Public executions have been around for as long as modern society has and in many ways was a foundation of early law and order. However, as we have both culturally and socially progressed, does it still deserve a place in our legal system?
Recently the U.S. defence secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the execution of a former armed forces personnel would be livestreamed to the public. The individual murdered 13 others in a shooting spree that shocked the american public. Court Martial executions have been reserved for the most violent crimes committed by active soldiers, however they have not been public for nearly over a century. The question arises, to what end does publicising a brutal execution truly achieve?
Holistically only a handful of countries still carry out this practise, including Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea. Experts state that public executions are mainly used either to instill fear into the public as a form of deterrent or to garner support that horrific crimes will be duly punished. The USA’s decision to go ahead with this execution means that they most likely fall into one of these two categories.
As a supposed beacon of western liberty, following the path of militant authoritarian states calls into question the position of America’s ability to retain this title.
In regards of the morality of public executions, it is very much a personal opinion. Executions themselves have been pretty much phased out over the 20th century within the west, and although military executions carry on, the United States’ death row is a stand alone practise. Some argue that it is imperative that violent crimes deserve a violent end, while others question the reliability of the legal system to prevent innocent people being wrongly executed.
However, allowing the public to view these executions is an entirely different thing, especially live streaming it. In an almost dystopian fashion, Hegseth plans to record and stream the execution by firing squad for the whole country. A brutal death at a touch of a button.
In the run up to the midterms, rallying support for the republican cause is a major focus for both Hegseth and Trump, and in carrying out a sadistic practise online, they aim to gain support from the more hardline voters. However whether purposefully or accidentally they take a step closer to authoritarianism, control masked by the legality of violence.
So wherever you stand on the morality of execution, and whether the crime truly fits the punishment, perhaps ask yourself would you want your child to watch someone die online? Or is that a practise we reserve in our minds for the extremists and criminals of the world?
Leave a Reply