Should Nidal Hasan’s firing squad execution be streamed live?
And to stream an execution live – isn’t that a kind of oxymoron?
The firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan will be livestreamed, the Pentagon said Thursday, a stunning revelation about plans for the first military execution in more than 65 years after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had described it as being “public.”
That is quite a turn-around. It’s been 17 years since the shooting, a terrorist act that killed thirteen military members and injured 33. So the carrying out of the verdict has been much delayed by appeals. Now that the appeals seem to have run out (although I’m not 100% sure they have), the military seems to want to make up for lost time by using an especially violent means of death and by making it public.
There’s a long history of public executions in the US and elsewhere, but the last public execution in this country was in 1937. The idea was that the spectators would learn a lesson from the spectacle, but I find that unconvincing and I’m not in favor of making anyone’s death public in a sort of snuff film. If you look at the list of countries engaging in public executions these days, it includes Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia (although the latter is changing). Is that a group to emulate?
Some history here:
States started to change the policy as an increasing number of people witnessed botched hangings and as broader concerns grew over the events, Radelet said.
“Instead of promoting the sanctity of life and how solemn the circumstance was, with people applauding and having a carnival-like atmosphere, that really turned people off,” he said.
I fully expect many of you to disagree with me.
No disagreement from me. It was stupid of Hegseth to propose it. How does the administration win from having a news cycle about whether Hegseth is going to live stream an execution?
This is an example of how Trump’s administration sometimes reminds me of Obama’s “stray voltage” theory. Obama would do something outrageous to provoke a response, but was then able to jujitsu Republicans so that he, Obama, looked like the cool and sober one and his opposition looked like hysterical freaks.
Like I said, though, I just don’t see how this helps the administration or the GOP’s prospects in November. Trump and his administration have never been able to work the Obama jujitsu. They can goad their opponents into looking crazy, but not without looking crazy themselves. This is an example of that. A live-streamed execution? Really? Which 13-year-old decided to actually try to do that?
If you can drive your opponents to hysterics over something mundane, like actually enforcing immigration law, that’s a win. When you have go to this level of extreme to get the same reaction, you just look crazy yourself. (And truly, wouldn’t they have gotten the same political benefit from just doing the execution? Why add the crazy? The phrase “jump the shark” comes to mind.
Planned Perphood. Piercing the privacy shield will have a chilling deterrent effect on PP. Baby steps.
This is Obama’s theory of a burden is a “burden” is a burden, but with cause and after due process. Progress.
That said, will it be broadcast on the evening news and published in papers of record?
Abort. LOL
This was an interesting discussion of the pros & cons of live-streaming:
https://newsletter.amuseonx.com/p/secrecy-is-the-wrong-answer-to-spectacle
I’m sure there will be a tiny number of sadists who want to watch executions because they enjoy them, but people like that can satisfy their fetishes from any number of places…this isn’t going to make a difference to them.
I think the intent is for this to act as a deterrent. Making it visible and visceral brings it home or something.
I doubt that it will work but I have no issue with the attempt. I think the intent is sound even if the execution (sorry) isn’t effective.
In order for public executions to be an effective deterrent, I think the punishment would have to be much swifter following conviction. I get that they need to be afforded the opportunity for appeals, but the glacial pace of our judicial system that stretches the process out for ten or twenty years is ridiculous.
To be clear: I’m not a wholehearted supporter of the death penalty in the current environment. I do believe that death is a valid sentence for certain crimes, but in our current judicial system, where DAs are rewarded for convictions rather than justice, I don’t trust that the system is actually executing the correct person in all cases.
In this particular case, there is absolutely no doubt about guilt or innocence…he was stopped in the act. The fact that his appeals have taken this long is flatly stupid, and I think the death penalty is more than appropriate here. Doing it publicly isn’t an issue for me, as long as it’s done.
“How does the administration win from having a news cycle about whether Hegseth is going to live stream an execution?”
I think the mistake you make is in assuming that Hegseth (and Trump for that matter) is a typical politician and everything he does is colored by that consideration.
Perhaps he should have, but I seriously doubt that any consideration was given by him regarding political gain or loss as a result of his statement.
I think he made this decision because he felt it was right, not because he felt it was politically expedient.
For me, that’s a plus, not a minus.