Livestreaming Nidal Hasan’s Execution: A Christian View

Justice, Spectacle and the Hasan Execution: How Should Christians Think About a Livestreamed Firing Squad?

For most of the modern era, executions have taken place behind closed doors, witnessed by a handful of officials, reporters and family members. A proposal from the Pentagon to broadcast one live to the world has therefore stirred up a fierce argument.

On 3 December, the US military plans to execute Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009, by firing squad. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said the public will be able to watch. A recent commentary on The Daily Declaration by James Macpherson, republished from The James Macpherson Report, welcomes the idea and calls the left’s objections “barbarism” a misreading. Others, on both sides of American politics, have strongly criticised the plan.

This is a heavy subject, touching grief, justice, punishment and death. This post sets out what is known, how the history and evidence look, where Christians disagree about capital punishment, and what a faithful response might be. It tries to keep victims at the centre throughout.

What Is Known So Far

According to news reports:

• The crime. On 5 November 2009, Hasan, then an Army major and psychiatrist, opened fire at a processing centre at Fort Hood, killing 12 soldiers and one civilian and wounding more than 30 others. Police on the base shot him, leaving him paralysed from the waist down.
• The sentence. A military court martial found him guilty of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder, and he was sentenced to death in August 2013. Military executions require presidential approval, which took more than a decade to come.
• The decision. President Trump approved the execution in early October 2026, on the recommendation of Secretary Hegseth. It’s scheduled for 3 December at 1 pm at Fort Hood, by firing squad. It would be the first execution of a US service member since 1961.
• The livestream. Hegseth told a conservative media outlet that the execution would be carried out by soldiers with rifles, and that “we’ll make sure that people are able to watch.” Reports note that no legal execution has been broadcast live in the United States.
• Mixed signals. Within days, the President said he would “make a decision ultimately” on whether to show it, noting that there are two schools of thought, and that he knows what the military would like to do. Lawmakers on both sides have criticised the idea, and the Homeland Security Secretary has defended it, playing down concerns about propaganda.

So the livestream is still, at the time of writing, a proposal and not a final decision. That’s worth knowing, because commentary in either direction sometimes treats it as settled.

A Short History of Public Executions

Public executions were once common across the Western world, intended to display the power of the state and to warn the public. Gradually, over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many countries moved them indoors, partly because the spectacle tended to draw crowds that behaved in ways that undermined its purpose.

In the United States, the last public execution is generally recorded as that of Rainey Bethea in Kentucky in 1936, which drew a large crowd and sensational press coverage. The backlash helped end the practice there. In 2001, the execution of Timothy McVeigh, convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing, was shown by closed-circuit broadcast only to victims’ relatives and survivors. That’s the nearest precedent for a controlled broadcast, and it’s quite different from a public livestream.

So the proposal would be a significant break with recent practice. Supporters see it as a restoration of transparency and accountability. Critics see it as a return to something that earlier generations deliberately left behind.

Is the ISIS Comparison Fair?

Macpherson argues that critics who compare a government broadcast to ISIS propaganda videos are making a “morally illiterate” mistake, because the purpose, process and message are all different. Many would agree with him on the central point: there is a profound moral difference between a lawful sentence imposed after a long trial and appeals, and the murder of captives by a terrorist group.

But the comparison isn’t entirely without substance either. A number of critics, including security analysts, have worried about a different issue: whether footage of the event could be turned into propaganda. Extremist groups often seek out images that they can reframe as martyrdom or persecution. The Homeland Security Secretary has dismissed this risk, while others consider it real. Evidence for or against it is limited, since there’s no precedent.

A fair summary is that the difference between justice and murder is real, and that the practical questions about how footage might be used are separate and still open.

Does Public Punishment Deter?

The main practical argument for broadcasting an execution is deterrence. President Trump reportedly expressed the thought that showing it might discourage others. Macpherson makes a related argument, that terrorists respect strength and are not deterred by weakness.

The research on deterrence is genuinely contested:

• On the death penalty generally, a major 2012 review by the US National Research Council concluded that existing studies are not informative about whether capital punishment increases, decreases or has no effect on homicide rates, and should not be used to inform policy.
• On terrorism specifically, attackers motivated by ideology, and especially those who expect to die, may be less responsive to the usual calculation of costs. Some scholars argue that executions can raise a perpetrator’s status among sympathisers, while others argue that visible consequences discourage recruitment. The evidence is mixed.
• On broadcasting, there’s no real data, because it hasn’t been tried.

So the claim that a livestream would deter is a plausible hypothesis, not an established fact, and the same applies to the claim that it would create a martyr.

What Christians Believe About Capital Punishment

This is a question on which serious Christians have long disagreed, and it’s worth setting out the main positions fairly.

The case that the state may execute

• Genesis 9:6 says that whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed, because God made humans in his image. Many see this as grounding capital punishment in the sanctity of life.
• Romans 13:1–4 says the governing authority does not bear the sword in vain, and is God’s servant to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.
• The Mosaic law prescribed death for certain crimes, and repeatedly said that the people should “hear and fear” and not act wickedly again (for example, Deuteronomy 17:13 and 21:21). That’s the strongest biblical text for the deterrent value of public punishment.
• Christian tradition. Thinkers such as Augustine and Aquinas defended the legitimacy of capital punishment in grave cases, and it has been the majority view across much of church history.

