Should the execution of Fort Hood gunman be livestreamed?

Executions of criminals rarely receive such publicity. But two recent cases have raised new issues over the use of capital punishment in the US justice system. Christa Pike, aged 50, had been on death row for thirty years for killing a 17-year-old girl in 1995 and she should have been executed by lethal injection on September 30 at a prison in the state of Tennessee. However, after two attempts, she was still alive and is now in hospital recovering. Her lawyers are saying that since the state failed to end her life, she should be spared and kept in prison instead of facing yet another attempt at executing her. For those who support capital punishment – I am not one of them – there may well be a case for completing the punishment approved by the courts, trying a different method of execution. No doubt, the family of the girl she murdered would like to see the death penalty efficiently carried out. However, there must also be an argument that says: the state had its chance to carry out the death sentence and failed, and that it would be inhumane to have a third attempt at some time in the future. What if it failed again? It’s an issue that may have to be resolved by the courts. But it should also raise questions in the state of Tennessee and in other states where the death penalty is part of the legal system, about whether capital punishment is a right and proper form of justice in a modern democracy. The other case raises issues of a different kind. Pete Hegseth, the war secretary, has announced that he plans to livestream the execution by firing squad of the former army major, Nidal Hasan ,who was convicted of shooting dead thirteen unarmed soldiers at the Fort Hood military base in 2009. ”People need to understand that there are serious consequences for these types of things,” Hegseth said. Hasan is due to face a firing squad on December 3. It would be the first public execution in the US for about a hundred years. The announcement has provoked strong opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. It is easy to see why. The idea of livestreaming an execution so that members of the public can watch a man being shot dead is both gruesome and repulsive. There is enough violence on television without having a state-sponsored video of a death by shooting carried out on behalf of the Department of War (or Defence as it used to be called). The public livestreaming has apparently been supported by the president. But in the seven weeks before the execution is due to take place, one hopes that the decision made by the secretary of war will be overturned. It would be a public spectacle no one in their right mind would want to watch.