Pete Hegseth, the United States secretary of defence, has called for a televised execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, the former army psychiatrist who killed 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009. His remarks, made to the Real America’s Voice network, have drawn sharp criticism and evoked memories of a public hanging the author witnessed in Iran more than two decades ago. The proposal raises questions about whether Washington is adopting tactics reminiscent of Tehran’s use of capital punishment as a spectacle.
A Controversial Proposal
Hegseth argued that the American public should be able to watch the punishment, insisting that visibility would underline the gravity of certain crimes. “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand there’s serious consequences for these types of things,” he said, according to the interview. The suggestion marks a stark departure from the current practice of carrying out federal executions behind prison walls.
Echoes from Pakdasht
More than twenty years ago, as a young correspondent for the Guardian, I reported on the execution of Muhammad Bijeh in the Iranian town of Pakdasht. Bijeh, convicted of murdering 17 children and three adults, was sentenced to 100 lashes before being hoisted from a crane in a public square on 16 March 2005. Police cars patrolled the streets with loud‑hailers urging residents to attend, and a crowd gathered to chant “Allahu Akbar” and “marg bar Bijeh” as the condemned man swung lifelessly above them.
During the lashing, officials took turns striking Bijeh’s bare back, drawing bloody streaks and muffled cries of pain. After the punishment, a youth believed to be a brother of one of the child victims leapt onto the platform and stabbed him. The crowd’s fervour continued as the crane operator, at the urging of a grieving father, turned the body so that Bijeh’s shoes fell off, leaving him barefoot as life ebbed away.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The federal government has not carried out a public execution since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. Legal scholars warn that staging such an event could violate both the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and existing regulations governing federal executions. Moreover, the move risks amplifying a voyeuristic culture that treats state‑sanctioned killing as entertainment rather than a solemn judicial act.
Ethically, commentators argue that public executions serve to glorify violence and may undermine the moral authority of the state. The Iranian episode demonstrated how authorities can harness a crowd’s emotions to project power, a dynamic that critics see mirrored in Hegseth’s call for a televised spectacle.
Political Reactions
Responses have split along partisan lines. Some conservative commentators have praised the idea as a necessary deterrent, while Democrats and civil‑rights groups have condemned it as a retrograde step that aligns the United States with authoritarian practices. The debate has also reignited broader discussions about the federal death penalty, which has seen a moratorium under the current administration but remains a contentious issue in upcoming elections.
Why it Matters
The defence secretary’s advocacy for a public execution forces a confrontation with the United States’ own values regarding justice and human dignity. If pursued, such a move would not only challenge legal norms but also risk projecting an image of state power that mirrors the very regimes Washington often criticises. The episode serves as a stark reminder that the manner in which a society carries out punishment speaks volumes about its commitment to the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights.