By Odwa Bafana Mkentane
The US is facing mounting international condemnation over plans to execute a convicted former US Army psychiatrist by firing squad and livestream the killing to the public. The proposed execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, who was convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas in 2009, has sparked outrage among human rights advocates, politicians and religious leaders, with the United Nations warning that broadcasting the execution could violate the absolute prohibition of torture.
Speaking to VOC News, Emeritus Professor in Criminology Dirk van Zyl Smit says the livestreaming of Nidal Malik Hasan’s execution in the United States raises serious concerns about human dignity, cruelty and the use of state power.
“This reminds me of the Nuremberg trials after the Second World War, where several Nazi leaders were sentenced to death. Hermann Göring and other condemned defendants sought to avoid being hanged and requested execution by firing squad, which they considered a more appropriate death for soldiers. The Allied authorities rejected those requests and opted for hanging, arguing that the defendants should be treated as convicted criminals rather than military personnel. This illustrates how different methods of execution carry different symbolic meanings. A firing squad can be perceived, in a perverse way, as a more acceptable or even more masculine form of death, particularly when associated with soldiers. That distinction is rather strange when one considers the underlying reality of state-sanctioned killing. I also believe there is a dimension of Islamophobia in this case. The language surrounding the proposed execution, including the use of the word “crusade”, is particularly significant,” said van Zyl Smit.
van Zyl Smit added that as for whether the proposed execution could be stopped through the courts, he believes there is a real possibility that even the current US Supreme Court could intervene.
“If I were representing the condemned man, I would urgently approach the courts and argue that the proposed execution violates the US Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The question is whether turning an execution into a public spectacle, particularly through livestreaming, could cross that constitutional threshold. I believe there is a credible argument that it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment,” van Zyl Smit said.
Photo: UPI
