Justice Without Spectacle | Biblical Perspective on Public Executions

When I heard that the Pentagon was planning to livestream the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, I had two reactions. I thought about the people whose lives were forever changed by what happened at Fort Hood. And then I found myself wondering why the government would want to make an execution available for the whole world to watch.

I want to be careful how I say that, because I don’t want to confuse two questions that Scripture calls us to think through.

Does civil government have the authority to punish someone who commits a terrible crime? And if it does, does that mean broadcasting the punishment is a good and wise thing to do?

Those are related questions, but they are not identical.

Hasan was convicted of murdering thirteen people and wounding thirty-two others at Fort Hood in 2009. His execution by firing squad is scheduled for December 3, 2026, although further legal proceedings could affect that date. The president approved the death sentence on October 2. On October 8, Pentagon officials announced that the execution would be livestreamed, but on October 10 President Trump said he would make the final decision about the broadcast. As of October 12, that decision remained unsettled.

We don’t have to know how that decision will turn out before asking what Christians should think about the proposal. In fact, this is a good opportunity to practice something we ought to do whenever a difficult issue appears in the news: bring our questions to Scripture, read carefully, and distinguish what God has said from the conclusions we draw as we apply his Word.

Before We Debate the Broadcast, Remember the People

On November 5, 2009, thirteen people were killed at Fort Hood, and thirty-two others were wounded. Those numbers matter, but they don’t tell us what it is like to lose someone you love, to live with a serious injury, or to carry memories of violence for years afterward.

I don’t know what each survivor or family member needs as the execution approaches. I would be reluctant to tell them from a distance how they ought to feel.

One survivor, retired Army Sergeant Alonzo Lunsford, was shot seven times. He supports Hasan’s execution and intends to witness it, but has opposed opening the viewing to the entire public. He has argued for access for survivors and victims’ families rather than an unrestricted livestream.

Other survivors may see things differently. Dayna Ferguson, who was also wounded at Fort Hood, told ABC News that the proposal surprised her, although she understood it in light of the history of documenting war and death. She had not settled whether she agreed with it. Some survivors may want to witness the sentence being carried out. Others may want nothing to do with it. For some, the approaching date may bring back grief and fear rather than any sense of resolution.

We need to make room for that reality.

Sometimes Christians are so eager to explain what is right that we move past the person who is hurting. But the Scriptures teach us to mourn with those who mourn (Romans 12:15). Before we ask what policy the government should adopt, we ought to remember that real people are living with the consequences of this crime.

And we should resist promising them something we cannot promise. A completed sentence may bring a measure of relief or closure for some. It may not. No government action can restore a loved one or erase years of suffering.

That doesn’t make justice unimportant. It means justice and healing are not quite the same thing.

What Authority Has God Given the Government?

Let’s begin with Romans 13:1–4. If you have a Bible nearby, I would encourage you to read the passage, and then read the end of Romans 12 as well.

Paul says that governing authorities have been instituted by God. He describes the ruler as God’s servant for our good, and in Romans 13:4 says that the ruler does not bear the sword in vain. The governing authority is an avenger who carries out wrath against the wrongdoer.

We shouldn’t try to soften that language until it no longer says anything. Government has a legitimate responsibility to restrain evil and administer justice. Many Christians have understood the reference to the sword as including the authority to impose capital punishment.

Genesis 9:6 also speaks with great seriousness about murder. Notice the reason God gives: human beings are made in his image. The life taken in a murder is not merely a loss to society. It is the life of someone who bears the image of the Creator.

That is why we must never speak casually about what happened at Fort Hood. The victims’ lives mattered, and wrongdoing deserves a just response.

But look again at the description of government in Romans 13. Paul calls the ruler God’s servant. The word is diakonos. That authority is real, but it is not absolute. Government is not God. It must answer to him for the way it exercises the power entrusted to it.

So here is a distinction worth holding on to: recognizing the authority to administer punishment does not automatically establish that every proposed method of administering or displaying it is right.

How might we test that distinction from Scripture?

Read Romans 12 and Romans 13 Together

This is where I think the conversation becomes especially important for Christians.

In Romans 12:19, Paul tells believers not to avenge themselves. Instead, we are to leave vengeance to God. He goes on to tell us to feed our enemies and overcome evil with good.

Then, only a few verses later, Paul describes the civil authority as an avenger who carries out judgment on wrongdoing. The words translated “avenge” and “avenger” are closely related in Greek.

Why would Paul forbid vengeance to believers and then describe government as an avenger?

I don’t think he is contradicting himself. He is distinguishing personal retaliation from the public administration of justice. We are not authorized to take revenge into our own hands. Government has a responsibility that private individuals do not.

But here’s the question I want us to consider: when a Christian approves of a lawful punishment, do the commands of Romans 12 somehow stop applying?

Of course not.

We are still called to love our enemies. We are still warned against personal vengeance. And we are still accountable to God for what is happening in our hearts.

