Nidal Hasan execution: What happened the last time the US held a public execution in 1936?

A huge row has erupted following US military's decision to livestream the execution of former Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan. Hasan, who was convicted of killing 13 people in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, is scheduled to face a firing squad on December 3. Executions in the United States have traditionally taken place behind prison walls. So if the livestream goes ahead, it would be the first known instance of a lawful execution being broadcast live to a public audience.

Has a lawful execution ever been livestreamed before?

Death penalty experts consulted by Reuters said they were unaware of any previous lawful execution that had been livestreamed or broadcast live to the public. There have been instances in which footage of executions reached to people after the events took place. For instance, recordings of the 2006 execution of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein circulated online and through television broadcasters. However, the execution was not livestreamed.

The closest US precedent came in 2001, when Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was executed at a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. Then-US Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that victims could attend the execution in person or watch it through closed-circuit television.

When was the last public execution in the US?

Public executions were once attended by large crowds in the United States, with authorities and supporters sometimes viewing them as a deterrent to crime.

The practice largely disappeared during the 20th century as concerns grew over the spectacle surrounding executions, including botched hangings and carnival-like crowds.

The 1936 hanging of Rainey Bethea in Owensboro, Kentucky, is widely regarded as the last public execution in the country. Thousands reportedly gathered to watch Bethea, a Black man who confessed to raping a 70-year-old white woman. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, he was not charged with murder.

Another public hanging followed in Missouri in 1937, when Roscoe "Red" Jackson was executed. Contemporary accounts described spectators climbing trees and finding other ways to watch the event.

Michael L. Radelet, professor emeritus at the University of Colorado Boulder, has researched the history of executions in the US. He said public executions once attracted crowds because they were among the few large public spectacles available, particularly in rural communities.

Some events included religious sermons, choirs and speeches by the condemned. Parents and teachers sometimes brought children to witness the executions, hoping the experience would discourage criminal behaviour.

Over time, however, the spectacle surrounding public executions increasingly drew criticism.

Radelet said crowds sometimes applauded or treated executions like public celebrations, undermining the solemnity that authorities wanted the proceedings to convey.

How is a livestreamed execution different from Islamic State and cartel videos?

The internet has made it possible for images of violence to reach millions of people within minutes, transforming executions from events witnessed by a limited audience into material that can circulate worldwide.

Militant organisations such as Islamic State became notorious for producing and distributing execution videos as propaganda. The footage was used to spread fear, project power and support recruitment efforts.

Mexican drug cartels and other criminal organisations have also circulated violent videos to intimidate rivals and demonstrate their control.

A government-authorised livestream would be fundamentally different in legal status and purpose from footage produced by terrorist groups or criminal organisations. However, the possibility of broadcasting an execution raises questions about how the state presents capital punishment to the public and how viewers might interpret the footage.

Once graphic material appears online, it can be copied, reposted and distributed across multiple platforms before moderators can intervene.

The proposed US broadcast would therefore raise questions not only about the execution itself but also about the government's role in making such imagery available to a global audience.

How have governments and technology companies responded to execution footage?

Governments and major technology companies have generally sought to restrict the circulation of graphic execution videos, particularly those produced by extremist organisations.

Social media platforms have spent years removing footage associated with terrorism and other forms of extreme violence. Livestreams present an additional challenge because viewers can record and redistribute material before moderation systems respond.

New Zealand was among the governments to publicly react to the proposed US broadcast. The country's chief censor said authorities would have limited practical ability to prevent people from accessing a livestream while it was taking place.

Even countries that have retained public executions have imposed restrictions on recording them. Saudi Arabia historically carried out executions before spectators, but filming was prohibited, and public executions had largely ceased by 2019.

The US proposal would therefore represent a departure from the modern practice of keeping judicial executions largely out of public view.

Could the livestream face legal and ethical challenges?

The proposed broadcast has raised questions about the rights and dignity of the condemned person, the audience for the footage and the government's reasons for making an execution publicly accessible.

Elisabeth Semel, co-director of the Death Penalty Clinic at UC Berkeley Law, said the announcement raised several legal and public policy questions. She also questioned what the administration intended to achieve by turning an execution into a public spectacle.

Semel argued that the proposal reflected President Donald Trump's emphasis on spectacle, while expressing doubts about whether the legal and social implications had been adequately considered.

Other experts have argued that broadcasting an execution could improve transparency by allowing the public to see how capital punishment is carried out.

Deborah Denno, a death penalty expert and law professor at Fordham University, said a livestream could make the process more transparent and inform the public about the realities of capital punishment.

She said that transparency could be particularly relevant amid renewed scrutiny of execution procedures following a botched execution in Tennessee.

Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, also questioned the legal basis for the proposal, saying there was no existing regulation or precedent for making an execution available to the public through an internet livestream.

Hasan could also challenge his execution through a habeas petition in civilian court, potentially delaying the proceedings.