Egypt Seeks Death Penalty for Christian Convert Who Refused to ‘Renounce Jesus’ as U.S. Sends $1.3 Billion in Military Aid

Egyptian prosecutors have asked a terrorism court to impose the maximum penalty on Said Mansour Rezk Abdelrazek (also spelled Saeid Mansour Abdulraziq and known as Said Abu Mustafa), a Christian convert from Islam on trial before Egypt’s First Criminal Terrorism Circuit in Badr, in eastern Cairo.

In a November 3, 2026 statement, the Office of Said Fayez – Lawyers and Legal Consultants said the Public Prosecution presented its closing arguments and requested “the maximum penalty prescribed by law.” Abdelrazek’s fiancée, who provided the statement to The Gateway Pundit, said prosecutors are seeking 25 years in prison or death.

The court adjourned the case to December 8, when the defense will present its final arguments. According to the statement, the defense team will respond to the prosecution’s submissions, examine the evidence, and outline “the legal and substantive grounds of the defence.”

Under Article 12 of Egypt’s Anti-Terrorism Law (Law No. 94 of 2015), anyone who founds or leads a terrorist group faces death or life imprisonment. Article 13 sets the death penalty for financing a terrorist group. A life sentence in Egypt is 25 years in prison.

Keep reading

A Culture of Death

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” — Voltaire (1694-1778)

A government that claims the authority to kill persons after they have been subdued, disarmed, tried, convicted and confined in prison has made a startling claim about the nature of political power. It claims not merely the authority to protect the innocent from violence, but the authority to inflict violence when no immediate threat exists.

It claims that the taking of human life, which it rightly condemns when committed by private individuals, somehow becomes morally permissible when committed by government agents. This is the fundamental contradiction of the death penalty: Government killing the helpless protects the living.

The Declaration of Independence offers a radically different understanding of government. All human beings possess natural rights, and governments are instituted to protect those rights. Government’s just powers derive solely from the consent of the governed. Government is not the owner of our lives. It is our creature, established to protect rights that precede its existence. Its authority is limited, and it cannot legitimately claim powers that the people whom it governs do not themselves possess.

Individuals possess a natural right to defend themselves against an unlawful attack. They may use necessary and proportionate force to repel an aggressor. Because the people possess that right, they can delegate it to the government, including to a military for defensive purposes. Government’s legitimate authority to wage defensive war is a moral and legal derivation of the people’s preexisting right of self-preservation.

But what right does an individual possess to kill a defeated enemy who has surrendered, is disarmed and locked in a jail cell? What right does a private person possess to execute a prisoner who no longer presents an immediate threat? None. The right of self-defense does not include the right to kill a helpless captive as retribution for a past offense.

And if the people do not possess that right, how can they delegate it to government? The principle is straightforward: Government cannot legitimately acquire, through the consent of the governed, a power that the governed themselves do not possess.

Confinement protects society. Execution reveals the state’s claim to omnipotence.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plans to have a convicted defendant executed publicly and livestream the killing represent a particularly repulsive vision of state power. If implemented, such a spectacle would not demonstrate the strength of American civilization. It would advertise its moral depravity. It would turn the deliberate destruction of a human being into political entertainment, with the machinery of government serving as producer and promoter.

There is something profoundly disturbing about officials who would turn a human death into a public performance. What lesson would such a livestream teach? That the state is entitled to kill, that its violence deserves an audience, and that adults and children should watch with approval as the life of a powerless, wheelchair-bound prisoner is extinguished by military sharpshooters? That the proper response to wrongdoing is not the restraint of power but the celebration of its most lethal expression?

This is a cruel and unusual descent into barbarism, a glorification of government killing and an invitation to cultivate a culture of fear and death. Civilization advances when it restrains violence, even in response to terrible crimes. Barbarism advances when violence becomes an instrument of public spectacle and collective gratification.

Keep reading

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee Weighs in on Christa Pike’s Fate After She Survived Botched Lethal Injections

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee said on Thursday that Christa Pike’s death sentence is likely to remain in place after she survived a completed lethal injection attempt.