A person can believe that a sentence is deserved without taking pleasure in another person’s death. Those are different things. Scripture gives us reason to examine the difference rather than assuming our feelings are righteous simply because we support a lawful sentence.

Now, none of that proves that a livestream would be wrong. We need to consider the reasons someone might support one.

Doesn’t the Bible Describe Public Punishment?

Yes, it does. And I don’t think we should skip over that.

Deuteronomy 17:13 and 19:20 describe the people hearing about judgment and learning to fear wrongdoing. Deuteronomy 21:18–21 goes further, describing a case in which the community participates in punishment.

Those are difficult texts, especially to modern readers. But we don’t honor Scripture by pretending they aren’t there. Public punishment had a place in the judicial life of covenant Israel, and the passages describe a communal warning against serious wrongdoing.

At the same time, we need to ask what those texts actually authorize and whom they address.

Israel lived under a particular covenantal arrangement. Its civil laws cannot simply be transferred, without interpretation, into the policies of a modern nation. And the fact that punishment was publicly known or witnessed in ancient Israel does not answer every question about making video of an execution available to a worldwide audience, where it may be replayed indefinitely.

Someone might say that broadcasting the execution would discourage future violence. That’s a serious argument. The Old Testament itself sometimes connects public judgment with deterrence.

But does this particular method accomplish that purpose? We would need evidence, not merely an assumption. A major National Research Council review found that existing studies did not establish whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates. That research did not examine livestreams specifically, so it cannot settle whether a broadcast would deter crime.

The biblical principle is worth considering. Whether a modern livestream serves that principle is a separate judgment.

What About Government Accountability?

I think this may be the strongest case someone can make for allowing a broader audience.

When the government exercises the power to take a human life, it should not be able to conceal abuse or misconduct. Citizens have a legitimate interest in knowing whether the law is being followed and whether the condemned person is treated lawfully.

Someone might reasonably ask, “Why should we trust only the witnesses the government permits into the room? Wouldn’t a broadcast provide greater transparency?”

I don’t want to dismiss that concern. Government accountability matters, especially when the action is irreversible.

But let’s follow the question a little further. Is an unrestricted public livestream the only way to provide meaningful scrutiny?

Army regulations already provide for designated witnesses, including journalists, victims and their relatives, and representatives of the condemned. We can and should ask whether those arrangements provide sufficient independent oversight.

There is also a precedent worth examining. When Timothy McVeigh was executed in 2001 for the Oklahoma City bombing, the federal government arranged a closed-circuit viewing for survivors and victims’ families. Access was restricted, and recording was prohibited.

That was a different execution under a different system, so it is not a direct legal rule for this case. But it does show that remote access and safeguards are not mutually exclusive.

I can understand someone arguing for stronger public accountability. I am less persuaded that accountability requires distributing footage of a person’s death without meaningful limits.

What Happens When Children Can Watch?

One provision of the Army’s execution regulations caught my attention.

Army Regulation 190-55, dated October 30, 2023, states in paragraph 2-5(b): “No person under the age of 18 shall witness the execution.”

Think through the practical difference between the execution site and an unrestricted broadcast. A seventeen-year-old cannot be admitted as an authorized witness, but that same teenager could potentially watch on a phone. Younger children could encounter clips after the event, even without looking for them.

I want to make sure I’m clear about the legal point. The regulation addresses witnesses to a military execution; it does not expressly discuss public livestreaming. We should not claim that this provision, by itself, makes a broadcast illegal.

But isn’t it reasonable to ask why the government recognizes a need to restrict in-person witnessing while considering a broadcast that could reach children far beyond the room?

When the Justice Department arranged the McVeigh closed-circuit viewing, it also restricted attendance to adults. That was an intentional safeguard, not an accident of technology.

Ephesians 6:4 instructs fathers to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Paul is not discussing executions or the internet. We should never make a passage say more than it says.

Yet the principle of careful formation matters here. Children need to learn that evil is real and that justice matters. They also need guidance about how to understand violence, suffering, and death. Teaching a child why murder is wrong is not the same as exposing that child to the moment someone is killed.

Parents carry a primary responsibility in that instruction. But if the government chooses to make such footage widely available, it ought to consider the consequences of that decision too.

What About the Person Being Executed?

This may be the part of the conversation that is hardest to have without being misunderstood, so let me say it carefully.

Recognizing Hasan’s humanity does not excuse his crimes. It does not place his suffering on the same moral footing as the suffering of the people he murdered or wounded. He was convicted of grave wrongdoing, and the victims deserve to be remembered and honored.

But Genesis 9:6 does not teach us that the image of God belongs only to innocent people. Human dignity is grounded in creation, not earned through good behavior.

Even in Israel’s laws about execution, punishment was not without boundaries. Deuteronomy 21:22–23 places limits on the public exposure of an executed person’s body. Its immediate concern is the curse associated with hanging and the defilement of the land. It is not a command about video broadcasts. Still, it reminds us that a lawful sentence does not make every form of public display morally acceptable.