The case against

• The Catholic Church revised its Catechism in 2018 to teach that the death penalty is inadmissible because it’s an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, a position shared by many other Christians, including many in the Anabaptist and Mennonite traditions and a growing number of evangelicals.
• Mercy in Scripture. God spared Cain (Genesis 4:15) and forgave David, who had committed murder (2 Samuel 12:13). Jesus told the accuser of the woman caught in adultery to cast the first stone only if without sin (John 8:7), and the thief on the cross received grace at the last moment.
• God’s own attitude. Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11 say God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but desires that they turn and live.
• Fallibility. Critics point out that legal systems make mistakes, and that execution is irreversible.
• The New Testament’s emphasis on forgiveness, love of enemies and overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:21).

The question this piece raises

Even among those who accept that the state may execute a murderer, there’s a further question: how should it do so? Scripture gives some guidance here too.

• Dignity in punishment. Deuteronomy 25:1–3 limits the number of lashes a convicted person can receive, so that “your neighbour” is not degraded in your sight. Even in punishment, the offender remains a human being made in God’s image.
• No gloating. Proverbs 24:17–18 warns, “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,” and Proverbs 17:5 condemns those who rejoice at calamity. Ezekiel’s words about God’s lack of pleasure in the death of the wicked set the tone.
• Solemnity. The purpose of justice is to uphold what is right and protect the innocent, not to provide entertainment or catharsis.

The same Scriptures that support the state’s authority to punish also guard against treating punishment as a spectacle.

Our Take

Here’s where we’d like to add some commentary.

1. Justice for the victims comes first.

Thirteen people died and many more were wounded, and their families have lived with this for seventeen years. A Christian response should begin with grief, respect and care for them. Survivors and families hold a range of views on how this should proceed, and their voices should be heard before any commentator’s.

2. Transparency and spectacle are different things.

There’s a strong case that the state should carry out punishment in a way that is accountable: with official witnesses, victims’ families present, press access, and a clear public record. That’s not the same as streaming the event to the world. A middle path, such as access for families and a limited number of independent witnesses, might address concerns about accountability without turning the execution into content.

3. Don’t gloat.

It’s one thing to say that justice is being done, and another to celebrate a person’s death. Macpherson’s piece includes lines that read as eager rather than sombre, including, “Pity it’s taken so long.” Christians can support a lawful sentence and still treat the moment with seriousness. We can recall that Hasan, whatever he did, is a human being made in God’s image, who will stand before the same God as the rest of us.

4. Capital punishment is a question for conscience, not a litmus test.

Christians who love Jesus and honour Scripture come to different conclusions about the death penalty. It’s reasonable to argue the case, but a person’s view on it shouldn’t be treated as a test of orthodoxy. The same is true of broadcasting.

5. Think about the soldiers.

Firing squads are made up of soldiers who are ordered to take a life. Those who have taken part in executions in other contexts have sometimes reported lasting moral and psychological burdens. Whatever one thinks of the sentence, the people tasked with carrying it out deserve care, and a conscience protected from needless pressure.

6. Hold the line on accuracy.

The facts in this debate should be stated carefully. The livestream is, so far, a proposal; the deterrence evidence is unsettled; and claims about the intentions or effects of different parties should be supported. As ever, a case is more persuasive when it doesn’t overstate itself.

7. Remember that the gospel is for the worst of us.

Christians believe that grace reaches even those who have done terrible things, and that no one is beyond repentance. That doesn’t remove the legitimacy of consequences, but it does mean we should pray for everyone involved, including Hasan, whose soul is just as precious to God as anyone else’s.

The Other Side of the Argument

In fairness, here’s how supporters and critics would respond to each other:

• Supporters of the broadcast argue that the public has a right to see how its government exercises its gravest power, that hiding punishment can sanitise it, that victims and the public deserve visible justice, and that visible consequences may deter. They would add that critics who object to this execution seldom object as strongly to graphic violence in entertainment.
• Critics, including some conservatives, argue that broadcasting an execution of a paralysed man in a wheelchair is degrading, that it turns state punishment into a spectacle, that it risks giving extremists a propaganda victory, and that it sets a precedent that future governments could abuse. They note that bipartisan opposition has emerged.
• Abolitionists argue that the death penalty is wrong in all circumstances, and that the debate about broadcasting distracts from the more fundamental question.
• Victims’ advocates hold a range of views, some wanting maximum transparency and others preferring privacy.
• Legal scholars raise questions about military regulations, the rights of the condemned, and the precedent that a broadcast might set.

These perspectives deserve a hearing, and none of them cancels out the seriousness of the crime.

What Christians Can Do

• Pray for the victims and their families, for the soldiers, officials and chaplains involved, and for everyone affected.
• Support victims’ care. Many survivors of the Fort Hood attack still need help, and organisations that work with military families and trauma survivors can use support.
• Engage thoughtfully. If you have strong views, write to your representatives, and make your case with facts and respect.
• Be careful with social media. Resist the urge to share graphic content or celebrate a death.
• Study the question. Read a variety of Christian perspectives on capital punishment, including those you disagree with.

Questions to Reflect On

• What do I believe about the state’s authority to take life, and where does that belief come from?
• Is there a difference, for me, between accountability and spectacle?
• How do I feel about the idea of watching an execution, and why?
• How can I honour the victims without letting anger harden into contempt?
• Who might need prayer and support in this situation that I haven’t thought about?

A Short Prayer

Lord of justice and mercy, we remember those who died at Fort Hood and those who still carry wounds in body and heart. Comfort the families, heal the survivors, and give them peace. Give wisdom to those who must make decisions about justice, and keep them from cruelty and from carelessness. Protect the soldiers and officials who carry heavy burdens. Remind us that every life is precious to you, and that you take no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Teach us to seek justice with humility, and to hold on to hope in your mercy. Amen.