Two days after conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated gruesomely and graphically in front of hundreds of people with cell phones at Utah Valley University, a Deseret News story made this observation:
Read more High school girls soccer: 6A state tournament first-round previews
“The horrific scene of Kirk profusely bleeding from the neck traumatized those who witnessed it firsthand. Some children who were there slept in their parents’ room that night. Millions of others watched video of the shooting on their phones and laptops.
“News organizations showed the scene and the shooting in video, with ethical standards eliminating the gruesome moment of impact. But no such restraint was in play for many videos on social media, making access easy for those who later, perhaps, wished they had not seen it.”
If witnessing a murder is traumatic, should we expect much less from an execution, no matter how deserving the killer?
I’m guessing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about psychology or the lasting impacts of violence when he decided to livestream the upcoming execution of former Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was convicted of murdering 13 people and injuring 32 others in a 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.
That heinous crime was among the most despicable ever carried out against the nation’s military. But where along that scale do we place livestreaming the perpetrator’s execution?
Maybe Hegseth will listen to the many Republicans who have raised concerns about mimicking the kind of justice terrorists are fond of exacting, and about its effects on a nation’s psyche. Among these was Utah Sen. John Curtis, who posted on X:
“Seneca warned that Rome’s bloody spectacles corrupted the people who watched them. A civilization erodes when it cultivates an appetite for executions as a form of entertainment.
“Secretary Hegseth’s plan to livestream the Fort Hood execution risks feeding that appetite. The victims deserve justice administered with solemnity. Broadcasting a death diminishes us and is not an effective deterrent. I urge him to reconsider.”
Maybe he will listen to Rep. Austin Scott, R-Georgia, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee. “I absolutely support the sentence of death, but livestreaming executions is what jihadists do,” he posted.
Indeed, this is not an argument against the death penalty. It is an argument for dignity and the rule of law as opposed to passion and vengeance. It’s also about protecting the most innocent among us, and protecting us from the less innocent who may be triggered by such a thing. Livestreamed content will likely be available to all. The internet is not known for restricting the curious eyes of children and teenagers.
Read more Deseret News archives: Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev pounded the U.N. pulpit, maybe
Research about the psychological effects of watching actual death being inflicted, rather than, say, simulated in a Hollywood movie, is scarce. The studies that do exist raise concerns, such as one in 1994 that found journalists who witnessed an execution exhibiting “Dissociative symptoms.”
Four years ago, NPR interviewed executioners in Texas. They told of experiencing depression, insomnia, nightmares and other symptoms. One, who did 10 executions, said he went from being a happy guy to someone who had thoughts of suicide and began abusing alcohol.
Yes, America used to make executions public almost as a matter of habit. But just because these happened without academic scrutiny or scientific studies does not mean people were unaffected.
One of the last public executions in the United States took place in Owensboro, Kentucky in 1936. Rainey Bethea, a young Black man, had been convicted of raping and murdering a 70-year-old white woman. About 20,000 people showed up for the event. A photo shows them crowding around the gallows.
Among the people in that crowd was Rachel Abbott, who was only 5 years old at the time. Kentucky’s WKU Public Radio station asked her in 2016 about her memories of this. She said she had nightmares about it years later.
“I remember it well, but I didn’t want to,” she said. “I tried to get away from it because it was hurting me so bad.
“It’s like his spirit was just hanging all around me. …I still have tears running when I think of it.”
As with all court cases, sentencing hearings, parole board meetings and the like, the public has an interest in being allowed to attend and monitor what happens. Transparency is a vaccine against corruption. Generally, media members or a pool of reporters act as witnesses to executions — surrogates for the public.
That seems a prudent alternative to traumatizing and/or desensitizing untold millions.
Read more Making the case to prosecute ‘enablers’