There is another question here for Christians. If we believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, do we still desire repentance for someone who has done something terrible?

Ezekiel 33:11 expresses God’s call for the wicked to turn from their ways and live. That does not cancel civil consequences. Repentance does not mean a sentence must be set aside.

But we can pray that a guilty person would turn to Christ, even while recognizing the seriousness of the crime and the government’s responsibility to administer justice.

I wonder whether we sometimes find it easier to talk about judgment than to pray for the repentance of someone we despise.

Why Do We Want to Watch?

I don’t want to assume that everyone who supports a broadcast is motivated by cruelty. That would be unfair.

A survivor might want to witness the completion of the legal process. A journalist might seek to hold government accountable. Another person may believe public witnessing communicates the seriousness of a crime.

Those are not the same motives as wanting to see someone suffer.

But Scripture invites us to examine ourselves, not merely the government. Proverbs 24:17 warns us not to rejoice when an enemy falls. Jesus commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44).

Neither passage answers every policy question about capital punishment. Both have something to say about the heart of a disciple.

So perhaps we ought to ask ourselves a few questions before deciding whether we would watch.

What am I hoping to gain from seeing this? Would it help me understand the truth or serve someone who is suffering? Could I learn what I need to know from trustworthy witnesses and reporting? Am I seeking justice, or am I drawn to the spectacle of another person’s death?

I can’t answer those questions for every reader. But I believe they are worth asking honestly before God.

We live in a world where almost everything can be recorded, shared, and watched. Christians need to learn the difference between having access to something and having a good reason to consume it.

What Does the Cross Teach Us Here?

We cannot end a Christian discussion of justice simply by choosing the policy we prefer. We have to ask how the gospel shapes the people making that judgment.

Jesus was publicly executed under Roman authority. Crucifixion was designed to shame and intimidate as well as to kill.

I want to be very clear: Jesus was innocent. Hasan was convicted of murder. We should never draw a moral equivalence between them.

But the cross does remind us that governmental authority is not the same thing as moral infallibility. And it reveals something even more important about our Savior.

Peter tells us that when Jesus was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but entrusted himself to the One who judges justly (1 Peter 2:23).

Jesus did not deny evil or abandon justice. He entrusted himself to the righteous Judge.

And the cross is far more than an example of restraint. Christ bore the judgment our sins deserve. As Romans 5:8 reminds us, God showed his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

We need to remember who we are in that story. We are not people who stand before God because we have earned the right to condemn everyone else. We are sinners who need mercy, and our hope is found in Jesus Christ.

That changes how we approach a question like this. It should make us more serious about wrongdoing, not less. It should also make us more careful about anger, vengeance, and the way we speak about the guilty.

And it should shape how we care for the people who are suffering. The church has something to offer that a legal sentence cannot: a community willing to mourn, to walk patiently with the wounded, and to point them toward the hope of the resurrection. We should never promise that grief will disappear quickly. We can promise that God’s people are called not to leave the grieving to bear it alone.

Where Does That Leave Us?

I realize faithful Christians disagree about capital punishment. Some believe Scripture permits it for grave crimes under appropriate legal safeguards. Others believe it should no longer be practiced. That disagreement is larger than the question we’ve considered here.

But I don’t think we have to resolve every part of that debate to recognize an important distinction.

The fact that government has the authority to administer a sentence does not, by itself, establish that an unrestricted public broadcast is wise or morally warranted. If someone believes the broadcast is necessary, I think it is fair to ask what good it accomplishes that could not be accomplished through meaningful independent oversight and appropriate access for those directly affected.

My own judgment is that an unrestricted livestream is unwise. I have not found a biblical reason that requires it, and I see serious pastoral concerns about the people who might be harmed by it and the habits it could encourage in those who watch.

I would not call every Christian who disagrees with me unfaithful. I would ask them to open the same passages and work through the same questions.

And I hope they would do that with any conclusion I offer, not just this one.

As we think about Fort Hood, let’s remember the victims and those who love them. Let’s pray for survivors who may be facing renewed grief as the execution approaches. Let’s ask God to give public officials wisdom and to ensure that justice is administered lawfully. And let’s pray that even a condemned sinner might turn to Christ before death.

Then let’s examine our own hearts.

Whether the livestream ultimately takes place or not, we have an opportunity to learn something about how to bring a difficult question before God’s Word.

Justice matters. And because it matters, we should care not only that justice is done, but also how we pursue it and what kind of people we become in the process.

Through the Hope of Truth examines the questions of our day in the light of the unchanging truth of God’s Word.

Sources and further reading

Through the Hope of Truth examines the events and ideas shaping our world through the truth of Scripture, seeking faithful Christian discernment and hope in Christ rather than cultural outrage or partisan allegiance.