A month earlier in February, in Dunn v Ray the Supreme Court denied the request of Domineque Ray, an Islamic man in Alabama, to have his Imam present in the death chamber, holding that this request had come too late. When Murphy learned of Ray's decision, he quickly filed a request for permission to have his Buddhist Religious adviser present, thirty days before his scheduled execution date. This initial request was denied and his lawyers submitted a follow-up request for a state-appointed Buddhist adviser instead and received no response. In the days before his execution, his lawyers further took the issue to the courts, claiming the policy violated his constitutional rights. This repeal was initially rejected by both lower state and federal courts who claimed it was filed too late. However, much to even Murphy’s lawyers' surprise, The Supreme Court voted in a decision 7-2 to stay his execution while the issue was considered, unless a Buddhist spiritual adviser was allowed into the death chamber with him.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Granting Murphy the right to have his religious adviser present completely supported his constitutional right to freedom of religious exercise. This leads me to question what was the big difference between Murphy’s and Ray’s cases that granted only Murphy this right? In Ray, it was held that because he had filed the request only ten days before his execution date, it was too late. In Murphy’s case, he filed his request just thirty days before his execution and had his hearing on the actual day of his execution. Nevertheless, The Court deemed it unconstitutional to deny him his right to have his Buddhist spiritual adviser present in the death chamber.This leads one to inquire as to whether a difference of 20 days was really the only deciding factor in determining whether or not these men deserved their respective religious death rites.
In my opinion, there is not a significant difference between these two cases to result in such opposing verdicts. While the decision in Murphy acted in accordance with the Freedom of Religious Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, I think it flies very close to constituting a violation of the Establishment Clause in favoring one religion over another. In Ray, there was no consideration for compromise to satisfy his request. They gave him the option of having a Christian spiritual adviser, or none at all. Nobody suggested the possibility of acquiring a state-sourced qualified Imam to be present in the chamber. In Murphy’s case, it was almost immediately determined that since they had no available Buddhist spiritual adviser on staff, one would have to be acquired or he could simply not be executed.
I think that The Court’s decision in this matter can be seen as either a retroactive acknowledgement of their error in judgement in Ray or an establishment of precedence of Buddhism over Islam. I agree with Justice Kavanaugh in his assertion that “the state has to treat all denominations equally." Either all, regardless of faith, are given permission to have their respective religious advisers in their death chamber or no religious advisers whatsoever are allowed in the room. This, I believe would constitute true religious neutrality.
5 comments:
I agree with the author that all religions must be treated equally. I remember commenting on the post about Ray and I found it interesting because the constitution does not state that you only have the right to free exercise of religion if it's done in a timely manner or if it is convenient for the state, however, that's how it was interpreted. Just because someone goes to prison, does not mean they automatically lose their first amendment privileges. Similar to this case, Ray should have been given an Islamic Imam.
I agree with Jala and the author because, if there is only one denomination or religion that has a religious counselor, then that is not a neutral policy. I think it is an violation of free exercise because the state is inhibiting the inmates who are not christian from exercising their pre-death religious practices. I think that Ray should have been given an Imam, and that this case is a form of retroactive guilt that occurred on the side of the institutions that refused to grant Ray his stay of execution in order to get an Imam. I think they realized they were wrong in that case and were, maybe subconsciously, trying to "make up" for Ray's case in this one.
Besides the fact that it is inhuman to deny a person a religious accommodation before they die, it is also unconstitutional. As we have previously discussed, a person should not have to forfeit their constitutional rights when they are incarcerated. For the prison to only give a Christian accommodation is an establishment of religion and is not neutral to all religions. I agree that the short amount of days difference does not really matter, I think this is a case of minority vs majority religions and who decides what is allowed. The system is unjust, and there's no reason we should think the prison system is any more just.
While I understand the argument that people must give up certain constitutional protections when placed in prison, I agree with Murphy that religious accommodations should be permitted during his execution. I think that Murphy has a constitutional protection under the Free Exercise Clause to have his Imam present as this shouldn't be considered a "substantial burden" for the prison. I especially believe this since he is being sentenced to death. This is a rather minor request for somebody who is about to have his life terminated. Furthermore, I think there is evident discrimination against a minority religion, proven by the author citing Ray. I question whether requests to have a religious figure present during an execution will be denied to Christians in future cases.
I agree with the general opinion that Murphy should be allowed to consult with a Buddhist spiritual advisor in his chamber prior to his execution, and that Ray should have been allowed to have an Imam present as well prior his execution. It seems that the prison thought it would be a major inconvenience to accommodate either of these religious requests, yet it does not seem too different from allowing a non-religious visit. Even if Texas death row prisoners are denied contact visits, the spiritual director should be allowed to be present in some capacity.
Post a Comment