Wrong: Death of a person broadcast live

Wrong: Death of a person broadcast live

Published October 13, 2026

by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon

Introduction

In the online edition of Avvenire of the 10 October 2026 Mario Marazziti wrote an exceptional article entitled “Occhio per occhio, dente per dente: cosi` nell`era digitale la pena di morte e` diventata uno show”. 

In his opinion piece, Marazziti refers to an extract from an essay “Reflections on the Guillotine” which Albert Camus published in 1957.

In particular Camus recounts an incident involving his father that would become central in his moral opposition to capital punishment. 

His father had gone specifically to witness the execution of a criminal whose offence he considered so appalling that the death penalty appeared entirely justified. Yet what he witnessed profoundly disturbed him.   The father returned home visibly shaken, refused to speak, lay down briefly and suddenly began to vomit.

Camus

The significance of this account extends beyond emotional reaction but raises a fundamental question on the relationship between capital punishment, public opinion and the institution of the State.

Camus challenges the assumption that an action becomes morally acceptable simply because it is authorised by law, supported by public opinion or presented as necessary for the preservation of social order.

His argument remains relevant because the fundamental tension between legal authority and moral responsibility has not disappeared. It continues to arise wherever institutions exercise power over persons, particularly those who are vulnerable or unable to defend themselves effectively.

Fundamental

In primis, I am - convincingly, ethically, legally and as a Judge – against capital punishment.

Nonetheless whether one agrees with capital punishment or not is not the core issue.

What should be really disturbing is whether the public execution of a death penalty to the widest audience possible should be possible.

Should the State expose the reality of capital punishment to the public? By so doing, would the execution of a punishment not transform the administration of justice into a spectacle of human suffering? 

These and other questions concern the moral responsibility of the State, the right of the public to examine the exercise of power, the dignity of the condemned person and the danger of transforming death into something it should never be.  The challenge is to determine whether visibility strengthens justice or undermines the very humanity that justice is expected to protect.

History

Historically, public executions were intended to demonstrate the authority of the State, discourage criminal behaviour and reassure society that serious offences would receive serious punishment. They were often organised as public ceremonies, with crowds gathering to witness the ultimate exercise of judicial authority.  The underlying message was that the State had the power to punish, and those who violated its laws would suffer the consequences. 

However, public executions did not always produce the response that authorities intended. They often provoked sympathy for the condemned, hostility towards the authorities or a disturbing fascination with violence.  In some circumstances, the show of execution did alienate the public.

In countries where capital punishment has been retained, executions are generally conducted within controlled institutional settings.  These arrangements are frequently defended on grounds of security, public order and the dignity of those involved.  Public accountability does not necessarily require an unrestricted audience. Independent observation, accurate reporting, judicial oversight and access to relevant information can provide meaningful safeguards without exposing the condemned person to public humiliation. 

Live streaming

Today a live broadcast could reach millions of viewers across national boundaries. An execution could be watched on mobile phones, reproduced through social media, recorded permanently and circulated long after the event. Live streaming introduces objective dangers. An execution broadcast to a mass audience can become a morbid spectacle.  Where permitted at law – again I do not agree - the final moments of a human life cannot become anything else but the execution of a punishment ordered by a judicial body.  Therefore, death by court order cannot be accompanied by the permanent digital exposure of the person who died.

Dignity

A person convicted of a crime remains a human being. Even in jurisdictions where capital punishment is legal, the manner how the condemned person is treated raises separate moral and legal questions.  Public exposure at the moment of death humiliates that person, opens wide the grief of the family of the victim, and serves no legitimate purpose relating the execution of punishment.  The families of victims may regard public execution as a demonstration of accountability.  Others may find the spectacle deeply distressing or inconsistent with their understanding of justice.  Punishment must not be deliberately transformed into degradation. The State cannot defend the dignity of justice by unnecessarily stripping a condemned person of dignity.

Deterrent

There is no reliable evidence that public executions or live broadcasts would provide an additional deterrent. The experience of witnessing an execution can produce a response opposite to that anticipated because human responses to violence differ considerably.  Involving public exposure of death cannot responsibly be justified on speculative assumptions about its educational or deterrent effects.

Transparency

Transparency and spectacle are not one and the same. The public has a legitimate interest to know whether safeguards against wrongful conviction have been respected, whether complaints of mistreatment have been investigated and whether the execution itself is according to what the law requires. Information is essential to meaningful democratic scrutiny. 

However, the live transmission of the death of a person is wrong on all counts. There is a clear red line: the right of the public to know cannot give way to the alleged right to watch.  Transparency is not a convenient justification for humiliation.  The end does not justify the means.

Camus

Back to Camus. 

His father did not need any legal explanation on the legitimacy of the execution he witnessed. He already believed that the punishment was justified.  What changed his response was his first-hand experience that his opinion and the real thing were not one and the same. 

The State has an obligation to apply methods that really and truly respect human dignity rather than resort to limelight scenarios.  The responsibility of the State is to ensure that the exercise of public authority remains open to scrutiny without turning human suffering into an instrument of public display.  That responsibility becomes crucial claims a right to take life by operation of its laws.

Conclusion

The public cannot have an unfettered right whatsoever to watch executions. Society cannot allow any shade of justice to disguise what an execution actually means. The State must be answerable for every life it takes. But accountability does not require the public exhibition of death.  Therefore, the strongest case against live-streaming executions is not that society should be shielded from uncomfortable truths. It is that a condemned human being should never become the object of public humiliation.  Perhaps the most compelling issue is not whether executions should be conducted in public, or transmitted live to millions, but whether a society that genuinely respects human dignity should permit the deliberate execution of a person in the first place. 

For Camus, that was ultimately the question that did matter. The horror witnessed by his father was not an argument for making executions more visible. It was a warning about what can happen when society becomes comfortable with justice in name but detached from the reality of death inflicted in its name.