I woke up this morning, read The New York Times, and thought to myself:
What the hell is happening to America?
Apparently, we’re talking about bringing back public executions.
Not just executions.
PUBLIC executions. Livestreamed. On the internet.
And I’m thinking, what is this, 1826?
Are we going to gather everybody in the town square? Bring the kids? Pack a picnic lunch?
Maybe sell popcorn?
Good Lord.
Now, before anybody gets carried away, let me tell you what we’re talking about.
In 2009, an Army psychiatrist named Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, and wounded 32 others.
It was a horrific crime.
Thirteen families lost someone they loved. Dozens of other lives were changed forever.
He was convicted and sentenced to death.
And I understand why people believe that someone who commits a crime like that deserves the ultimate punishment.
But here’s where things get interesting.
According to The New York Times, the Trump administration is planning to livestream his execution on December 3.
That’s right.
The United States government is considering broadcasting a human being’s death.
And President Trump has expressed support for the idea, although he has also suggested the final decision hasn’t been made.
Now, there’s a big difference between believing in capital punishment and believing that the government should turn an execution into a public spectacle.
And that’s what I want to talk about.
Because I think this says something about where we are as a country.
THE RALLY
Yesterday, President Trump held a rally in Clarksville, Tennessee.
And a reporter from The New York Times decided to ask people what they thought about livestreaming an execution.
He interviewed ten people.
Now, ten people certainly don’t represent America, or even the Republican Party.
But their answers were fascinating.
One woman said it was awesome.
Another said it wasn’t pleasant, but it was necessary.
Some said they would watch.
Others said they wouldn’t watch but believed everybody else should have the opportunity.
And one gentleman brought up the old days, when communities gathered in town squares to watch people get hanged.
He wondered whether those executions had discouraged crime.
Well, that’s an interesting question.
But the historical evidence that public executions deter crime is far from convincing.
And here’s something else worth thinking about.
For centuries, public executions attracted enormous crowds.
People brought their families.
Vendors sold food.
It was entertainment.
And sometimes those crowds became so unruly that the executions themselves created additional violence.
Eventually, America moved executions behind prison walls.
Not because society had necessarily abandoned capital punishment.
But because we began questioning whether the government should make a spectacle out of killing someone.
And now, nearly a century after America’s last legally sanctioned public execution, we’re having this conversation again.
Except this time, we don’t need a town square.
We’ve got the internet.
THE TECHNOLOGY OF DEATH
Think about that for a minute.
In 1936, if you wanted to watch a public execution, you had to physically go somewhere.
Today?
You could potentially watch one on your iPhone.
Sitting on your couch.
Eating a sandwich.
Maybe between two TikTok videos.
What a remarkable achievement for modern civilization.
We’ve developed artificial intelligence.
We’ve sent spacecraft beyond our solar system.
We’re developing medical treatments that would have seemed miraculous fifty years ago.
And now we’re discussing whether we should use all this extraordinary technology to broadcast someone being shot to death.
Is that progress?
Or are we using twenty-first-century technology to resurrect nineteenth-century entertainment?
And here’s another question.
What happens after the execution?
Because we all know how the internet works.
Somebody records it.
Somebody edits it.
Somebody adds music.
Somebody turns it into a meme.
And suddenly, a government execution becomes another piece of content competing for clicks and views.
Is that really what justice is supposed to look like?
THE BIGGER QUESTION
Now, I want to be clear about something.
This isn’t simply a Republican-versus-Democrat issue.
Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina condemned the proposal.
Vice President JD Vance said he wouldn’t watch.
There are Americans across the political spectrum who support the death penalty.
And there are Americans across the political spectrum who oppose it.
That’s a legitimate debate.
But whether the government should broadcast an execution is a separate question.
And I think we ought to have that conversation.
Because once the government starts presenting executions as public events, we have to ask what purpose those events serve.
Is it justice?
Is it deterrence?
Is it transparency?
Or is it entertainment?
Those are four very different things.
And we shouldn’t confuse them.
WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY DO WE WANT?
You know, I was born in 1957.
I’ve watched this country go through some extraordinary changes.
I remember the civil rights movement.
I remember Vietnam.
I remember watching America put a man on the moon.
And through all those years, I’ve watched us struggle with the same fundamental question:
What kind of country do we want to be?
Because being a great country isn’t just about having the biggest military.
Or the strongest economy.
Or the most advanced technology.
It’s also about how we exercise power.
Especially when that power involves taking a human life.
Now, I don’t know whether livestreaming an execution would make anybody safer.
I don’t know whether it would prevent another mass shooting.
And I certainly don’t know whether it would bring any peace to the families who lost loved ones at Fort Hood.
Those families deserve compassion, respect, and justice.
But I do know this.
We should be very careful about turning the machinery of government into a source of entertainment.
Because once we normalize something, it becomes easier to do it again.
And again.
And again.
THE FINAL QUESTION
Here’s what really struck me about that article.
Several people said they supported broadcasting the execution.
But they didn’t want to watch it themselves.
Now, think about that.
They believed it was important for the public to see.
But they personally didn’t want to see it.
And maybe that’s the most revealing part of this entire conversation.
Because somewhere inside that contradiction is a question about human dignity.
About justice.
About the difference between punishment and spectacle.
Look, America has some enormous challenges right now.
We’ve got an affordability crisis.
We’ve got people struggling to get healthcare.
We’ve got communities divided against themselves.
We’ve got young people wondering whether they’ll ever be able to afford a home.
And here we are, having a national conversation about livestreaming an execution.
I would much rather see our government use its extraordinary resources and technology to improve people’s lives.
But regardless of where you stand on the death penalty, I think every American should consider one final question.
When the government takes a human life in the name of justice, does broadcasting that death make our society more just?
Or does it simply give us one more thing to watch?
Because there’s a difference between justice and entertainment.
And I hope we never forget it.
I’m John Eagleton.
And that’s the conversation I think America needs to have.
Join the Conversation