Jeff

It has just been announced that the execution of Nidal Hasan will be livestreamed—publicly—for the world to see.

Hasan’s execution will be the first military execution in 65 years.

In 2009, former Army Major Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 14, including one unborn child, and wounding 32 others. Hasan was opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and stated his reason for opening fire was to protect Muslims and the Taliban leadership, and that many at the deployment center at Ft. Hood were set to be deployed.

Hasan later recanted his military oath and renounced his U.S. citizenship while stating that he wished he had died in the attack so he could be considered a martyr.

Which seems odd, since he fought so hard in court to overturn his conviction and death sentence.

Yet, death is what he will receive.

And we will all get to witness it.

The purpose of the publicity of the execution, according to Pete Hegseth, is so that everyone can see that there are serious consequences for such acts. Not only is it justice, but it’s a deterrent.

But not everyone is on board. In fact, it seems half the nation—primarily leftists—are so opposed to the death sentence that they seem willing to die for their cause.

Interestingly, it’s the same group of people decrying the death penalty and the public display of Hasan’s execution who were happily reposting video clips, images, and memes of Charlie Kirk’s execution. They recoil at the idea of watching a convicted mass murderer receive a lawful punishment while passing around gruesome images of a Christian man who believed in law, order, and decency as political entertainment.

They’re only against the death penalty when it is carried out against one of their own ideological soldiers.

But I digress, as that’s par for the course for the left.

What I find more interesting are those on the supposed “right” who have come out against capital punishment.

One such person is Kristan Hawkins, president of the anti-abortion activist group, Students for Life.

Hawkins has spent an inordinate amount of time in recent weeks publicly opposing the death penalty. In a recent post on X, she said Catholics would be in sin for advocating for the death penalty.

And in one extremely absurd post, she argued that God instituted the death penalty because the Israelites were sleeping in tents and had no protection from murderers and evil men.

If you think that sounds dumb, it’s because it is dumb.

Apparently, her explanation for God’s command to put to death a killer had nothing to do with the fact that the death penalty is a deterrent. And it had nothing to do with justice.

Nope.

It had to do with the fact that Moses lacked a Supermax prison with reinforced concrete, and Genesis 9 needed an asterisk stating that this statute was void upon the invention of hardened steel.

The whole “I am pro-life, therefore I am anti-capital punishment” argument is a logical landmine and collapses under its own weight. Being pro-life does not mean that every instance of taking of human life is morally equivalent. There are real categorical differences between murdering an innocent person, killing in legitimate defense of self or others, waging a just war, and the civil government carrying out a lawful death sentence.

But Hawkins—and the entire mainstream pro-life movement—has adopted the position that any taking of human life is immoral.

But being pro-life doesn’t stand or fall on that reasoning. Being pro-life distinguishes between the just and the unjust taking of life. The reason we are against abortion isn’t simply because it’s the taking of human life—it’s because it’s the unjust taking of innocent human life.

Unborn children can’t commit a crime.

Of course, Genesis 9 alone destroys that silly “tent” argument. Hawkins believes God instituted the death penalty because the Israelites lacked ways to confine or detain people who have committed a crime and pose a threat.

But that isn’t why.

Not only does the death penalty in Genesis 9 long predate the existence of Israel, but it also gives us God’s purpose for it: the Imago Dei.

The act of murder is a direct assault on God’s own image, and God detests it so much that He demands the life of the one who carried it out. And Mosaic law (Numbers 35:30–34) affirms the death sentence while forbidding any leniency or ransom for a person who committed murder.

Why?

Bloodguilt.

³⁰ “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. ³¹ Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death.

Further, the New Testament never repeals the death penalty. The death penalty was a common practice in Roman society, and neither Jesus Himself nor the Apostles spoke of the death penalty as intrinsically immoral. Paul repeatedly called on Christians to submit to the civil government, which he referred to as a servant of God who did not bear the sword in vain.

While on trial before the Roman governor Porcius Festus, Paul says in Acts 25:11:

“If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death.”

Paul clearly recognizes a category of crimes that deserve death. While private vengeance is forbidden, public justice is delegated to the civil authority.

Now, back to Hasan. I wouldn’t argue that livestreaming the execution is biblically required, nor would I push anyone who didn’t want to see it to watch. That can be reasonably debated by Christians. I would argue that the publicity of it acts as further deterrence for the crimes committed—but I would not say it’s a requirement.

But that debate is downstream of the larger and simpler question: does the civil magistrate possess the authority to carry out a death sentence on a rightfully convicted murderer?

Biblically speaking, yes.

But even bigger than that, we live in a culture that increasingly celebrates chaos and violence, particularly against ideological opponents. From the left, we see more and more rioting, criminal activity rationalized when the enemy is sufficiently hated, and murder turned into memes and social justice content.

Clearly, the publicity of death isn’t the problem with these people.

Yet, when it’s one of their ideological own facing imminent death for their crimes, it becomes “don’t execute the murderer,” “displaying the consequences is inhumane,” “retribution is unfair,” and everything must be about rehabilitation, pathology, social causes, and therapeutic intervention.

The real dividing line isn’t death vs. life, or public vs. nonpublic. The real dividing line is chaos vs. ordered justice. A biblical civilization does not celebrate murder, but it does distinguish killing from murder. It distinguishes guilt from innocence and personal vengeance from public justice. And it distinguishes a chaotic mob mentality from the civil magistrate.

Biblical justice requires that the innocent be protected, the guilty be punished, and evidence be required. False witness should be punished, private vengeance is forbidden, and the civil authority itself is restrained by law.

And biblical justice requires that the punishment be proportionate to the crime.

That’s not bloodlust, that’s a properly functioning civil society.

With Hasan, 14 innocent people were murdered. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to punishment. The friends and families of those innocent people he murdered have had to live with this for 17 years.

Carrying out his sentence isn’t what’s monstrous. What’s monstrous is that we live in a society that is more disturbed by a mass murderer receiving due justice than we are about the innocent who can no longer speak for themselves.

And if Kristan Hawkins wants to side with those people while telling those who support the death penalty that they are “in sin,” she’s going to need a much more substantial argument than “Israelites lived in tents.”

Go to Part Two