The origin of Ramirez V. Collier can be dated back to 2008, when John Henry Ramirez was convicted by a Texas state court for capital murder after stabbing a man twenty-nine times outside a convenience store and subsequently robbing him of $1.25. Ramirez claimed he had always been a follower of God. However, he firmly believes his worship flourished in prison and he became a devout Christian. Ramirez identifies with the Second Baptist Church of Corpus located in Christi, Texas. The pastor of the Church, Dana Moore, has served as Ramirez’s spiritual advisor since 2016. She fully supported Ramirez and believed no matter his conviction, he shall receive religious counseling and the ability to religiously confide in the Church. She willingly drove over three-hundred miles to provide religious aid to Ramirez through the prison’s visiting room. Being Texas is a death penalty state, he was sentenced to be executed three different times. The first was February 2nd of 2017, but the execution was appealed upon Ramirez requesting and being granted a substitute council. This means the execution date was extended because the Supreme Court granted Ramirez his right to change the person representing him before a court of law.
The second execution date was authorized for September 9 of 2020. Ramirez refuted the decision of the Court and claimed he must be allowed to have his pastor present in the execution chamber with him, in regard to Section 1983. This provides individuals the right to sue the state if they do not carry out civil rights that are already present and enforced. Ramirez and the state of Texas reached an agreement upon his execution date being extended, once again. Upon a third execution date being instituted for September 8th of 2021, Ramirez requested that his pastor would not only be present, but also physically touch him and audibly pray alongside him during the execution. He believes this practice portrays his religious interpretation and is essential to confer a spiritual blessing and religious passage of life. The audible prayer and physical touch request was quickly denied by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This is because execution protocols believe such acts would be a distraction, could result in adverse outcomes that may result in harm for the pastor or execution team, and could “interfere with the execution teams monitoring [of] the prisoner for signs of distress” (Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute). Ramirez filed grievances twice to allow his religious counselor to perform such religious acts during his execution, but the requests were denied in July of 2021. With just one month until his execution date, he filed suit once again in Section 1983. This time, his argument expressed that the denial of such rituals violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
In culminating the extensive background of the case, we must evaluate what exactly Ramirez is desiring and if that is being prohibited in an unconstitutional manner. In turn, the question at hand is “Does Texas’s decision to allow Ramirez’s pastor to enter the execution chamber to audibly pray and physically touch him during his execution violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?” Ramirez poses this argument to the court, that allowing the pastor to enter the execution chamber and be present for such, yet is forbidden to lay her hands on him as he dies, substantially burdens the Plaintiffs exercise of his religion. With such, he believes Texas must justify this limitation without compelling state interests.
Ramirez believes having his pastor touch him is a necessity of his religion and symbolizes examples of healing through touch in the Bible. Therefore, physical touch and audible prayer is deemed fundamental and necessary, according to his interpretation of the Christian faith.
My initial response was that this is another reach to prolong his sentence similar to the precursory three executions made to prolong his life. However, evaluating sincerity is unfortunately subjective; as it is unknown what the true intention was behind bringing about this suit, and if he is trying to protect a sincere religious belief. Nonetheless, there is zero evidence that having a spiritual advisor present for verbal prayer and physical touch could cause adverse effects on the inmate, execution team, or victims family. Constitutionality can not be based on hypotheticals and assumptions, because those would provide invalid conclusions. This lead me to change my perception of what I believe this ruling should be. There is a clear clash of rights between multiple parties. We can apply the Sherbert Test to determine if this restriction exerted by the state infringes upon Ramirez’s personal religious freedoms. Primarily, the Court must evaluate if the act burdens the individual’s religious freedoms. In this case, the state is not allowing Ramirez to have his pastor present and engaged in his desired manner, which does not fulfill his interpretation of what his faith deems necessary. As we know, this can be in the form of imposing penalties or preventing any benefit in regard to the practice of religion. Therefore, the Court is infringing upon his right to fully exercise his worship, despite him being an inmate on death row. Secondly, we can evaluate if the government is placing a substantial burden on the individual's right to exercise their religion. In this case, a coercive burden is placed on Ramirez because he is unable to carry out an act that he believes is a fundamental necessity in regard to healing, cleansing, and passage through life. The government may still burden upon the individuals rights if there is a clear compelling interest to justify the intrusion. With this, the compelling interest is essentially up to the state and execution protocols which are not evidentially backed and are built upon inferences. The government therefore can not provide support as to why the state interest can not be achieved because of Ramirez's individual freedoms and requests. Lastly, the Court must demonstrate that a law is narrowly tailored in violation of his religious rights. It appears as though the guidelines preventing the pastor from touching and singing are narrow, but it does not say anywhere in the law that such exercises of religion are prohibited.
4 comments:
You did an excellent job presenting the facts of the case. I agree that sincerity of religion is subjective, and thus complicates the case. However, the fact that his pastor drove extensive distances to provide him with religious counseling appears to satisfy this sense of sincerity and connection between the two. Additionally, your evaluation using the Sherbert Test is helpful to understand the case. Your claim that cases can't be ruled on hypotheticals, thus disproving the compelling state interest, is convincing. While it is easy to rule on cases based on the slippery slope, it is important to instead focus on the facts of the case, as you have done.
My initial response was the same as Lena’s. I interpreted these requests as further stalling before his execution. Despite this, you are correct in stating that evaluating sincerity of religion is subjective and wrong. I do not, however, believe that Ramirez should be permitted this exception for multiple reasons. First, I think this exception would interfere with the execution team and the detailed procedure that they must follow. The execution protocols were put in place for a reason, and I do not believe they should be altered. In terms of the Sherbert test, I also do not believe that Ramirez’s right to religious freedom is being substantially burdened. It is important to note that he was not denied access to his pastor or any other religious resource while in prison. In this case, he may receive an audible prayer and spiritual blessing prior to entering the execution room, but once the protocol for the execution begins, the state has compelling state interest to ensure the safety of Ramirez and others.
This is a really interesting case that you have outlined well. I agree that there exists a clear violation on the First Amendment right to Free Exercise. Of course, there are concerns about sincerity, however he is not appealing the execution itself. In my opinion, the argument that he is trying to push back his execution is not substantial. I appreciate that you pointed out how the hypothetical nature of the claim that having a spiritual advisor present is dangerous. I agree that this is not a solid argument and is the court's way of pushing their beliefs. Furthermore, I think that there should be sincere interest in protecting prisoners' rights. Oftentimes, these individuals are denied many rights without real due process. I think that this case can lead to a different slippery slope whereby prisoners' rights are further restricted.
This case is very interesting, and you presented the facts and arguments well. I agree that there is a violation of the First Amendment right to Free Exercise. The government has a compelling interest in following through on their decision to put this man on death row for the crimes that he committed, but they do not have a compelling interest in violating his First Amendment rights. I think there are two sides to the slippery-slope arguments. First, I do see the slippery-slope argument of sincerity, but I believe it's not anyone's right to judge one's religious sincerity. To your point, hypothetical claims, although they may be valid, are not enough to violate his rights. The more compelling slippery-slope argument for me is if the prison system/the government is allowed to violate this inmate's First Amendment rights now, what other rights will they violate? Further, how else would they violate the First Amendment rights of inmates? In my opinion, it's far more dangerous to allow this violation for the risk it presents for further violations than it is to allow a man on death row to freely exercise his religion one last time.
Post a Comment