America’s Sordid History of Filming Executions as Entertainment

Acting Secretary of the Army Adam R. Telle recently signed an order setting the execution of Nidal Hasan, a former Army major convicted of killing 13 people in a 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. Two days later, Pete Hegseth, referred to as the War Secretary, stated on the conservative Real America’s Voice News network that efforts would be made to allow the public to view the execution. The Department of War’s official “Rapid Response” Twitter account shared a clip of the statement. However, amid concerns over the potential impact of broadcasting the execution by firing squad, scheduled for December 3 at Fort Hood, President Donald Trump decided to cancel the stream. Trump noted that while the broadcast might serve as a deterrent, many individuals preferred not to witness the execution visually. News organizations such as The New York Times suggested that the planned execution represented an unusual occurrence, stating that such broadcasts are typically linked to extremist groups like the Islamic State. However, this perspective neglects a broader historical context within American culture involving the filming of executions. The practice of recording executions in the United States dates back to the early days of cinema. In 1897, shortly after the emergence of motion pictures in the United States, a Missouri farmer named William Carr was found guilty of murdering his daughter and was sentenced to death by hanging. Frederick Guth, filmmaker from the American Phonographic Company, who had previously recorded an interview with Carr in prison, chose to document the execution as well, marking the first known filmed execution in history. The resulting film, titled “The Hanging of William Carr,” was initially shown in Kansas City and St. Louis before being presented throughout the country. The subsequent year witnessed the nationwide release of another film titled “An Execution by Hanging,” alternatively known as “Execution of Negro at County Jail, Jacksonville, Fla.” This film depicted the hanging of Edward Heinson, who was convicted of assaulting a 14-year-old white girl. The production company, American Mutoscope and Biograph, highlighted the film as portraying “a very ghastly, but very interesting subject,” reflecting the racial prejudices embedded in the American legal system and the death penalty. As these early films circulated across the nation, they sparked mixed reactions. The Phonoscope magazine criticized the filming of Carr’s execution as “revolting,” while the Cleveland Leader warned that the film might have “brutalizing effects” on its audience. Some newspapers even reported that during the hanging of Carr, Guth had arranged for individuals to disrupt the scene at the gallows to heighten the chaos. With the rise of the cinema industry, filmmakers began incorporating real-life footage with fictional elements, creating hybrid productions that blended factual events with dramatized reenactments. For example, after Thomas Edison’s Edison Studios failed to obtain permission to record the electrocution of President William McKinley’s assassin, filmmakers combined exterior shots taken on the day of the killing with footage of a mannequin to illustrate the execution in “Execution of Czolgosz with Panorama of Auburn Prison” (1901). Edison had already created multiple historical execution reenactments, including those of prominent figures. These early cinematic portrayals of executions laid the groundwork for a tradition that continues to evolve today, raising questions about the role of media in shaping perceptions of justice and punishment.