On February 11, 2021, a prisoner by the name of Willie B. Smith from Alabama was scheduled to face execution for his crimes. Smith was convicted for the robbery, abduction, and murder of Sharma Ruth Johnson in 1991. During his trial, prosecutors argued that Smith approached Sharma Ruth Johnson at an ATM, held her at gunpoint while stealing her money, proceeded to kidnap her and brought her to a nearby cemetery where she was brutally shot in the back of the head. Johnson was 22 years old at the time, and would have been in her 50’s if she was here with us today. On the intended date of his execution, merely hours before, Smith requested for his pastor to be present during the time of the death, physically in the execution chamber with him. He has been seeing Pastor Robert Paul Wiley, Jr. for years, repented his sins, and developed a strong personal faith all while in prison. Smith was denied his request by the state of Alabama in accordance with their new discriminatory policy.
This new policy was implemented in response to a Supreme Court ruling in Texas, Murphy v. Collier. On March 28, 2019, Patrick Murphy of Texas was scheduled for execution by lethal injection for his crimes. Murphy, like Smith, had found faith and spirituality in prison. Rev. Hui-Yong Shih was Murphy’s spiritual advisor in which he practiced Buddhism. This particular faith believes that the presence of his spiritual advisor in the moments before his execution is necessary to assist him to maintain the focus required to be reborn into the Pure Land after one’s death, therefore he requested his advisor’s presence. Despite years of permitted visitation with Rev. Hui-Yong Shih, the state of Texas denied his religious request, which was then taken to the Supreme Court where they issued an order halting Murphy’s execution. The court then ruled that Texas could not proceed with this execution as it violated his Free Exercise of religion, and acted as discrimination against people with different religious beliefs. This is when Alabama carried out its law that “banned all clergy members from the execution chamber,” the cause of Smith’s denied request. Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court on the morning of Smith’s scheduled execution and ruled that Alabama must allow Smith to be accompanied by his pastor in the execution chamber.
Regarding Smith’s case, the salient issue regarding religion and constitutional law is deciding whether or not denying an inmate’s request for a pastor in the execution chamber to accompany them at the moment of their death violates one’s First Amendment rights, even if it is against the state law. This is a matter that concerns one’s right to freely exercise their religion. The denial of Smith’s request imposes a debatable issue on his free exercise of religion. Is the denial of Smith’s request unconstitutional? Do any matters change because he is a convict? Denying a prisoner access to their religious necessities or requests still violates the law. Not only is the Free Exercise of religion an important matter, the government is required to treat every religion equally, never promoting or praising one over another. In other instances similar to this one, clergy members have been allowed in the execution chamber from different religions. A 13 out of 20 majority of prisoners executed in the United States over the past year were allowed to have a clergy member of their choice present in the execution chamber, and under equal treatment, if the federal government has been able to make these accommodations for other religions, so too should Alabama. And finally, it is important to consider that a law that prevents clergy members from being in the execution chamber may account for some religions, but not all. Not every religion believes in the same practices, and creating a preventative law like this one in Alabama, therefore establishing a law arguably creates an establishment of religion.
I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision here, I believe that it is a violation of one’s first amendment rights to be denied an accompanying pastor, or other clergy member, at the time of their execution. I also agree that it was the best legal decision to allow Smith to have his pastor with him during the execution. All Americans, including prisoners, should be accommodated in their religious exercises whenever it is possible. It is important to consider that the terms of the constitution still apply even between the walls of a prison. These people are still Americans and it is important to still allow them access to their constitutional rights. Denying a prisoners request that would accommodate their religious beliefs is preventing them from their free exercise of religion. But with this in mind, I think decisions regarding religious requests in prison should be made on a case by case basis. If a convicted murderer claims that it is against their religious beliefs to sit in a prison cell alone for the rest of his life, I’m not sure the decision would follow similarly to Mr. Smith’s path. But then again, who are we to tell one another what religious requests should be accommodated for? It is our constitutional right to practice our own religious freedom equally without establishment.