The decision will ultimately be made by the courts, not the governor, unless he chooses to commute her sentence.

“As it related to a particular individual like Christa Pike and her crime, she’s still incarcerated under the laws of the state of Tennessee,” Lee said, according to a report from the New York Post. “I suspect her sentence will be the same as before unless determined otherwise by the courts.”

The comment strongly implies that a commutation is out of the question.

Pike, 50, was scheduled for execution on September 30 at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution for the 1995 torture and murder of 19-year-old classmate Colleen Slemmer in Knoxville.

If the attempt had been successful, Pike would have been the first woman executed in Tennessee in more than 200 years.

Execution team members spent nearly an hour and used roughly 10 needles trying to establish IV lines after earlier warnings that Pike had difficult vein access.

Ultimately, Pike received two doses of pentobarbital, remained conscious enough to complain of arm pain, snored audibly, and was later transported to a hospital unconscious and on a ventilator.

Keep reading

South Korean Prosecutor Seeks Death Penalty for Conservative Ex-President

South Korean Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-suk on Thursday demanded the death penalty for former president Yeon Suk-yeol, who touched off a national crisis by declaring martial law in December 2024.

Yoon, 65, declared a state of martial law in South Korea on December 3, 2024. He said this was necessary to “protect the Republic of Korea from the threats of North Korean communist forces” that had allegedly subverted and paralyzed South Korea’s government.

Yoon denounced the opposition in the South Korean National Assembly as a “hotbed of criminals,” and said martial law would remain in effect until he could “eradicate such anti-state forces and the culprits of the country’s ruin who have committed evil acts up until now.”

As it turned out, the state of martial law only lasted about six hours, until lawmakers were able to slip past a cordon of soldiers, establish a quorum in the National Assembly, and voted to nullify Yoon’s decree. Yoon was impeached ten days later, removed from office in April 2025 after a lengthy legal and political battle, and sentenced to life in prison for “leading an insurrection” in February 2026.

Yoon filed an appeal against his life sentence, which is now pending before the Seoul High Court. Cho responded on Thursday by arguing that Yoon can only be held fully “accountable” for “orchestrating a rebellion” by giving him the death penalty.

The special prosecution team pushed for capital punishment at Yoon’s first trial and still believe there is “no reason to hesitate to impose the death penalty,” in part because they believe there is enough evidence to prove that Yoon carefully planned his martial law insurrection.

Prosecutors also argued that Yoon deserved no leniency from the appeals court for “restrained” behavior during his “self-coup” because he was prepared to use extreme force against those who tried to stop him, but some police and military officials disobeyed his orders.

Yoon’s attorneys argued that the former president was merely trying to “raise awareness” of corruption and sedition among his political opponents by declaring martial law and had no intention of setting himself up as an authoritarian ruler. South Koreans lived under military dictatorships from the 1960s through the 1980s and they do not have fond memories of the experience, so the charges against Yoon touched a nerve with the public.

The odds of Yoon actually being executed seem fairly low. The death penalty is still on the books in South Korea, but its last executions were carried out in 1997.

Yoon has also appealed a 30-year sentence handed down in June for ordering a drone incursion of North Korea in October 2024, allegedly to heighten tensions on the peninsula and set the stage for his martial law declaration. Yoon’s lawyers said he did not personally order the drone operation and it was a reasonable response to North Korea sending balloons loaded with garbage across the border.

Keep reading

A Culture of Death and State Sanctioned Murder: Why The Government Doesn’t Have The Right To Kill

A government that claims the authority to kill persons after they have been subdued, disarmed, tried, convicted and confined in prison has made a startling claim about the nature of political power. It claims not merely the authority to protect the innocent from violence, but the authority to inflict violence when no immediate threat exists.

It claims that the taking of human life, which it rightly condemns when committed by private individuals, somehow becomes morally permissible when committed by government agents. This is the fundamental contradiction of the death penalty: Government killing the helpless protects the living.

