Francesca Rudkin: What does livestreaming an execution actually achieve?

There are some crimes so horrendous that finding the right words to describe them is almost impossible. The 2009 Fort Hood shooting in Texas, in which Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 32 others, is one of them. 

Hasan was convicted and sentenced to death. Now, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says his execution by firing squad, scheduled for December 3, will be livestreamed so the public can watch. The reasoning, apparently, is that people need to understand there are serious consequences for crimes like this. 

Really? I think we already understand. 

There can be no argument about the enormity of what Hasan did, or the devastation inflicted on the victims, their families and colleagues.  The justice system has imposed its ultimate penalty.  

But why do we need to watch? 

What does livestreaming an execution actually achieve? Is it about transparency? Or has the business of justice, or vengeance, become a performance, with the execution the grand finale, the final episode? 

I have never watched a beheading. I have never watched footage of the Christchurch mosque massacre. I have never deliberately sought out videos of people being killed. Not because I don't want to understand the horror of these events, but because I don't believe watching somebody die helps me understand it any better. It also feels disrespectful to the victims. Their horror turned into a curiosity.    

We’re already surrounded by images of violence. The internet has made it possible to witness the very worst of humanity, often within seconds of it happening. But just because something can be broadcast doesn't mean it should be, and we could be subjected to it even if we choose not to watch.  

There is a reason public executions have largely disappeared from modern society. It’s believed this would be the first public execution in the US in almost a century. Legally there may be issues as to whether it can be broadcast. But there’s no doubt that reducing someone's death to a spectacle risks reducing a serious judicial act to entertainment, outrage or political messaging.  

And it raises an uncomfortable question: what separates this from the public executions associated with countries such as Iran, or the Taliban in Afghanistan? This places the United States in dubious company.  

Will watching an execution deter crime? People continue to commit crimes knowing they could be put to death for them. Does it help victims' families? I can’t say. But this feels less about deterrence, and more about asserting control, projecting power and scoring political points. 

We can understand the severity of a crime without watching someone die. We can support justice without turning death into a show. A healthy society is measured not by what it is able to broadcast, but by what it chooses to leave unwatched.  

JD Vance has said that if the livestream of the execution goes ahead, he won’t be watching it. For once, there’s something we agree on.   

LISTEN ABOVE