Globally, capital punishment is declining, but in some countries, including Thailand, strong public support persists. Decades of surveys show a high percentage of Thai citizens favoring the death penalty, often believing it deters crime despite scholarly evidence to the contrary. Research has explored various factors influencing public support, including political systems, religion, and cultural norms. This study focuses on the socio-cultural aspect, investigating how shared beliefs are constructed through mediated experiences. This study examines the language used in newspaper reports on executions, arguing that the press collaborates with the state to sanitize state killing, making it appear different from other forms of violence. The research utilizes critical discourse analysis to unpack implicit linguistic strategies that shape reader perception and favor the death penalty. The study uses a corpus of execution news reports from Thai newspapers (1997-2017), a period encompassing a shift from firing squads to lethal injection. This change allows for a comparison of discursive choices across different execution methods and potential ideological shifts.

The study draws upon existing research on capital punishment attitudes and the discursive construction of public belief. Previous research has examined various factors influencing support for capital punishment, including political systems, religion, and cultural background. The authors also review literature focusing on the socio-cultural construction of legitimate killing and the role of media in shaping public perception. Studies like Sarat (2001) highlight the process of "purifying" executions, making them appear different from other violence. The authors cite works examining representational strategies in news reporting, specifically focusing on how language choices shape reader attitudes toward criminals and victims. This includes works on social actor representation, process types, and intertextuality (e.g., Van Leeuwen's work on reference strategies, Halliday's process typology, and analyses of voice incorporation in crime reporting). The authors specifically reference studies that examine the discourse of death penalty in the media and highlight relevant findings that inform their own study. Studies examining execution reports are discussed to set the current study apart, emphasizing its larger dataset and more linguistically-grounded approach to analyzing linguistic choices and the impact on reader perception.

The study uses a corpus of 108 execution news reports from major Thai newspapers (69 from 1997-2002, when firing squads were used; 39 from 2003-2017, using lethal injection). The reports were translated from Thai to English, with the translation process validated by two language experts. The methodology utilizes critical discourse analysis and focuses on three representational strategies: social actor representation, event/happening description, and the incorporation of voices. For social actor representation, it uses Van Leeuwen's framework (2008) encompassing nomination, categorization, and impersonalization. Event/happening descriptions are analyzed using Halliday's (1994) six process types: material, behavioral, mental, verbal, relational, and existential. The analysis considers agency and responsibility in the representation of actions. The incorporation of voices (intertextuality) examines which voices are included (and excluded) and their functions within the text. The researchers coded the data independently and resolved discrepancies through discussion. The analysis examines headlines and content separately, comparing patterns across the two periods. Quantitative analysis, presented as percentages, describes the frequency of linguistic choices. Qualitative analysis focuses on the pragmatic effects of these choices.

The study revealed consistent patterns in the representation of executions across both periods, despite a shift in execution method. Headlines consistently focused on the executed individuals, using functional terms to emphasize their guilt. Executioners were largely excluded or impersonalized, presenting state killing as a routine procedure. While explicit negative evaluations of the executed were more frequent in Period 1 (firing squad era), they decreased in Period 2 (lethal injection era). However, this didn't indicate a shift in pro-death penalty stance. Instead, Period 2 headlines used adverbials to emphasize the infrequency of executions, implicitly authorizing them as selective and justified. State killing was consistently represented using non-violent material processes with suppressed or institutionalized agents, minimizing the violence involved. The content of the reports showed overlexicalization and repetition regarding the executed and victims, reinforcing negative stereotypes and highlighting victim suffering. In Period 2, the executioners' identities became scarce, shifting from personalization to anonymization. The executed's actions were described using material processes highlighting their culpability, while executioner actions were presented as impersonal or lacking agency. The incorporation of voices favored state personnel and monks, whose views supported the justice system and capital punishment. The voices of the executed and death penalty opponents were largely marginalized. The study found that the selection of quoted speakers reinforces the pro-death penalty stance, with dissenting opinions almost entirely absent. While superficial changes in the descriptive language regarding the execution method occurred, the overall goal of minimizing the violence of state killing and reinforcing the culpability of the executed remained constant.

The findings demonstrate how linguistic choices in execution news reports shape public perception of capital punishment. By minimizing state agency, emphasizing the culpability of the executed, and marginalizing opposing viewpoints, the press contributes to the normalization and acceptance of state-sanctioned killing. The shift from firing squads to lethal injection didn't alter the underlying pro-death penalty ideology, only the strategies used to present it. The study demonstrates how even subtle linguistic choices can have a significant impact on shaping public opinion and maintaining support for capital punishment in a democratic society. The overrepresentation of certain voices and the systematic underrepresentation of others contribute to a biased narrative that reinforces the existing power structures. The study's insights contribute to understanding how language functions as a tool of power and control, and how media discourse can subtly but effectively shape societal attitudes.

This study reveals how Thai newspapers discursively purify state killing and implicitly promote the death penalty. Linguistic choices consistently minimize the violence involved, highlight the culpability of the executed, and marginalize opposing views. Despite a change in execution methods, the pro-death penalty ideology remained consistent. This research contributes to the understanding of how media discourse shapes public opinion and reinforces existing power structures. Future research could explore similar patterns in other contexts, compare different media types, or investigate the effectiveness of counter-narratives in challenging pro-death penalty discourse.

The study focuses solely on Thai newspapers, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other cultural contexts. The corpus may not be fully representative of all Thai newspapers, and the focus on specific newspapers could influence the findings. The interpretation of the pragmatic effects of linguistic choices involves subjective judgment, and additional qualitative analysis could further enhance the analysis.