unborn child), ex-U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan has been sentenced to death. A panel of 13 officers handed down the verdict in 2013 and the execution has now been scheduled for December 3rd. The method of execution? Firing squad. Nothing about the verdict or the method of execution seems to be of much controversy. What seems to be a matter of controversy among Americans, and even among Christians, is Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's announcement that this execution will be live-streamed for the whole world to see. This would be the first visually broadcasted public execution in U.S. history. The only thing like this would be the 2001 execution of the Oklahoma City bomber, whose execution was available to a limited number of people (mostly family members of the victims) via CCTV.
While I don't intend to delve into a full argument about the different sides of the debate, I would caution Christians against equating the live-streaming of a terrorist being executed by firing squad to the hypothetical live-streaming of the death of the Son of God on a cross, as if President Trump and Secretary Hegseth would do both. Those are not the same. At the same time, I would offer a caution to those who would be inclined to outright celebrate the public live-streaming of a man's execution. It is a sober matter that should treated with serious minds and careful analysis. I invite both sides to think more nuanced and more soberly about this conversation.
I'd like to lend my voice to this conversation and help the reader think in a nuanced way; although, I don't see how much of my voice is nuanced. Below, you will see an affirmation of what the Bible teaches about capital punishment and the need for justice to be served. I guess the nuance comes in by the cautions I'd like the reader to take in thinking about the death penalty, particularly when it comes to broadcasted executions.
Clarification: Capital punishment is a biblical right.
I want to provide a clarification. I affirm the Bible's clear teaching that capital punishment (i.e., the death penalty) is a right given to human governments to carry out. We see this in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.
The first mention of this right is in Genesis 9:5-6, in which God says to Noah, "And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." Capital punishment, the right for earthly governments to take a human life, is rooted in the imago Dei. That is, if a person or an animal takes the life of an image bearer, that person's life is forfeit.
We should note that what is being established here is not the death penalty for a human on charges of unintentional manslaughter, self defense, or cases of war. Rather, the death penalty is for those who intentionally take the lives of the innocent. Genesis 9 fits within the beginning chapters of Genesis in telling how God establishes his moral order in a world permeated by sin. It's upon this moral order that God will establish his covenant with Israel, and in particular the Decalogue (The Ten Commandments).
In the New Testament, we see further clarity of how we as Christians should view the goverment and the rights that it carries. What we see is not that different from the Old. Christ himself warns his own disciples, specifically Peter, that those who live by the sword will die by the sword (Matt. 26:52). It's a caution that a life of violence will be met with violence in return, namely the violence of the governing authorities. If a person takes an innocent life, they should expect their life to be taken, blood for blood. The apostle Paul goes on to flesh how Christians should view the goverment's use of the sword in Romans 13:1-7 (ESV):
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
The sword which Paul mentions refers to the goverment's right to carry out justice and punishments against wrongdoers. And as we see here, this is a God-given right as the government is God's servant in administering justice in this age. Individuals are not meant to carry the sword, which is the primary instrument that Paul uses to describe the goverment's authority. The goverment alone has the right to take life in the name of justice. If the individual attempts to take up the sword himself in the name of "vigilante justice", as Jesus says, he should expect to be met and eventually fall by the sword.
What's unique about the American republic is that the sword used by the government is ultimately a sword wielded "by the people and for the people," meaning we have the right to determine who wields government authority and how that authority should be wielded. We could also flesh out how the first and second amendment safeguard us against a misuse of that authority, but I'll save that for another argument.
Putting this all together, the Bible establishes that if a person murders another person, they should expect their life to be forfeit, blood for blood. Jesus reiterates this in telling us that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. And who is God's primary instrument in this dispensation to wield the sword and mete out justice? The government. The government has a right to issue capital punishment (i.e., the death penalty).
Now, we could go further into discussing what to do when a government fails to use the sword that its been given or uses the sword to punish good instead of evil. But we will save that discussion for a different time. For now, I would like to raise particular cautions against the broadcasting of capital punishment. Again, as clarified above, the caution and question that this article raises is not whether the government should carry out the death penalty but how the government should carry out the death penalty. And more particularly, the question I raise is, should it be broadcasted via live-stream or television?
