Spirituality and the Death Penalty
Simultaneously upholding and limiting the constitutional rights of incarcerated individuals has been a persistent and contentious topic for the Supreme Court. While the state has the right to impose upon the freedom of prisoners, the degree of their imposition is limited by the inherent rights of prisoners such as religion and speech. After a series of Free Exercise causes, Texas passed a law that prohibited all spiritual advisors to be present in the execution chamber to clarify their execution laws. Due to Texas’s regulations, death-row inmate John Ramirez’s request for his pastor to be present and touch him during his execution was denied. In response, Ramirez filed a lawsuit claiming Texas’s law violated his free exercise of religion by prohibiting the presence his spiritual advisor.
In an 8-1 decision, the majority ruled in favor of Ramirez and found that
Texas’s law undermined his first amendment rights. In the opinion of the court, Justice Roberts uses his evaluation of compelling state interest to justify the court’s decision. He affirms that the state has compelling interest in regulating executions in order to monitor the condition of the prisoner and prevent disruptions that could cause unnecessary harm to the prisoner or the victims family. The states interest in controlling executions is not threatened by the presence of a pastor, Roberts argues, and therefore does not justify the substantial burden imposed upon Ramirez. The court points to the centrality of prayer and touch to Ramirez’s faith. To prohibit the pastor would impede upon Ramirez’s ability to retain salvation and exercise his beliefs in the last moments of his life. This burden upon religion, Roberts asserted, is unjustified because the state could accommodate Ramirez beliefs without impeding upon his execution and threatening civil society. The court’s opinion seeks to limit the strength of the state when less restrictive means are available.
In his lone dissent, Justice Thomas affirms Ramirez’s claims “do not warrant equitable relief” (Ballotpedia). Thomas refers to the time of Ramirez’s suit in regards to his execution date. Ramirez originally filed his complaint in 2012 and due to number of appeals and denials, the Supreme Court did not hear his case until 2021. This resulted in Ramirez execution date being pushed back from 2017 to 2021. Thomas argues “Ramirez’s shifting litigation position lays bare what he really wants: “to manipulate the judicial process” to win further delay “(Ballotpedia). Thomas dissents because he questions the sincerity behind Ramirez’s convictions. He saw Ramirez suit as an attempt to exhaust all efforts to delay his execution and abuse the judicial process. Thomas does not address issues of substantial burden and free exercise in his dissent because he viewed Ramirez claims as illegitimate with deceptive intentions. His dissent was focused on the role of the state to enforce capital sentences and adhere to procedure.
I strongly disagree with Justice Thomas’s dissent because his argument violates Ramirez’s constitutional rights to believe. Landmark case Sherbert v. Verner affirmed the court does not hold the power to judge the sincerity of one’s beliefs. Sherbert illustrated that there is no way to test sincerity and attempting to do so would result in state coercion. Thomas derives his assertions of insincerity from the timing of when Ramirez filed the suit. He saw that as evidence to prove Ramirez mobilized fake convictions to suspend his execution date and try to undermine his capital punishment. I think Thomas’s claims overstep his right as a justice by using official power to dismiss or enforce ideologies. He has the right to be skeptical of Ramirez, but is constrained by the Free Exercise Clause’s safeguard of personal convictions.
Although I disagree with the dissent, I do not necessarily agree with the outcome of this case. I think the court ruling in favor of Ramirez contradicts their obligation to remain neutral between all religions. In 2019, the court denied Muslim inmate Dominique Ray’s request to have his Iman present at his execution. Similarly to Ray v. Dunn, in Murphy v. Collier (2019), the court denied a Buddhist inmate from having his spiritual advisor present at his execution. However, 2020 case Smith v. Dunn ruled in favor of a Christian prisoner who asked for the presence of his pastor during his lethal injection. These past decisions reveal the lack of uniformity in court rulings and begs the question: is the state neutral between religions? I think the states compelling interest remains consistent throughout execution cases, therefore why is the degree of their interest only limited when Christian prisoners request exemptions? I think the court made the right decision in this case; however, I am unsure if the court made this decision based off of the conventionality of Christianity or their pursuit of preserving religious liberty from government imposition.
