An increasing chorus is raising concerns about the proposed livestreaming of the firing-squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan on December 3. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced the broadcast on Friday, giving the reason that “people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.” While President Trump initially supported his cabinet secretary’s idea, negative feedback may be inducing him to reconsider.

On Tuesday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins registered his own opposition. “Rather than affirming the sanctity of human life, a public spectacle of death can communicate the opposite message — that human life has little value,” he wrote on X. “When we separate capital punishment from its moral foundation, we risk turning an act of justice into what appears to be an act of vengeance.”

Perkins placed the moral foundation for capital punishment in the value of human life and located the scriptural support for this position in Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.”

“Scripture not only provides justification for capital punishment, but in cases of murder, explicitly calls for it,” Perkins declared. “The purpose of capital punishment is to uphold the value of innocent human life, not to make a spectacle of taking the life of the guilty.

“My concern is that we have lost our moral foundation, and so it’s just killing somebody. There’s no connection to the what the Bible says,” elaborated Perkins on “Washington Watch.”

Perkins referenced an old Western film, “Hang ‘Em High,” where “before the execution there was a basically a sermon that was given to all of the people that were gathered to watch the execution, and they actually sang hymns,” he described. “There was a clear connection. This was not government, but it was government acting in the position of God’s [instrument] in upholding justice. We don’t have that today. And, in the absence of that, it’s just seen as another act of vengeance or violence.”

Perkins connected this to the culture’s directionless postmodernism. “There is no transcendent truth” in secular notions about capital punishment, which “are all connected to feelings,” he lamented. “If you stand on truth, it might not be in vogue, but you’re not going to be embarrassed because truth is … enduring.”

Perkins also emphasized that his opposition to the execution livestream was not opposition to capital punishment. “God has commanded, when blood is shed, that blood needs to be shed, that there needs to be a cleansing of the land. So there’s nothing wrong here with capital punishment,” he insisted. “The question is, how do we do it?”

“Nidal Hasan should receive the punishment imposed for his horrific crimes. Justice should be carried out, but it should not become entertainment,” he wrote. “It is not merely punishment for a crime; it is also intended to deter others from committing similar acts.”

The “how” question invites not only moral considerations but also prudential ones. One question with an unexpected answer in this case is the question: what constitutes deterrence? In most circumstances, the threat of a death penalty is what establishes deterrence. But, in the case of Islamist terrorism, where terrorists seek a martyr’s death as the only sure way in Islam to secure salvation, obtain glory in the afterlife, and even to save one’s family members, martyrdom would not provide deterrence.

This informs not only Perkins’s reservation but also the concern expressed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who feared that a livestreamed execution of Malik could become “a recruiting tool for future terrorists.” Johnson counseled that “we’ve got to think through the policy implications of all that,” and he planned to communicate with the White House that many of his colleagues have their own concerns.

President Trump, reportedly, has received negative feedback about the livestream idea from many quarters, to the point that Trump has privately suggested that it “might not happen.” One anonymous source told Axios that Trump was “calling around, doing the Trump thing, asking people what they think.”

“Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety” (Proverbs 11:14). If President Trump makes use of an abundance of counselors to nix the idea of live-streaming the Fort Hood shooter’s execution, that would suit Perkins just fine.

“Capital punishment, properly administered, is not a rejection of the sanctity of human life. It is an affirmation of it,” wrote Perkins. “But that does not mean executions should become public spectacles.”