I also agree with the supreme court's decision in this case as blocking peoples right to exercise their religion in these cases is unconstitutional. Blocking this simple accommodation in the final moments of their lives violated their right to freely exercise their religion as many religions necesitate a spiritual advisor to accompany them. I also agree that there can be a slippery slope like you’ve stated, but I believe this accommodation is necessary in order to protect the rights of free exercise for prisoners.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in that denying a prisoner the right to have a religious guide with them at the time of their death is a violation of their right to freely exercise religion. I think part of this case essentially comes down to one’s opinion of rights available to prisoners. I believe that prisoners’ right to religious freedom is protected by the constitution, and should therefore be allowed to follow them to their execution. The only situation in which it should permitted to be stopped is if the presence of an extra individual at the time of death would serve as a direct safety concern to anybody involved. I also think that the origins of the discriminatory policy is interesting – it seemingly stemmed from a wish to prevent the practicing of different beliefs. It is strange to me that the response was to then restrict all religious freedom – a clear violation of rights – as opposed to allowing guides from any religion to be with prisoners at the time of death, in order to allow for freedom of religion.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the Supreme Court’s decision here. I think that denying Smith’s request of a pastor at the execution is unconstitutional and does violate his first amendment rights. There should be no difference in treatment just because he is a prisoner. As Ava mentioned, he is still just as much a person as someone who isn’t behind bars, so he should be treated like one. I do think it is a good point to note that allowing him to claim religious rights opens up a way for other people to claim religious rights as well to get what they want while in prison. This is why I agree with Ava’s point that these decisions need to be made on a case by case situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court's decision that it is a violation of the free exercise of religion clause. In Smith’s case, he was denied the presence of his priest while in prison. The other case addressed, Murphy vs. Collier. Is very similar to Smith’s case in the sense that Texas denied the religious request at the presence of the execution and created a law that all clergy were banned from the place of execution. I disagree with this law and ruling to not permit a religious figure at the place of execution because even though it is a state law, it violates the first amendment right of one’s ability to practice the free exercise of religion. There Is no harm in having a religious figure present at an execution and should be allowed if the one being executed requests one. The reasoning behind the want for a religious figure is because many of these inmates have become “religious” while they are in prison and thus at their time of execution wish to be forgiven for their sins. Preventing this act, is discriminatory because the only reasoning behind preventing it is the disagreement of the prisoner being freed from his/her sins and being able to die forgiven.
ReplyDeleteLike many of the cases we have read, we have noted the potential for the decision’s precedent to become a slippery slope. Like Julia noted, this decision may encourage other prisoners to take advantage of the right to exercise free religion. I believe this risk of slippery slope is always present in cases of this nature. The court should not be more or less weary of convicted individuals taking advantage of the freedom to exercise religion any more than other American individuals. Furthermore, I agree with the court’s decision.
ReplyDeleteI think it this case is interesting because generally the last request when within reason is something that is honored, whether that be a last meal or the desire to see a religious leader prior to death. It surprises me that Alabama would institute that law in the first place and I am glad that the Supreme Court viewed it as unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court that Alabama law violated the Free Exercise clause. The freedom of religion should not be denied to any American despite whatever crimes they may have committed. Alabama's attempt to deny death row inmates the right to a minister during their execution seem a particularly cruel punishment. It seems as though the only compelling state interest Alabama may have in denying prisoners religious council during their execution is to impose another punishment on top of the one they have already been assigned for their crimes. No matter how heinous and individuals crimes, the right of free exercise of religion should be protected for all Americans.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ava and the Supreme Court decision. To deny prisoner's right to have a religious figure present during their execution denies their freedom to exercise religion. Ava explained this very well when she wrote, "It is important to consider that the terms of the constitution still apply even between the walls of a prison. These people are still Americans and it is important to still allow them access to their constitutional rights." As I was thinking about this case I thought about how some prisoners who are incarcerated lose their right to vote, a right which is protected by the constitution. So should the right to vote be protected for prisoners or does this show prisoners are not protected by the constitution?
ReplyDelete