The case also reminded me of restrictions imposed upon Muslim inmates in New Jersey Prisons. The prison officials barred Muslim groups from gathering while Christian groups were permitted to meet. I actually agree with Justice Robert’s opinion, but think this case reveals the presence of religious discrimination in our judicial process. Ramirez v. Collier speaks to the institutionalization of xenophobia and the states tendency to privilege Christianity over adhering to neutrality between religions.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ramirez_v._Collier
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3257432787056243348&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
6 comments:
I agree with the outcome of the case if there is no compelling state interest found to not allow a spiritual advisor. The court should not be judging the sincerity of religious beliefs to decide whether they will allow one. However, there may be a compelling state interest as this is a medical procedure. I think that should be the jurisdiction of the doctors to decide whether it is safe or not, as I do believe a compelling state interest outweighs free exercise here. I am also concerned that there is no neutrality among religions. They either have to allow all spiritual advisors or none, they cannot make judgments based on what religion the death-row inmate is.
evident by the 8-1 decision I think something like the death penalty is a good opportunity to take a pretty harsh accommodationist standpoint. The state has already decided to deprive someone of their life, I think there is a very strong interest in giving them as much dignity and therefore liberty as possible in their final moments. so long as it does not interfere with the process I believe that any religious practice or observance should be permitted. It disheartens me to know that not all requests are granted, especially some as simple as just having a religious leader in the same room speaking words. Even death row prisoners have rights and these requests can be granted, in accordance with one's first amendment rights, without much burden on the state so I believe the court made the right decision here.
I agree with Davis, in that I am of the opinion of accommodating equally to each based on their religious preference. If one believes there's an afterlife and wants to be forgiven of their transgressions, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or what have you. they should be allowed to have a representative of that faith in the room with them to pray over them as they go into their eternal slumber. the stress of dying knowingly is stressful enough as it is so why not just do this as a final request just as people are allowed to make their final meal request. But in this case, it's a constitutionally protected right to believe and practice your religion as you see fit, so if having a representative present before you die is a part of that then you should be afforded it. In war priests of all different faiths have been known to pray for groups of soldiers, marines, and sailors all the time, knowing that some will die, so this is no different in my eyes also, and it is wholly constitutional.
I also agree with Davis in the fact that a pastor does not inhibit or interfere with the death penalty, and therefore, one should be able to request a paster at the time of the execution and it should be granted. Due to the fact that one has the right to freely exercise their religion throughout the course of their life, by the Constitution, not granting one the presence of a pastor would be unconstitutional. It honestly seems to me that the state may simply not be granting inmates on death row a pastor if requested due to the fact that they are using this upper hand as another form of punishment which is not justified by the Constitution.
I agree with Paris' argument that American courts are struggling to achieve neutrality and consistency in cases involving religion and the death penalty. As I am not an expert on the medical procedure, there could be a legitimate medical reason that religious leaders cannot touch the person and that would qualify as a reasonable and persuasive state interest. Yet since that is not the case, I do not find the fact that these people being prisoners is enough to be a compelling state interest to deny religious leaders from being in the room. In that vein, if this thought is practiced it must be neutral to all religious followers and it cannot be denied by the state.
I agree with the decision of the Court. I also agree with the point Davis made that the death penalty calls for a strong accommodationist stance. It has already been said that the Court is not qualified to judge the sincerity of one's religious beliefs, and all religions have important beliefs about death and the afterlife or at least address it. I also agree with Katie's point that neutrality between religions is still important and if prisons respect the choice of certain religions to have their spiritual advisors (as they should) then all spiritual advisors should be allowed. Considering this practice is literally ending someone's life and there is no compelling state interest because it does not impact the process and having someone to pray over them is not an attempt to change the result, I think there is no reason to prohibit their presence. Further, the rights of prisoners have been threatened for a long time and I think this case will be important in making it clear that prisoners, even those on death row, still have their constitutional rights and they should not be put in a position to be violated.
Post a Comment