Live Streaming of Military Execution in the U.S. for the First Time in 65 Years: The Significance of Public Executions in Modern Society

Live Streaming of Executions in the U.S.—When Does "Public Justice" Become a Spectacle?

A state takes a life as a form of punishment. Will that moment be viewed by people worldwide on their smartphones?

The U.S. Department of Defense has announced plans to live stream the execution by firing squad of Nidal Hasan, who was sentenced to death for the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. This was reported by the German news magazine stern, as well as Reuters and the Associated Press.

The execution is scheduled for December 3, 2026, at the Fort Hood base in Texas, where the incident occurred. However, the announcement of the schedule does not confirm its execution. There is a possibility of postponement due to future judicial procedures, and details about the streaming platform and viewing restrictions are not yet clear from current reports.

The issue at hand cannot be fully understood by merely considering the pros and cons of the death penalty. Why does the state want to display the execution? And what will happen to the society that receives this footage?

17 Years After the Incident, an Unprecedented "Public" Plan

Hasan was a psychiatrist in the U.S. Army. In November 2009, he opened fire at a medical facility on the Fort Hood base, killing 13 people and injuring 32 others. In 2013, he was sentenced to death by a military court.

This time, following the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, President Donald Trump approved the execution by firing squad.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, if carried out, this will be the first military execution by the U.S. military in about 65 years, since 1961. Execution by a military firing squad has not occurred since World War II.

It is important to note that "military executions by the U.S. military" and "executions in the U.S. as a whole" are different. The long hiatus in military executions does not mean that executions were not carried out in various states across the U.S.

What is causing even greater debate this time is the policy of making the execution publicly available to the general public through video.

The Secretary of Defense Emphasizes the Idea of "Demonstrating Serious Consequences"

In an interview with the conservative media "Real America’s Voice," Hegseth expressed the idea of allowing the general public to view the execution. The intent is for people to understand that such crimes carry serious consequences.

Subsequently, the Department of Defense acknowledged the live streaming plan, and according to Reuters, Hegseth confirmed it in a post on X.

The explanation from the administration suggests that the aim is to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime and the state's strict response.

However, executing a severe punishment and broadcasting it require separate explanations.

What is intended to be achieved by showing the footage? If the goal is crime deterrence, what is the basis for judging that streaming will enhance the effect? Who and how have considered the disadvantages of making it public?

At least from the reports confirmed this time, sufficient explanations on these points are not apparent.

The Distance Between "The Right to Know the System" and "Showing Death"

Expert evaluations of the public broadcast are not uniform.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Deborah Denno, a death penalty researcher at Fordham University, pointed out that streaming could visualize the reality of executions and help citizens understand the system.

Is it acceptable for a society discussing the death penalty to remain unaware of its reality? This question carries weight.

On the other hand, Elizabeth Semel, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, pointed out that many issues arise, such as the dignity of the individual involved, the range of viewers, and the motives behind the government's unusual decision to make it public.

What emerges from this conflict is the difficulty of ensuring transparency.

There are multiple options for how society can monitor the system: publishing records of execution procedures, allowing verification by independent witnesses, and disclosing investigation results when problems arise.

Even if live footage is considered as one of those options, having video alone does not guarantee sufficient verification. Questions remain about what happened outside the camera's view and whether procedures were followed.

Concerns on Social Media About "Creating a Martyr"

Reactions to this plan are also appearing on social media.

In the political discussion community "r/AskALiberal" on Reddit, a post was observed touching on Hasan's desire to be treated as a martyr, questioning whether the public broadcast might inadvertently provide him with the narrative he wanted.

This is a concern of the poster and not evidence of the broadcast's effect. Nevertheless, it highlights the issue that the meaning the government intends to convey and the meaning received by viewers may not align.

The same footage could be a record of punishment execution for some, while for others, it could become material to fuel resentment against the state. If clips or edits are added, the use could diverge from the broadcaster's intent.

On the other hand, comments on a CBS News Facebook post included references to popcorn and viewing parties, treating the broadcast as a form of entertainment.

However, these are limited posts that have been confirmed and do not represent the opinions or proportions of the entire American public. On social media, where extreme expressions are more noticeable, it is necessary not to equate a few prominent reactions with "public opinion."

Moreover, the statements of politicians should be distinguished from the reactions of general users. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy criticized the public execution as medieval in an interview with CNN. This statement recognizes the existence of the death penalty while questioning the manner of its public display.

Live Streaming Does Not End When the Broadcast Ends

When considering this plan from Japan, the distribution of the footage is particularly important.