The Declaration of Independence offers a radically different understanding of government. All human beings possess natural rights, and governments are instituted to protect those rights. Government’s just powers derive solely from the consent of the governed. Government is not the owner of our lives. It is our creature, established to protect rights that precede its existence. Its authority is limited, and it cannot legitimately claim powers that the people whom it governs do not themselves possess.

Individuals possess a natural right to defend themselves against an unlawful attack. They may use necessary and proportionate force to repel an aggressor. Because the people possess that right, they can delegate it to the government, including to a military for defensive purposes. Government’s legitimate authority to wage defensive war is a moral and legal derivation of the people’s preexisting right of self-preservation.

But what right does an individual possess to kill a defeated enemy who has surrendered, is disarmed and locked in a jail cell? What right does a private person possess to execute a prisoner who no longer presents an immediate threat? None. The right of self-defense does not include the right to kill a helpless captive as retribution for a past offense.

And if the people do not possess that right, how can they delegate it to government? The principle is straightforward: Government cannot legitimately acquire, through the consent of the governed, a power that the governed themselves do not possess.

Confinement protects society. Execution reveals the state’s claim to omnipotence.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plans to have a convicted defendant executed publicly and livestream the killing represent a particularly repulsive vision of state power. If implemented, such a spectacle would not demonstrate the strength of American civilization. It would advertise its moral depravity. It would turn the deliberate destruction of a human being into political entertainment, with the machinery of government serving as producer and promoter.

There is something profoundly disturbing about officials who would turn a human death into a public performance. What lesson would such a livestream teach? That the state is entitled to kill, that its violence deserves an audience, and that adults and children should watch with approval as the life of a powerless, wheelchair-bound prisoner is extinguished by military sharpshooters? That the proper response to wrongdoing is not the restraint of power but the celebration of its most lethal expression?

This is a cruel and unusual descent into barbarism, a glorification of government killing and an invitation to cultivate a culture of fear and death. Civilization advances when it restrains violence, even in response to terrible crimes. Barbarism advances when violence becomes an instrument of public spectacle and collective gratification.

The military’s involvement makes the proposal still more grotesque. The Department of Defense exists to defend the country against external threats, not to transform the execution of prisoners into a propaganda production. The armed forces should not be reduced to stagehands for a political morality play in which the government celebrates its power over a captive’s life.

A free society should be especially suspicious when government seeks to dramatize its capacity to kill. The Framers understood that all government power must be confined and limited, not worshiped. Publicly celebrated executions would encourage the opposite attitude: Reverence for the state’s ability to destroy rather than respect for its obligation to protect.

Keep reading

Prosecutors Seek Death Penalty for Mom Accused of Murdering Twins Who Died 8 Days After Vaccines

Idaho prosecutors will seek the death penalty for Andrea Shaw, a young mother charged with murdering her twin toddlers, dramatically raising the stakes in a criminal case that has drawn national attention.

In a notice filed late last week in Idaho’s Third Judicial District Court, Payette County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Ryon Sirucek identified four statutory aggravating factors that prosecutors intend to use to justify capital punishment if Shaw is convicted of first-degree murder.

Under a law that took effect in July 2026, firing squads are Idaho’s primary method of execution. The legislation followed a botched 2024 attempt to execute a 73-year-old man by lethal injection.

Prosecutors must prove at least one statutory aggravating circumstance before Shaw can be considered eligible for the death penalty. If Shaw is convicted, a jury would determine whether those circumstances exist.

According to the filing, prosecutors identified four aggravating circumstances: that Shaw allegedly committed two murders at the same time; that the murders were “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity”; that she exhibited “utter disregard for human life”; and that her conduct demonstrates a propensity to commit murder that would make her a continuing threat to society.

Shaw was indicted by a grand jury and arrested on June 30 for allegedly deliberately suffocating her twins, who died on May 1, 2025. Prosecutors allege Shaw killed the children while they were sharing a bed. Her trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 11, 2027.

Shaw, who pleaded not guilty, has consistently denied the allegations. She suggested that her twins’ deaths may have been caused by the vaccines they received at a routine doctor’s appointment just over a week before they died.

