There should be utter disdain for the decision to livestream the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, the US Army psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people and injuring 32 others in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. That the US government is prepared to turn the killing of a human being into a public spectacle is deeply disturbing. It raises serious questions about the values of a society that claims to uphold justice while preparing to broadcast an execution to an audience.

Our opposition to the death penalty is longstanding. We believe that no state should have the power to take a human life, irrespective of the crime committed. But even setting that fundamental objection aside, the prospect of livestreaming an execution is simply deplorable. What has the world come to when death itself becomes another event to be watched, shared and consumed?

We have turned almost everything into a spectacle. Human suffering, personal tragedy and acts of violence are routinely packaged for public consumption. Social media has accelerated this trend, creating an environment in which the most shocking images can spread across the world within seconds. Yet there must be limits to what we are prepared to expose people to, and the deliberate killing of a prisoner should be one of them.

The need for transparency does not automatically justify broadcasting everything. There is a difference between scrutinising the justice system and inviting the public to watch a human being die. The former serves the public interest; the latter risks turning death into entertainment. We are going back to the times when people used to be hanged publicly - only worse, as Hasan's execution will be available to watch worldwide. Accountability can be achieved through independent observers, official records and credible reporting without placing an execution on a screen for mass consumption.

Nor is this simply a question of protecting children and young people, who may encounter such footage through social media regardless of whether they actively seek it. Adults, too, can be disturbed or traumatised by graphic images of a State-sanctioned killing. The assumption that everyone should be free to watch such an event, or should simply look away if they object, ignores the reality of how digital content travels and how easily disturbing material can reach unintended audiences.

Most importantly, the dignity of the condemned man must not be discarded. Hasan was convicted of an appalling crime that caused immeasurable suffering to victims, their families and the wider military community. But human dignity cannot be a privilege reserved for those we consider deserving of it. If it disappears precisely when it is most difficult to uphold, then it is a fragile principle indeed.

The recent botched execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee has made the issue even more troubling. The circumstances of her execution have raised fresh questions about the methods used to carry out capital punishment and the suffering that can accompany it. Against that background, the prospect of broadcasting a firing squad execution is particularly grotesque. If anything, these events should prompt serious reflection on the morality and mechanics of state executions, not a determination to make them more visible.

The responsibility for this decision rests with an administration led by Donald Trump, whose political approach has repeatedly placed a premium on spectacle and public displays of force. This is another black mark against Trump's record, and one that should trouble anyone who believes that government power must be exercised with restraint.

Justice is not strengthened by making death a spectacle. Neither are victims honoured by turning another human being's final moments into public viewing. A society's values are measured not only by how it treats the innocent, but also by the limits it places on its treatment of the guilty.

Some lines should not be crossed, and this is one of them.