Prayer and Execution

[Occams Barber]

‘The most fraught situation anyone can imagine’: Supreme Court hears case around prayer during executions

The fight over what kind of religious rights death row inmates have during their executions is not going anywhere, if arguments today at the US Supreme Court in a Texas lawsuit are any indication.

On Tuesday morning, oral argument began Ramirez v. Collier, a suit from Texas death row inmate John Henry Ramirez. Ramirez, convicted of the gruesome 2004 murder of convenience store worker Pablo Castro, argues that a 2021 Texas prison policy, which doesn’t allow spiritual advisers in the execution chamber to vocally pray over inmates or touch them, is infringing on his statutorily and constitutionally protected religious rights.

The state has argued, and lower courts have agreed, that Texas has a compelling security interest in keeping faith leaders from getting too close to individuals during their death, and that Ramirez is raising last-minute objections to once again delay an execution that has been postponed three times.

During Tuesday’s arguments, the Justices on the conservative-leaning court appeared unmoved by arguments that the federal government under Donald Trump and others, various states, and even Texas during past eras, have all allowed religious advisers to touch and vocally pray over the condemned.

Instead, they seemed apprehensive that if Ramirez is victorious, it could lead down a slippery slope of ever-more permissive religious accommodations during executions….

… Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by the Trump administration and known for her strong personal Christian faith, questioned whether allowing Texas to keep prayer out of the execution room could set a worrying standard of prisons blocking religious exercise under the guise of maximum security...

... As both the court’s more liberal Justices pointed out, and Ramirez’s lawyers have argued, the state of Texas, home to the country’s most prolific death chamber, carried out hundreds of executions where religious advisers prayed out loud and touched inmates on their deathbed.

More…

‘The most fraught situation anyone can imagine’: Supreme Court hears case around prayer during executions (msn.com)

Does the condemned’s right to prayer trump state concerns over security, or is there a compromise?

OB

 

[Sabertooth]

Does the condemned’s right to prayer trump state concerns over security, or is there a compromise?

This question is hard to answer without knowing their specific concerns...

 

[public hermit]

Texas used to let spiritual advisers in the room. I'm sorry, spiritual comfort has always been given at executions, but now that not everyone wants a Christian minister present it becomes a problem. I'm not buying it.

 

[PloverWing]

What a bizarre case. It sounds like Texas would rather deny spiritual end-of-life rituals to all prisoners rather than allow a Buddhist to have his spiritual advisor present.

Assuming that the spiritual advisor isn't interfering with the execution procedure itself, I cannot think of any reason to prohibit their presence. Of all the times in my life, death is the time at which I would most want the prayers and rituals of my faith. Why deny that to a prisoner?

 

[Occams Barber]

This question is hard to answer without knowing their specific concerns...

Agreed. The article isn't specific about the nature of the security risk. Reading between the lines, the concern seems to be about the physical proximity of the minister/priest, i.e., within touching distance. Presumably this introduces the risk of the prisoner harming the minister or holding him/her under duress.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

What a bizarre case. It sounds like Texas would rather deny spiritual end-of-life rituals to all prisoners rather than allow a Buddhist to have his spiritual advisor present.

Assuming that the spiritual advisor isn't interfering with the execution procedure itself, I cannot think of any reason to prohibit their presence. Of all the times in my life, death is the time at which I would most want the prayers and rituals of my faith. Why deny that to a prisoner?

Based on the para below,from the article, it appears that the state couldn't (or wouldn't?) have access to the range of religious advisors needed if it allowed them as a right. It's possible that prisoners might attempt to delay/prevent execution by demanding the ministrations of a representative from the Pastafarians or some equally vague religion.

That only changed in 2019, when the Supreme Court blocked the execution of another Texas inmate, finding that the state’s policy of only allowing government employed chaplains in during executions violated the rights of a Buddhist inmate, because only Christian and Muslim spiritual advisers were available. In response, the state chose to first ban all religious advisers from the execution room, before later allowing them in with restrictions on vocal prayer and touch in 2021. This succession of changes, gave rise to Ramirez’s lawsuit.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Agreed. The article isn't specific about the nature of the security risk. Reading between the lines, the concern seems to be about the physical proximity of the minister/priest, i.e., within touching distance. Presumably this introduces the risk of the prisoner harming the minister or holding him/her under duress.