According to court documents filed by her defense, Shaw took the twins to the emergency room on April 24, 2025, the day after they received routine vaccinations, because they were lethargic and their lips had turned blue.

The treating emergency room physician diagnosed both children with a “post-immunization reaction,” the filing states.

The children remained ill in the days leading up to their deaths, and Shaw repeatedly sought medical advice.

Neither the police nor the prosecution have publicly outlined the evidence they believe supports their claim that Shaw deliberately killed her toddlers. The grand jury indictment is sealed and not publicly available, and the coroner reports have not been released.

Shaw’s bail was initially set at $2 million. A district judge in Payette County, Idaho, later revoked the bail, which is discretionary in capital cases.

Keep reading

America’s Sordid History of Filming Executions as Entertainment

Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of the Army Adam R. Telle signed an order scheduling the execution of Nidal Hasan, a former Army major who was convicted of killing 13 people in a 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. Two days later, self-styled War Secretary Pete Hegseth made a startling announcement. “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public,” Hegseth told the conservative Real America’s Voice News network, as the interviewer raised his eyebrows. The Department of War’s official “Rapid Response” Twitter account promptly promoted the clip.

Hegseth’s plan apparently won’t come to fruition. Amid outcry about the barbarity and optics of streaming the planned execution by firing squad — scheduled for December 3 at Fort Hood — President Donald Trump on Thursday called off the broadcast. “I think streaming the execution for all to see might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM like Hasan but, many very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device,” Trump posted on his social media website.

Some news outlets, such as The New York Times, framed the planned killing as an aberration, claiming that “such a broadcast has little precedent, and releasing video of executions is most often associated with extremist militant groups like the Islamic State.” This narrative, however, overlooks a forgotten American cultural history in which filmed executions turned government killings into spectacle.

The practice of filming executions in America is effectively as old as cinema itself.

In 1897, a few years after the first motion pictures began to be exhibited in the United States, a Missouri farmhand named William Carr was convicted of murdering his daughter and sentenced to death by hanging. Filmmaker Frederick Guth, of the American Phonographic Company, who had previously recorded an interview with Carr in prison, opted to film the execution as well — marking a grim milestone as history’s first filmed execution. The resulting motion picture, “The Hanging of William Carr” (1897), was first exhibited in Kansas City and St. Louis, then screened around the country.

The following year saw the nationwide premiere of “An Execution by Hanging,” otherwise known as “Execution of Negro at County Jail, Jacksonville, Fla” (1898). It showed the hanging of Edward Heinson, who was convicted and sentenced to death for criminal assault of a 14-year-old white girl. Illustrating racist views that have long shaped the American criminal legal system and the death penalty, the catalog of the film’s production company, American Mutoscope and Biograph, teased the film as depicting “a very ghastly, but very interesting subject.”

As these early films were distributed across the nation, they were met with interest and outcry. The journal Phonoscope at the time described the filming of Carr’s execution as “revolting,” while the Cleveland Leader cautioned that the film may have “brutalizing effects” on viewers. Some newspapers even claimed that during the hanging of Carr, Guth had hired people to storm the gallows to create added pandemonium.

Keep reading

America Abandoned Public Executions for a Good Reason

President Donald Trump on Thursday called off plans to livestream the December 3 military execution of Nidal Hasan after the announcement generated widespread disgust.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced last week that the U.S. government would livestream the firing-squad execution of Hasan, a former Army major who shot and killed 13 people at the Fort Hood Army base in 2009. A court-martial jury sentenced Hasan to death in 2013.

It would have been the first public execution in the United States since a hanging in Missouri in 1937, though the last well-known public execution occurred a year earlier in Kentucky. Rainey Bethea, a black man, was hanged before a crowd of roughly 20,000 people in Owensboro. Kentucky became the last state to outlaw public executions two years later.

The plan to livestream Hasan’s execution drew comparisons to the Taliban. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called it “a barbaric promotion of a culture of death.” Writing at The Lamp, an orthodox Catholic journal, Matthew Walther noted that it would be the “first ever government-sanctioned snuff film in American history.”

