A convicted murderer with the unlikely name of Domenique Hakim Marcelle Ray went to his Maker last Thursday in an Alabama prison without his Imam at his side, by the disdain of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Those two stalwarts of religious liberty and the right to life, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh helped it along.
Aside from saying Mr. Ray deserved to die, David French, a man of unquestioned conservative credentials, is clear on the gravemen of my own complaint:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-supreme-court-upholds-a-grave-violation-of-the-first-amendment/
The Alabama prison warden argued that Ray asked for his Imam too late, and that outsiders could be a threat to the security of the prison, so only staff members are allowed to attend executions. There is a minister on staff, so if you are of the warden's persuasion you may have peace of mind on death row.
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and the other likely three bought that.
I'd bet they wouldn't have bought it if Hobby Lobby was the party of the first part.
I covered an execution in Kentucky years ago. There was a limited group of people who could be there, plus the (honest!) Superintendent of Public Instruction, who was required by law to attend. As the hood was placed over the condemned man's face, the last thing he saw was a crucifix being held in front of him by a minister. The warden said he was a minister who did not want to be identifed, and the AP and I accepted that request.
The problem came when I wrote in the story that the man was holding a crucifix. Crucifixes were for Catholics, one of the editors insisted, so the man must have been a priest. The executed man had no religion, the warden said the man with the crucifix was a minister, and he sure wasn't dressed like a priest. Nevertheless, the editor insisted he had to be a priest.
We settled for changing "crucifix" to "cross" on the grounds all crucifixes are crosses while not all crosses are crucifixes.
I read about the man asking for the Imam at his execution in an article in the NYTimes asking whether "religious freedom" in the US was only for christians.
ReplyDeleteI have seen many articles that make me ask the same question.
It seems that only christians are supposed to have religious freedom. It also seems that the evangelical christian (and Catholic) right are running an organized stealth campaign that they hope will result in having more "freedom" to impose their views on everyone in this country, including those who do not share these religious views. Trump and his appointees are the means for implementing the program to ensure religious freedom for themselves, even at the expense of the religious freedom of those of other religions.
Every now and then David French is on the real "right" side.
CONSERVATIVE Christians. As I like to say: freedom for me, but not for thee.
DeleteHypocrisy abounds within Churchianity these days.
I remember reading that a Catholic condemned to death could receive Confession and Communion prior to execution, but not Anointing of the Sick, because technically, they weren't sick. The older name for the sacrament, Extreme Unction, implies danger of death, which would certainly seem to apply.
ReplyDeleteEvery account I've seen of this case has praised or at least noted Justice Kagan's dissent.
ReplyDeleteIt is not only David French weighing in against this decision from the conservative side of the aisle. Robert George of Princeton tweeted, "What Alabama did in not allowing a condemned man to have a clergyman of his own faith with him when he was executed was wrong. It did not need to happen and should not have."
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2019/02/11/bishops-blast-alabama-for-denying-inmate-his-imam-at-execution/
The US bishops spoke out against it: "The execution of Domineque Ray deeply troubles us. The death penalty itself is an affront to human dignity, and the Church has long called for its abolition in the United States and around the world. Mr. Ray bore the further indignity of being refused spiritual care in his last moments of life, in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Alabama law. This unjust treatment is disturbing to people of all faiths, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or otherwise. People deserve to be accompanied in death by someone who shares their faith. It is especially important that we respect this right for religious minorities. As Pope Francis said during his recent trip to the United Arab Emirates, ‘What we are called to do as believers is to commit ourselves to the equal dignity of all.’ Let us make this commitment today."
http://www.usccb.org/news/2019/19-034.cfm
On the other hand: the majority decision was on legal-technical rather than substantive grounds - in other words, the majority didn't particularly object to the prisoner having his Imam with him; what they found objectionable was his waiting beyond the legally-stipulated time deadline to request it. According to the author at the Volokh Conspiracy legal-commentary site, there is precedent: "The Court has previously indicated that last-minute stays of execution are disfavored if they could have been filed earlier. This policy probably stems from some dubious reasons, such as a mistrust of the death penalty defense bar, and some better reasons, such as the belief that the Court does not do its best legal thinking in the middle of the night."
