Megyn Kelly’s raw reaction to Tuesday’s courtroom footage — where the man accused of killing Charlie Kirk stood and smiled — captured the anger millions of Americans feel when political violence stalks our streets. Kelly told viewers she wants the judicial system to impose the ultimate penalty if Tyler Robinson is convicted, arguing that smiling in the dock while a grieving family sits in the gallery is an affront to justice and to common decency. Her words reflect a wider conservative demand that this crime be treated with the seriousness it deserves.
The facts of the case are grim and unmistakable: Charlie Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University on September 10, and prosecutors have charged 22-year-old Tyler Robinson with aggravated murder and a slate of related offenses. Utah County officials have already said they intend to seek the death penalty, a response that conservatives argue is appropriate for a targeted political assassination in front of thousands of witnesses. The case has moved into in-person hearings and is drawing national attention, as it should.
Thursday’s appearance in Provo only underscored what so many on the right see as the moral stakes here: Robinson was allowed to wear civilian clothing while restrained and appeared composed, even smiling, as the judge weighed how much the public and press should be allowed to see. That image inflamed commentators and ordinary Americans alike, who see a system sometimes too eager to coddle the accused and too slow to prioritize victims. Judges are now balancing transparency against fair-trial rights, but conservatives must insist that transparency wins when the public’s right to truth is at stake.
This was not a random act of violence; prosecutors say Robinson’s writings and messages point to a targeted motive against Kirk’s political speech, and that makes it terrorism of the worst kind — political assassination disguised as individual pathology. Megyn and others on the conservative media side have framed this as the logical extreme of radicalized hatred on campus and online, a warning that leftist ideologues must be held accountable for the poisonous culture they nurture. If these are the facts, then the community that cultivated that hatred must earn punishment through its representatives at trial and sentencing.
There’s also a fight playing out over courtroom transparency, with the defense asking for limits on cameras while media organizations push back — and with Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow, publicly urging openness. Conservatives should be skeptical of any attempt to hide proceedings from the public when a national political figure has been murdered. We want every detail in the light, not only because the public deserves it, but because seeing the evidence will expose the truth about motive and intent.
Let there be no mistake: seeking the death penalty in a case of premeditated, politically motivated murder is not vengeance — it is the constitutional exercise of state power to protect society and deter future assassinations of political figures. Prosecutors in Utah have formally said they will pursue that option, and conservatives should support that course so long as due process is upheld and the evidence proves the charge beyond doubt. Justice is not partisan, but the safety of our public forums and campuses is a national priority that transcends ideology.
Americans who love this country must stand with Erika Kirk and with those who demand accountability, not with narrative-chasing partisans or ideologues who excuse violence because it fits their worldview. Let the courts move swiftly, let the evidence be seen, and if conviction is secured for an assassination born of political hatred, let the sentence reflect the gravity of the crime. We owe it to Charlie’s memory, to his children, and to every American who still believes in the rule of law.