An Argument for Broadcasting an Execution
Before I offer two cautions against the broadcasting of a public execution, I do want to present a sound reason for why public executions, even live-streamed or televised executions, might be considered. Though I disagree, I do think it would be wise in allowing those in favor of broadcasted executions to speak for themselves.
Transparency and Education
One reason for broadcating an execution could be for transparency and education about capital punishment. The Associated Press mentions Deborah Denno, a death penalty expert and law professor at Fordham University, stating, "Livestreaming an execution could make the process 'much more transparent' and inform the public about all that capital punishment entails." [1] It is probably that most Americans are unfamiliar with the process of capital punishment in America and all it entails. And yet, I still wonder if a publicly broacasted execution is the best means of learning about this process.
A Deterrent Against Evil
Another, moral, reason for broadcasting an execution is for it to serve as deterrent against those who think to commit similar acts of evil. Secretary Hegseth has stated his reasoning for the public execution of Hasan, "Because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things."[2] Hegseth's logic is sound. Killing 13 people has consequences and this becomes quite clear when an execution by firing squad is broadcasted for the world to see. Furthermore, I see how Secretary Hegseth's stated motives coincide with one of the main reasons government exists according to Romans 9:3--to be a God-given terror to wrongdoers. One can hardly argue against Hegseth when, as demonstrated above, there is biblical warrant to provide a deterrent against wrongdoers, in this case people who think about taking the lives of 13 individuals. Not only is this a deterrent against wrongdoers but a vindication of those who suffered at the hands of men like Hasan. [3]
Two Cautions Against Broadcasting an Execution
Having observed the arguments for broadcasting an execution, I want to provide two cautions. Again, these are not cautions or prohibitions against the death penalty, which has been demonstrated as biblical precedent and a right the governement should use. Nor are they cautions or prohibitions against executions being witnesssed in person by a large number of people, which could be debated but not the focus of my argument at the moment. My cautions are against using the medium of live-stream or television to broadcast an execution of a person.
Broadcasting makes martyrs out of murderers.
One of the cautions I take against broadcasting the execution of a man like Nidal Malik Hasan is that it gives him exactly what he wants. An Islamic terrorist, Hasan killed his victims while shouting "Allahu Akbar," according to reports. [4] This is a man who intended to kill and to die, in a suicide attempt, as a jihadist and an Islamic martyr. Without a doubt, a public execution for the world, including America's enemies, to witness will make him into a martyr.
Al Mohler, in his edition of The Briefing on October 12th, makes a similar warning that streaming this execution is not in the best interest of the United States: "It is in the best interest of the United States to do what is in the best interest of justice and in the best interest of the United States. And then you think about giving our enemies....the ammunition of seeing a man who intended to be a martyr in the name of Islamic terrorism made, by their definition, a martyr of Islamic terrorism....I just want to say that I do not believe that such a thing is in the best interest of the United States of America, of our peace and order and righteousness, and our national security."[5] Here Mohler demonstrates the danger of making a martyr out of a murderer who intended to die as a martyr, which is exactly how America's enemies would view him. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has also issued a similar caution, stating that it could be used as a "recruiting tool for future terrorists." [6]
Broadcasting turns the solemn into spectacle.
A second caution against broadcasting Hasan, or any other's, execution is the danger of making something that should be a solemn event into a spectacle. Death is not a light thing. Nor is it a thing of enterntainment. A reason that public executions ended in England was its turning from a thing of determent into a source of entertainment. Charles Dickens, in fact, wrote a letter to the London Times in 1849, decrying the circus atmosphere created at the hanging of murderers Marie and Frederick Manning. [7] In 1868, England's "Capital Punishment Amendment Act" moved executions away from the public into the prisons because of the atmosphere it often created.
