When the American government decides who deserves to die, there is always a lingering thought: what should justice look like? Who decides it? And is this necessary? On Oct. 9, the Pentagon announced plans to livestream the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people during the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Days later, that was revoked by President Donald Trump with an announcement that the execution would not be livestreamed, although victims’ immediate families could witness it in person.
Meanwhile, on Sept. 30, the state of Tennessee attempted to execute Christa Pike, the first female execution in Tennessee in 200 years, by lethal injection. However, after receiving two doses of the execution drug, Pike survived but was left suffering serious injuries and requiring hospitalization.
Both cases involve different people and different crimes, but they share the same punishment: execution. The case of Nidal Hasan and Christa Pike raises a question: If the death penalty is supposed to represent justice, or has it become a spectacle by the government? Capital punishment is commonly regarded as fair for the most heinous of crimes; however, is it still necessary?
The Case of Nidal Hasan
Nidal Hasan was convicted of killing 13 people and wounding 32 others in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in Texas. His execution is currently scheduled for Dec. 3, using a firing squad. The execution is scheduled at Fort Hood, where the 2009 attack occurred. For the victims’ families, his execution may represent accountability after years of loss and waiting.
On October 8th, the Pentagon announced that they would livestream the execution to the American public. This announcement caused chaos nationwide in the media, with people speculating that this execution was not meant to strengthen justice or was just a ploy from the government to scare its international and domestic enemies while frightening its own citizens.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told the Human Events Daily program that deciding to execute Hasan by firing squad at Fort Hood on a Thursday at 1 p.m., the approximate time, day of the week, and location of the 2009 shooting, was a “no-brainer.”
“We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public. Because people need to understand that … there’s serious consequences for these types of things,” Hegseth said.
Hegseth believes livestreaming this event would deter the American people. However, Stanford Law Professor John Donahue says, “It is now widely accepted among top-flight empirical scholars that not a single study credibly supports the view that capital punishment as administered anywhere in the United States provides any added deterrent beyond that afforded by a sentence of life imprisonment.”
On Oct. 15, President Donald Trump announced his decision to overrule Hegseth’s wishes to livestream the execution. This decision was welcomed after politicians and people from both parties spoke out against the initial plan to livestream the execution. The families affected by the Fort Hood shooting deserve recognition, support, and accountability. But justice should not depend on whether the public can watch someone die.
The Case of Christa Pike
Christa Pike’s case is drastically different from Nidal Hasan’s; for one, she has been given her sentence, but she survived it twice. The case of her execution presents a different concern about whether or not the government can reliably carry out the punishment it intended.
Christa Pike was sentenced to death for her role in the murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer back in 1995. On Sept. 30, 2026, Christa Pike received her first dose of lethal injection, but officials said she survived. Pike was given another dose of lethal injection and still survived and was taken to the hospital following the attempt at her execution. It was later reported that she had left the hospital and returned to prison. Her survival of the execution has caused a pause on all executions in the state of Tennessee.
The murder of Colleen Slemmer was a horrific and devastating crime; however, questioning the governmental execution process does not diminish the suffering of her family or excuse Pike in any way for the vicious crime she committed. The failure of the incident caused Frank Strada, the Commissioner for the Department of Correction, to step down after three years, since this is the second botched lethal injection during his tenure. The first was the execution of Tony Van Carruthers back in May of 2026; he was sentenced to a one-year reprieve after the failure.
When the government believes it is necessary to carry out the most extensive punishment, execution, it should be expected that they provide answers for when it does not work. The survival of Christa Pike raises serious questions about execution protocols, medical oversight, and the consequences when those procedures do not work as intended.
If an execution is intended to be a controlled legal process, what does it mean when that process results in additional suffering rather than death?
Is justice actually being delivered?
Many supporters of the death penalty argue that it delivers justice for victims, permanently prevents convicted murderers from committing crimes outside prison, and may discourage others from committing similar offenses. Those who make these claims present a fair argument, especially when discussing prisoners who were convicted of the most violent crimes.
However, the claim that executions are capable of deterring murder and crime is still unproven. In 2012, the National Research Council concluded that existing research was insufficient to determine whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates. This does not prove that the death penalty has no deterrent effect; it instead means that the research does not prove that executions deter crime and make society safer than other punishments.
Life imprisonment without parole is another solution that offers another way to permanently incapacitate convicted offenders without execution. The death penalty costs taxpayers 2.5 to 5 times more than life imprisonment. Instead, these taxpayer dollars could be used on resources toward preventing violence, improving investigations, improving legal representation, and providing long-term support for victims’ families.
If imprisonment is able to be proven to protect the public, lawmakers should evaluate the actual benefits of execution and whether it is truly necessary.
The cases of Nidal Hasan and Christa Pike show two distinct problems with the death penalty: the debate over making an execution public and the possibility that the execution process itself can fail. Together, they force society to consider whether this form of punishment is still justified.
Insisting on accountability for a flawed system does not mean excusing violent crime or forgetting victims. Instead, it means recognizing that justice requires more than imposing the harshest possible punishment. It requires a level of reliability, and accountability by the institutions entrusted with carrying out these punishments.
The death penalty may offer closure to some victims’ families, but this closure alone does not establish that a punishment is necessary or effective. Justice should never be measured on how many people we punish or how publicly the punishment is but by whether the institutions and government carrying out that punishment is worthy of the authority it claims.