Even if age restrictions or warnings are set for the official broadcast, it does not guarantee control over secondary distribution. Recording, editing into short videos, and reposting on other social media platforms could spread the content beyond its original viewing conditions.

In such cases, it is not guaranteed that only those who choose to watch will see it. Some may encounter it unwillingly through their usual timeline or videos sent by others.

In addition to considering children, the impact on survivors, victims' families, and those who have experienced similar violence must be examined.

Can responsibility be fulfilled with just a notice at the start of the broadcast? To what extent will media outlets use the footage? How will social media platforms handle reposts? Even when the government broadcasts, these decisions cannot be avoided.

These are potential future issues, and it does not mean that specific streaming methods or restrictions have already been decided.

Do Not Generalize Intentions with the Phrase "For the Victims"

The fact that 13 people lost their lives and many were injured in this incident must not be overlooked in the discussion about the method of public display.

At the same time, the phrase "for the victims" alone cannot be used to infer support for live streaming.

Wanting the execution to be carried out, wanting to know the fact of the execution, wanting to see that moment, and supporting global public display are all different.

From the materials confirmed this time, it is not possible to determine how the entire group of bereaved families and survivors perceive live streaming.

Therefore, it is important that politicians and viewers do not presume to speak on behalf of the feelings of those directly involved. It is necessary to specifically consider who gains what from the public display and who bears new burdens.

The Question of "Transparency of Punishment" Also Exists in Japan

Japan is also a country with a death penalty system. The Penal Code stipulates that executions are carried out by hanging within correctional facilities.

In past press conferences, the Ministry of Justice has explained that the disclosure of the execution date, the name of the person executed, the facts of the crime, and the place of execution is a response based on the demand for understanding of the system and information disclosure.

Although the legal systems and operations differ between Japan and the U.S., the issue of how much citizens should know about state punishment and how it should be verified is a common point.

It is not contradictory for someone who supports the death penalty to oppose live streaming, or for someone who opposes the death penalty to believe that the system's reality should be visualized.

What is needed in the discussion is not just individual feelings of "wanting to see" or "not wanting to see," but considering what the purpose of the public display is and which method is suitable for that purpose.

December 3 Is a Scheduled Date, Not a Conclusion

The Death Penalty Information Center explains that Hasan still has procedures to contest the death penalty in civilian federal courts, which could delay the execution.

What needs to be confirmed in the future is not only the feasibility of the execution. The basis for implementing live streaming, the scope of disclosure, consideration for viewers, and explanations to those involved must also be concretized.

The authority of the state to punish and the decision to broadcast that moment to the world must each be scrutinized.

This plan questions not only where the camera is directed but also the purpose of the state placing the camera and the attitude of the society consuming the footage.

Sources and References

1. stern/dpa: Execution and streaming plans, incident details, statements by Hegseth and Murphy.
   https://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/todesstrafe--militaerhinrichtung-in-usa-soll-per-livestream-gezeigt-werden-38369832.html

2. Reuters: Confirmation of the live streaming plan by the Department of Defense and Hegseth's post on X.reuters.com
   https://www.reuters.com/world/us-livestream-army-execution-fort-hood-shooter-pentagon-official-says-2026-10-08/

3. AP/Federal News Network: Perspectives evaluating transparency through public disclosure and experts questioning dignity and government motives.Federal News Network
   https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-news/2026/10/pentagon-says-the-firing-squad-execution-of-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-malik-hasan-will-be-livestreamed-in-december/

4. Death Penalty Information Center: History of military executions, current schedule, and remaining procedures in civilian federal courts.Death Penalty Information Center
   https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/nidal-hasan-may-be-executed-on-december-3-by-firing-squad-first-military-execution-in-65-years

5. Reddit "r/AskALiberal": A post expressing concern that public streaming might lead to Hasan being seen as a martyr. Referenced as an individual opinion, not a public survey.reddit.com
   https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1x14skc/whats_your_thoughts_on_pete_hegseth_announcing/

6. CBS News Facebook Post: Comments mentioning popcorn and viewing parties. Overall trends and proportions of reactions not confirmed.facebook.com
   https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/posts/1527266295931876/

7. Ministry of Justice "Provisions on the Death Penalty": Regulations on execution by hanging in Japan's Penal Code Article 11.moj.go.jp
   https://www.moj.go.jp/content/000096606.pdf

8. Ministry of Justice "Summary of the Minister of Justice's Press Conference After the Cabinet Meeting": Explanation of information disclosure items and perspectives on death penalty execution.moj.go.jp
   https://www.moj.go.jp/hisho/kouhou/hisho08_00912.html