The danger with broadcasting an execution, though, is that it moves it into a medium of flippancy and entertainment. If placed on social media channels, a man's death by firing squad becomes one video among millions for people to scroll past, to clip, and to comment on. It allows for those morbidly obsessed with death to constantly view it as a source of pleasure. If broadcasted through television, it becomes a means of media analysis. The solemnity and sobriety of a man's public execution becomes bogged down by pundit comments, only to then be forgotten by a short commercial break or the following week's news cycle. Alonzo Lunsford, a Christian survivor of Hasan's brutal attack, has voiced his support of Hasan's death by firing squad while also issuing a warning against the live-stream, stating that it is "not something you should view for entertainment purposes."[8]
Neil Postman's book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, gives us a helpful paradigm and warning against using certain mediums to convey weighty topics, including a man's execution. "The medium is the metaphor" is the classic line he states, meaning that how we communicate something has just as much affect on us as what is being communicated. If a message is conveyed via a medium that is as flippant and cavalier as social media and television, then it will be treated as flippant and cavalier.
Writing in 1985, Postman witnessed the rise of the age of television and show business. He bemoans how the medium of television had turned both the form and the content of news into entertainment. [9] A somber story on television is overlayed with a soundtrack and the voices neatly polished news anchors to comment on it with a script, indicating that the focus is more on entertainment value than the content being communicated. No doubt, Postman would have been bothered by the age of social media, in which billions of people can watch an atrocity within moments that it happens, if not at the same time, and then swipe up to see a comedy sketch or a photo of a friend's family.
Using the medium of livestream or television turns the solemnity of execution into a spectacle by which to be awed and amused and then to be casted aside within moments. There are terrorist states and rogue nations who use these mediums for this express purpose. I'm sure America herself would rather not be regarded alongside those nations.
Conclusion
Capital punishment is a right given by God to the governemnt to carry out. It is a means of upholding justice as well as the worth and dignity of innocent human beings whose lives are taken unjustly. The death penalty is a means of deterring evil doers and providing temporary vindication to victims of the perpetrators. Still, I do not think it is wise for a Western (or frankly any) government to publicly broadcast an execution via live-stream or television. How something is communicated shapes how that something is recieved. Since the medium of broadcasting through live-stream and television communicates immediacy and flippancy and has the ability to turn what should be a solemn moment into a spectacle, it would be best not to use such mediums.
Personally, I will not be viewing the execution of Hasan because of the above reasons. Still, I want to be careful of binding the conscience of a Christan a reader nd to offer a word to Christians who might view an execution, televised or in person: First, I do not recommend having children watch this. Like many things in our newsfeeds, the specifics and visuals of a public execution are not suitable for children. Second, treat the moment as a sober moment, not as something that is a spectacle or to be shared or commented on. Turn off notifications and give your attention fully to it. Read Genesis 9 and Romans 13 before watching the execution. Rehearse the reality that what you are about to watch is an image bearer losing his life because he took the lives of other image bearers. Third, pray for the soul of the executee, that he would come to realize his need of a Savior. We as Christians hold out the hope that all men have the opportunity to be rescued from their sins and from eternal damnation, even as they are facing justice in this life. Finally, rehearse the hope that, while justice handed down by humans is fallible because humans are fallible, we look forward to the day when ultimate and final justice will come when King Jesus comes to judge the living and the dead.
[1] Quoted in Hallie Golden, "Public executions in the US were once a community spectacle and then they stopped," Associated Press
[2] Quoted in Victoria Craw, "What to know about public executions, and why they stopped in the U.S.,"Washington Post.
[3] Hafsa Khalil, "Fort Hood survivor supports gunman's execution by firing squad but questions livestream," BBC.
[4] Liz Lykens, "Fort Hood mass shooter to be executed by firing squad," WORLD.
[5] Al Mohler, "Monday, October 12th," The Briefing, 23:40-24:20.
[6] Quoted in Finya Swai, "Johnson: Video of Hasan execution could be ‘recruiting tool for future terrorists’"
[8] Hafsa Khalil, "Fort Hood survivor supports gunman's execution by firing squad but questions livestream," BBC.
[9] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Discourse in the Age of Show Business (Penguin, 1985), 112.
Comments