The two cases that have reignited the debate over the death penalty in the US: from surviving lethal injection to a possible execution before the public

The debate over the death penalty has been reignited in the United States following two separate developments: reports that Christa Pike survived execution by lethal injection in Tennessee and an announcement that the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, who was convicted for the 2009 attack at Fort Hood, could potentially be broadcast live.

Both cases have highlighted concerns about the safety of execution procedures, the level of institutional transparency, and the line between administering justice and turning it into a public spectacle.

Christa Pike, 50, was found guilty and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of 19-year-old student Colleen Slemmer. According to media reports, her execution in Tennessee was scheduled to take place on September 30, but the procedure did not end as expected.

Reports say Pike was given two doses of pentobarbital, yet she did not die. The case has once again drawn attention to the problems that have emerged over the years during the use of lethal injections in the United States.

Lethal injection has often been presented as a more controlled method of execution, but previous cases have raised doubts about the difficulties of inserting intravenous lines, the functioning of the drugs, and the lack of publicly available information about the protocols used.

The other case concerns Nidal Malik Hasan, the former military psychiatrist convicted of the massacre at the Fort Hood military base. His name has become part of a new debate following reports that his execution could be broadcast live.

Thus, the two cases have revived the question of whether the state can determine without limitations how the harshest punishment is carried out, and whether executions should remain closed procedures witnessed only by authorized observers or become events broadcast to a broad audience.