Oscar Smith, a Tennessee inmate convicted of killing his estranged wife and her two children in 1989, petitioned the state to prevent a post mortem autopsy be performed on his body, as he had been scheduled to be executed a week before he filed his suit on April 14, 2022. It must also be noted that days before, an appeal for a retrial hearing due to "unknown DNA" being detected on one of the murder weapons was dismissed by a County Court due to overwhelming evidence presented towards Smith being guilty. Nevertheless, Smith maintains both his innocence and the practice of his faith, being in his words a "lifelong christian".
Due to Smith being able to show that the act substantially burdened his faith, Dr. Li instead found himself required to argue that the government had a compelling interest in his refusal to accommodate Smith's request as well as the refusal being the least restrictive means in keeping the government's interest. Dr. Li noted that the government maintains “a compelling interest in assessing the effects of the lethal injection protocol” to ensure that the execution remains humane and non-torturous, a claim commonly levied at lethal injection. He did not however demonstrate that the government's interest is upheld through the law's application, a necessary add-on through Holt v. Hobbs (2014)—which dealt with the religious rights of inmates to their bodies as applied to their faith—to the oft used compelling interest argument and test, but rather "point[ed] to 'broadly formulated interests'" that did not fit within Holt. Li's argument fell apart in the Court's eyes as requiring fluid collection was proven to not be the least restrictive way to investigate its effects. Nevertheless, to me Dr. Li's arguments appear to be more sound than the Court gives credit towards, as learning the direct effects of lethal injection on the body through testing of its fluids further allows assessments as to how humans react. Simple observation and 'monitoring' of his diet and wellbeing prior to execution does not give concrete, scientific data as to how the drug effects him to which can be cited for later cases. I personally disagree with the death penalty, even more so to death by lethal injection for precisely the reason Li wants to be informed as to its effects, as it can vary drastically and prove torturous to the victim in many cases. However, Smith does have religious rights to his body from the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that Holt affirmed and other, less concrete alternatives that could provide the state a less restrictive means to accomplish its goal. I agree that from an initial stance the Court and Smith are correct in his right to not be drawn from, but I personally disagree with the choice to utilize the less restrictive observational options in testing the drugs' effects as it would not be fully acceptable data in my mind and the mind of the expert Dr. Li.
The Tennessee Court, citing the sincere devotion Smith demonstrated in his argument as well as how long it dates back to, including his grandmother refusing amputation, sided with Smith on the issue as breaching Smith's beliefs would necessitate an undue burden upon his free exercise of religion. This ruling is somewhat in contrast to the prior case of Billy Ray Irick who, while also receiving a stay of autopsy, did not receive the same level of religious deference as he was given a more limited examination that constituted the fluid collection. While still an important case as to bodily autonomy and the state's interest in autopsy, Smith's execution was stayed last minute due to a 'technical oversight' to which they did not inform the public of further. Given the issues with lethal injection, I find it highly possible to be a result of some complication with it that could have led to a torturous, violent death for Smith.
https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/nashville/tennessee-court-rejects-dna-evidence-petition-by-inmate/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tennessee-governor-calls-execution-oscar-smith-citing-oversight-plan-rcna25527
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2022/04/26/oscar-franklin-smith-execution-tennessee-officials-release-no-details/7438692001/
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2022/04/19/oscar-smith-execution-tennessee-death-row-inmate-lawsuit-first-amendment/9461514002/
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/tennessee/tnmdce/3:2022cv00270/90140/20/0.pdf?ts=1650535317
I agree with your perspective that this does not seem to be the least restrictive means possible. While I can understand the state's desire to perform autopsies to monitor the processes involved in the death penalty, I do not think that this should overrule Smith's religious views and his desires for his body. I think that individuals views regarding their bodies' should be respected and that if Smith feels that this is against his religious rights, it is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this post. I also do not agree with the death penalty, so I do not believe there is not a greater state interest because they should not be killing people in the first place, 'humanely' or not (killing a human being at all is not humane). As it is stated in the blog, Smith still has his freedom of religion rights. Plus, Smith will already be dead, so an autopsy to conclude he died quickly or not does not matter. They can do the autopsy on the next person they kill instead.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting case and your argument was explained well! I agree with your perspective that this is not the least restrictive means and Smith's religious convictions should be respected. I think the point that Genevieve raised during class about the similarities between Smith's wish and following anyone's will was really interesting and it's so true. It's standard practice to carry out every one's will and follow their wishes following their death, so Smith's request in question is isolated to the fact that he's in prison. Further, we've addressed the rights of those in prison before, and I believe that their religious beliefs should still be respected and his wish to not get an autopsy following his death because of his religious beliefs should be respected.
ReplyDeleteI find it rather wild that the court accepted the devout Christian beliefs of a man who was sentenced to death for murder. To my knowledge, “thou shall not kill” is part of the bible. Nevertheless, he was able to prove his faith to the court and advance these claims. Does this mean he has also never had his blood taken, never received any kind of vaccine as a child, or never been injured in any way? The fact that the court would operate off his interpretation of the bible which allows him to take the lives of others wouldn’t seem to fall under protections for Freedom of religion to me
ReplyDelete