Placing Nidal Hassan’s Forthcoming Execution in the Context of Debates on Capital Punishment
Capital punishment has been written into legal codes as early as the 18th century BCE, appearing in Hammurabi’s code, Draconian code, Roman law, and eventually modern day American common law. Even since its beginnings, capital punishment has been a major topic of contention, and poses moral and ethical questions. In general, many people in favor of capital punishment have argued that they deter future crime and are a form of justice, whereas people against capital punishment have maintained that the risk of executing innocent people greatly outweighs any benefit of capital punishment. Regardless of the debate, capital punishment continues to be practiced worldwide; in 2025, 2707 people were executed across 17 countries, continuing an upward trend from the previous five years. In the US alone, 32 prisoners were executed this year across six states. One particular case has been of particular concern recently: the upcoming execution of Nidal Hassan.
In 2013, former US Army major Nidal Hassan was convicted in a court-martial of multiple counts of premeditated murder of 13, and injuring 32 others during a 2009 shooting at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas. After many appeals including to the US Supreme Court, he ultimately received the death penalty; this sentence was recently approved by US President Donald Trump on October 2nd, 2026. Adam Telle, acting Army Secretary, determined that the method of execution would be by firing squad in accordance with army regulations, the first military execution in six decades. Because of this, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had originally planned to publicly livestream the execution on December 3rd, 2026. This decision faced abundant backlash across the board; bipartisan opposition united polarized politicians on this issue. Additionally, many prominent US human rights organizations have viewed the executions as cruel and unusual punishment. In light of the negative reactions, President Donald Trump announced on October 15th that the livestream would be cancelled, but that the execution would still take place on December 3rd, 2026 via firing squad in Fort Hood at 1 PM CST.
Hassan’s case has sparked many debates concerning the morality of capital punishment, echoing prior arguments regarding wrongly convicted prisoners exacerbated by its arbitrary nature. These exemplify the overall declining support in the US among adults of capital punishment that scholars and governments have observed in recent decades. In the US, less than half of adults aged 18-54 support the death penalty. As of 2025, 145 countries have legally or de facto abolished the death penalty, and the countries that continue to employ this punishment receive ample criticism from human rights groups across the globe.
There are three main criticisms of capital punishment: it frequently imposes death sentences on innocent people based on incorrect convictions; empirical evidence shows the death penalty is not the most effective crime deterrent; and government-imposed executions are inhumane.
One of the strongest arguments for abolishing the death penalty worldwide is the reality that incorrect convictions are inevitable in any legal system because of human bias and systemic flaws. The system of capital punishment is especially egregious given the fact that it is irreversible, and failings of the justice system cannot be remedied if the sentence has already been carried out. Since 1973, at least 200 Americans who had been given death sentences had been acquitted. Had their sentences been carried out before their acquittals, they would be erroneously deprived of their lives, violating numerous human rights conventions. In countries with weaker legal systems, corruption, or limited access to legal counsel, the risk of this erroneous deprivation of life may be significantly higher. A notable motivator of some democracies around the world is the concept of Blackstone’s Ratio, which states that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffers.” Even the possibility of innocent people being put to death due to human error should be enough reason to abolish capital punishment.
Additionally, supporters of capital punishment argue that it is an effective crime deterrent compared to imprisonment. However, research has not proven that the death penalty prevents murder more effectively than alternative punishments. In fact, some evidence has shown that the threat of capital punishment can actually incite more criminal violence, because it demonstrates to society that the use of lethal violence is an acceptable way to settle disputes. So while capital punishment can deter crime, there is a possibility that it achieves the exact opposite. Rather than relying on executions, countries should redirect the money spent on the materials necessary for executions to bettering crime prevention, or focus on switching from a punitive justice system to a rehabilitative one that addresses underlying causes of criminal activity and endeavors to educate prisoners.
Perhaps the strongest argument against capital punishment is that it fundamentally contradicts the universally declared right to life. The death penalty is globally considered a form of cruel and inhumane punishment by adults, regardless of the crime committed. Furthermore, the death penalty disproportionately affects marginalized groups globally, including racial minorities, impoverished individuals, and political dissidents. In some countries, authoritarian governments even use executions to suppress political opposition, such as in Iran or North Korea. These inequalities make it evident that capital punishment is not simply a form of justice, but a weapon of the government for discrimination and political repression.
In light of these debates resurfacing due to Hassan’s case, including protests and online discourse, it is important to consider the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted onto criminal defendants. This has been interpreted to ban torturous and barbaric methods of execution, as well as sentences that are disproportionate to the crime that was committed. The legality of the death penalty is debated on by legal scholars, and historical jurisprudence has not found an answer to the question. However, previous Supreme Court cases like Furman v. Georgia have placed restrictions on capital punishment, and many states have been functionally abolishing the practice. Livestreaming an execution would add an extra layer of legal complexity because public executions are not deemed acceptable in US society anymore due to the fact that they have not been held in nearly a century, and would therefore be unusual punishment. If the government were to follow through with its plan to livestream Hassan’s execution, there would be serious Eighth Amendment concerns, and would allow us to return to the world that turned the tragedy of murder into a spectacle.