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/08/the-execution-of-domineque-ray
Also, the news account in the Wall Street Journal notes that, even though the Imam could not be with the prisoner in the actual death chamber, he was able to be with him in the waiting cell. So there was some spiritual consolation/comfort afforded him. Also, at the prisoner's request, the state-employed (Christian) chaplain left the death chamber.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-denies-muslim-inmates-request-for-imam-at-his-side-during-execution-11549633026
There are any number of reasons that this case smells. Certainly, there aren't many (or any) death penalty advocates here at NewGathering, so as a bunch we're not predisposed to look benignly on this decision. Second, Kagan makes what reads like a pretty good argument on Constitutional grounds to permit what the prisoner requested. Third, to make matters even more unseemly, Alabama rushed to execute the prisoner a couple of hours after the court decided.
Thanks for amplifying this case, Tom.
ReplyDeleteIf we're going to execute people, which I oppose generally, the state has an obligation to provide a clergy person of any type, if one can be found, up to the last moment.
I am sorry you had to witness an execution in the course of your career.
Agree with Jean.
ReplyDeleteIf the death penalty could be banned everywhere, then maybe the clergy could visit earlier and, with some perseverance, help the prisoner repent sincerely. With a true repentance, the prisoner could find some way to do good for others while still in prison, and maybe even find some peace of soul while living out his or her life in prison.
The current SC is unlikely to rule on a case that would bring about a nationwide ban of the death penalty. But, it's slowly disappearing, state by state.
Glad the Catholic bishops spoke out.
Michigan abolished the death penalty when it became a state, but the feds once forced the state to conduct one. My dad, who was 10 at the time, remembers that people here were very upset about it. Article here: https://web.archive.org/web/20090105152810/http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/pdfs/chebatoris.pdf
Delete"Forced the state to conduct one"???
DeleteWhat did they do, threaten to execute some state officals if they didn't?
I was glad to see the bishops noticed. It would have been better if so many of them had not enthusiastically wigwagged greetings to the two new "pro-life" justices who had no trouble with the Ray case. I hear the NRA is giving green lights to appeals against states and cities trying to regulate guns that they had been holding up because they feared Scalia (now Gorsuch) and Kennedy (now Kavanaugh) were too squishy about how absolute the 2nd Amendment should be. NRA expects more obedience from Trump"s anti-abortion justices.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Will there be calls for Kavanaugh's excommunication from Mr. Douthat? I eagerly await his response!
DeletePretty sure Justice Scalia once said something along the lines of, "There is no Catholic way to cook a hamburger." Meaning: however a justice's personal views and morality informs his/her work, it's not (or shouldn't be) a simplistic and straightforward application of personal morality to the facts of the case.
DeleteThe majority in this instance made a procedural ruling. The decision paved the way for something we all regret; but the question on the table wasn't: Is it wrong (or even, Is it Constitutional) for this man to be put to death; it was, Is this guy's right to have a chaplain of his own choosing present at his moment of execution - does that right override whatever interests the State has in imposing limits on that personal right? The majority determined that his personal right doesn't supersede the state's rights/interests. My understanding is that not much of an explanation was offered as to why that is, so we're all sort of left wondering what the reasoning was. That doesn't mean that there were no reasons, and we have no way of knowing whether those reasons were good or bad (by our lights).
Jim, you are right about the case before the court, and I am not criticizing the orthodoxy of any judges based on this decision.
DeleteJust interested in how far Douthat's reverence for life ethic goes. Douthat, back in 2011, saw a lot of gray area around capital punishment. I can't recall a Catholic commentator ever calling for excommunication for supporters of the death penalty.
https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/notes-on-the-death-penalty/