By The Editorial Board
The news proves time and time again that violence lives on our screens.
After facing bipartisan backlash, President Donald Trump announced Oct. 15 that Nidal Hasan, a former U.S. Army major who killed 13 and injured over 30 people in a shooting at Fort Hood in 2009, would no longer have his execution by firing squad live streamed.
A poll conducted by ABC News on Oct. 15 found that 80% of American adults opposed the live streaming. That statistic should encourage us, but our relationship with violence as Americans runs much deeper than what has come to light over the past three weeks.
In 2004, federal “Torture Memos” revealed to the American public that mass torture and sexual humiliation had become commonplace at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Horrific photos of hooded and nude men and women coincided with the nation’s shift toward opposing the Iraq War after its successful first year.
Beyond being a tragedy, the assassination of Charlie Kirk in September 2025 has historical significance for the wide dissemination of graphic videos on social media showing the exact moment Kirk was shot in the neck.
Social media houses graphic content now more than ever, with research from the Youth Endowment Fund finding that “70% of teenage children [had] encountered real-life violent content online in [2024].”
As unsavory as the projection of violence can be for adults, having this content broadcast to our children will only normalize these incidents further.
The accessibility of all this violence, intentional and unintentional alike, should make us wonder: are Americans supposed to revel in bloodshed, let alone see it at this scale? Better yet, how many times have we heard stories where the violence doesn’t end with the initial crime?
Following the murder of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, her family has publicly advocated for the execution of her suspected killer, American singer David “D4vd” Burke, if he is convicted.
How often do we see stories in the news of unforgiving families, understandably distraught at the murder of their child, though hellbent on the total destruction of their killer? Why is it acceptable to only harbor hatred toward that person, no matter how evil their actions may have been?
In the past, an execution would have been conducted due to the lack of alternative solutions, such as prisons with the space and means to properly house criminals. The penal system as it exists today did not become commonplace until the late 19th century, with prior executions taking place out of an often-cited need for deterrence from criminal behavior.
This also explains why executions have historically been public ordeals. Even in the modern day, though deterrence is no longer considered a leading incentive, affected family members may choose to attend if they so wish.
In Book 6, Chapter 8 of his “Confessions,” St. Augustine of Hippo railed against his former indulgence in the excesses of the Roman amphitheater, describing himself as “drunken with the bloody pastime” of watching men die at the hands of maltreated beasts.
Such an abject disregard for the value of human life and such a lust of the eyes somehow manages to dwarf the issue of the death penalty. Forget the ethics of execution for a second – how have we come around to reveling in the death of our fellow man?
Few will argue in favor of Hasan and of minimizing his sentence short of life in prison or death. Using one’s position as a physician to prey upon the weak and incapacitated is truly evil. However, turning the man’s demise into a self-gratifying spectacle is equally unacceptable.
According to an article published Oct. 7 by ABC News, the exact proceedings of Hasan’s execution remain unclear, since January 1945 marked the last time the U.S. Army performed an execution by firing squad.
“Experts said in previous iterations of the firing squad — nearly 80 years ago — one shooter would be given a blank so they all could plausibly believe they had not fired the fatal shot,” the article reads.
If our country extends plausible deniability to soldiers (who are explicitly trained for war and made familiar with death) while performing an execution, shouldn’t all Americans have to treat the death penalty with a similar level of gravity?
Before deciding whether this violence has a place in our society – especially when our administration makes strong appeals to America’s Christian character – we need to stop engaging with the violence in the first place.
Publicizing death and violence to the extent seen in our nation and on the internet is inherently unhealthy. Although some violence in the U.S. will always be inevitable – look no further than the tragedy that was the Fort Hood shooting – it is our duty to denounce this violence and look askance when it comes into our periphery.