However, Trump and Hegseth didn’t trip over just liberal and religious pieties, but a deep-rooted American aversion to bloody displays of state power that goes back to the colonial era.

Lynn Novick, the director of Ken Burns’ upcoming PBS documentary series Crime and Punishment in America, tells Reason that public executions “haven’t been a regular part of American life since the Colonial time in the early years of the Republic, and there’s really good reasons for that.”

One of American colonists’ many complaints about oppressive British rule was England’s expansive criminal code, known derisively as the “bloody code” because it contained more than 200 capital crimes.

“In Colonial America, [an execution] was an everyday occurrence,” Novick says. “There were executions all the time, and one of our scholars told us that most people would have seen someone executed in their lifetime.”

Excessive capital punishment also ran contrary to emerging theories by leading Enlightenment thinkers that punishment should be proportional to the crime and not driven by revenge or bloodlust.

Perhaps more importantly, public executions were disorderly affairs that, rather than reinforce the power of the state, inflamed the passions of the mob to a dangerous degree. “In many cases, crowds would become very boisterous, riotous, angry, excited,” Novick says. “There were sometimes violent outbursts at these events.”

As a result, many of the Founding Fathers saw frequent public executions as disruptive to the fragile social order. The early American republic’s move away from sanguinary spectacle was driven by a desire to create a stable, virtuous citizenry and sever itself from the European continent’s tradition of public torture and execution.

As Reason described in a recent cover story, the result of this was the invention of the American penitentiary in the early 1800s, which was sold as a humane and rehabilitative replacement for the whipping post and gallows.

States transitioned from public to private hangings behind their newly built prison walls in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, before switching to the use of the electric chair. This was not done out of entirely humanitarian concerns, especially in the South, where public executions often became quasi-religious ceremonies, with the condemned declaring their ultimate victory over death (and the state) through Jesus Christ.

“Executions had contested meanings,” Michael Ayers Trotti wrote in The End of Public Execution. “They were moments of justice, of state power; but they were also moments of religion, exceptional moments that transcended normal life.”

Keep reading

CCP Sentences Crime Bosses to Death Before They Can Name Names

Good news, everyone! The Chinese Communist Party is cracking down on crime. Of course there’s no crime in China, since China is very, very safe thanks to the CCP. But there’s crime in other countries, you see.

On Tuesday, a court in southeastern China sentenced three members of the “Wei family criminal gang” to death and sent dozens more to prison. The Wei clan is one of the so-called “four families” that ran criminal syndicates in Kokang, a region of northern Myanmar right on the Chinese border. State broadcaster CCTV called them the “most violent criminal force in northern Myanmar.”

According to the court, the gang ran drug trafficking, prostitution, illegal casinos, and telecom fraud. They also murdered at least two Chinese citizens. CCTV says they operated 14 large-scale scam compounds and lured Chinese job seekers across the border with fake promises of high wages. Once there, many people ended up trapped in prison-like compounds, forced to scam for their captors. The gang reportedly pulled in more than $1.8 billion.

But these gangs operated in the open, for years, under the protection of Myanmar’s military junta. Experts say the junta looked the other way because scam profits flowed to its militia allies, the same militias it needs to fight rebels. Back in January, the CCP executed 11 members of the rival Ming family. The Mings weren’t just gangsters. They belonged to a militia aligned with the junta.

And who’s the junta’s biggest backer? The CCP.

Keep reading

Trump calls for death penalty for anyone convicted of killing a firefighter

Addressing a gathering of law enforcement officers and firefighters at a White House Rose Garden luncheon, President Donald Trump announced that he has directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to seek the death penalty in cases involving the murder of a firefighter.

This directive expands upon his previous calls to mandate capital punishment for individuals convicted of killing police officers.

While the president signaled a firm federal stance on violence against first responders, the implementation of such a policy across all jurisdictions remains limited, as federal capital charges generally apply only to specific federal offenses or crimes committed within federal jurisdiction, while state-level homicide prosecutions remain governed by individual state laws.

“They’re shot at [while] going up ladders,” Trump said. “They get shot up in some neighborhoods….”

Keep reading