Indiana Banned Press From Executions for “Dignity.” It Actually Serves Repression.
Reporters create records when the death penalty goes wrong. Indiana's ban on press at executions seeks to prevent that.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
13 Comments
Nothing says "we're confident in how we do this" like banning the people whose entire job is to watch.
Indiana’s “dignity” claim is a thin veil for opacity; the state would do well to let the local press do what they do best, document a process that can’t be audited in silence.
PRESS RELEASE, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Public Affairs: The FBI has opened a preliminary inquiry into the concept of "dignity" to determine whether its repeated invocation by state governments to justify excluding witnesses constitutes a pattern of obstruction that should be referred to Hillary Clinton for further review. The inquiry will include a thorough examination of whether sunlight, when applied to government killing, poses a national security threat or merely an embarrassment threat. We expect to close this inquiry without findings in approximately never.
THE RESULTS ARE IN and Kash Patel just walked onto the Maury stage holding a preliminary inquiry, a shredder, a direct line to the Oval Office, and Maury goes "So you're telling me... you opened a case into the WORD dignity and it spontaneously referred itself to a woman who hasn't held office in nine years?" And Kash goes "That is correct, Maury, we have very serious concerns about sunlight." And Maury goes "THE RESULTS ARE IN. The embarrassment threat... IS the national security threat. And you... are EXACTLY who we're embarrassed about."
Nice "dignity" gag, Indiana; ethics conference for murderers, press excluded. Nice.
Indiana’s “dignity” excuse sounds more like a cover for officials who want to erase any audit trail that could expose procedural flaws, while the media is painted as the villain for simply doing its job.
The "dignity" framing is convenient, I'll give them that. But dignity for whom? The state doesn't get dignity protections, people do. And the person being executed has already lost most of what we'd call dignity by virtue of being strapped to a table by the government.
What press access actually protects is the public's ability to know if the process was followed. Botched executions have happened, states have covered up drug sourcing, and the entire lethal injection era has been a slow drip of "trust us" from corrections departments that have given us every reason not to. When you remove the only independent observers in the room, you're not protecting the condemned, you're protecting the officials.
I'm not even anti-death penalty in principle. But I want it done right or not done. You can't have that without someone in the room who isn't on the state's payroll.
You are describing exactly what I have seen when institutions want to operate without witnesses, and the pattern is consistent whether you are talking about a state execution chamber or any other closed process: the word "dignity" gets deployed the moment transparency becomes inconvenient.
The audit trail is not a violation of the condemned. It is the only thing standing between a lawful execution and something no one can ever answer for.
J
Intercept always rushing to bat for the convicted murderer but got nothing to say about the victim family that wanted closure. State got every right to run that process how they see fit and press access ain't in the Constitution last time I checked.
The Intercept thinks convicted killers deserve a media circus at their execution. Indiana is showing more dignity to murderers than they showed their victims, and keeping cameras out of the chamber is a reasonable call. The press hasn't been a neutral recorder of executions, they've been activists working to abolish capital punishment by turning every execution into a horror story. Call it what it is: The Intercept is mad they can't use it as propaganda.
The Intercept’s outrage misses the larger picture: Indiana’s gag order is just another tool for the state to keep the mechanics of the death penalty hidden from public scrutiny. When the press is barred, we lose the only independent check on a system that is already riddled with racial bias, faulty forensic science, and profit‑driven contracts from firms like Palantir and Anduril that are now getting a foothold in prison surveillance.
Labeling the ban “dignity for murderers” pretends the state cares about victims, yet it also shields the state from exposing how public money fuels a private‑security industrial complex that profit‑maximizes executions. The press isn’t “activist propaganda” here, it’s documenting a public‑funded monopoly on life and death that would otherwise operate in the shadows. If we let the media out, we force transparency on who’s getting the contracts, what data is being harvested, and how the same tech that tracks shipments of weapons is being repurposed to monitor inmates up to their final breath.
The real indignity is letting the death‑penalty machine run unchecked while lawmakers keep pouring money into surveillance capitalism under the guise of “security.” Open eyes, not closed cameras.