OB

The method is lethal injection. Surely the guy is strapped down on a guernsy. What could he possibly do?

I thought the means was the electric chair at first. I don't think there'd be anyone wanting to get in touching distance in that case.

 

[Occams Barber]

The method is lethal injection. Surely the guy is strapped down on a guernsy. What could he possibly do?

I thought the means was the electric chair at first. I don't think there'd be anyone wanting to get in touching distance in that case.

The risk period probably starts at the point of leaving the cell up until the point where the candidate is firmly strapped down.

My sense is that we're dealing with an, almost bureaucratic, mindset which works on a rigid delineated process of execution. Any act which interrupts the process threatens the integrity of the execution. Since the process is essentially cold and clinical, introducing prayers is a reminder of the non-clinical humanity which is about to die. No state, least of all a state which supports execution, wants a reminder of the humanity of its victims.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

With the caveat that I think the death penalty completely abhorrent, so for me this whole discussion is bracketed with the sentiment that ideally, such executions wouldn't be taking place anyway:

Does the condemned’s right to prayer trump state concerns over security, or is there a compromise?

I'm sort of feeling that both sides can be honoured here. If someone's going to die, absolutely they should have whatever prayer and rites their belief system requires. I am less certain that these couldn't occur immediately before, and/or in another room, though. I am not sure that I think personal contact or verbal prayer in that exact space and time is required.

For example, people are often given their last rites some days before they die of other causes. Not that I'm suggesting a time lag of days needs to happen here, but if we're talking a time lag of minutes, is that really a massive issue?

Based on the para below,from the article, it appears that the state couldn't (or wouldn't?) have access to the range of religious advisors needed if it allowed them as a right.

This, however, I have less sympathy for. It should be up to the state to meet the religious needs of people it incarcerates, and a fortiori for people whose lives it's about to take. I don't care if that's inconvenient or expensive or whatever, it's about basic human rights and human decency.

If it's believed that a prisoner is making a dishonest claim to a religion for mischievous purposes there can be a process to assess/deal with that. But in general, the state just needs to get its act together.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm sort of feeling that both sides can be honoured here. If someone's going to die, absolutely they should have whatever prayer and rites their belief system requires. I am less certain that these couldn't occur immediately before, and/or in another room, though. I am not sure that I think personal contact or verbal prayer in that exact space and time is required.

For example, people are often given their last rites some days before they die of other causes. Not that I'm suggesting a time lag of days needs to happen here, but if we're talking a time lag of minutes, is that really a massive issue?

I suspect (but don't know) that religious ministrations are already available up to the point where the execution process starts. This seems to be the point where a rigid procedure begins. As far as I can tell the issue seems to be about including religious ministration into the immediate execution process. Like most others here my understanding of the execution process is limited to movies.

This, however, I have less sympathy for. It should be up to the state to meet the religious needs of people it incarcerates, and a fortiori for people whose lives it's about to take. I don't care if that's inconvenient or expensive or whatever, it's about basic human rights and human decency.

Could it be argued by some Christians that, having performed an act deserving of death, the condemned has forfeited any right to religious consolation?

OB

 

[Paidiske]

Could it be argued by some Christians that, having performed an act deserving of death, the condemned has forfeited any right to religious consolation?

Well, it could be argued, in the sense that you could argue almost anything. It would be out of keeping with two millennia of Christian practice, though. And in general, I think the early Christian experience of martyrdom at the hands of the state has made Christianity wary of claims about what is "deserving" of death.

And interestingly, also, such an argument could possibly refuted by the example of the thief on the cross, who received religious consolation from Christ.

 

[Bradskii]

I suspect (but don't know) that religious ministrations are already available up to the point where the execution process starts. This seems to be the point where a rigid procedure begins. As far as I can tell the issue seems to be about including religious ministration into the immediate execution process. Like most others here my understanding of the execution process is limited to movies.



Could it be argued by some Christians that, having performed an act deserving of death, the condemned has forfeited any right to religious consolation?

OB

That some Christians can make the decision that someone deserves death as a punishment seems to me to be the anomaly.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Instead, they seemed apprehensive that if Ramirez is victorious, it could lead down a slippery slope of ever-more permissive religious accommodations during executions….

Heh. For 'religious corporations' or the religiously vaccine hesitant, religious freedoms are of paramount importance. But if it might inconvenience the executioner (or the courts), it's time to think about consequences.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, it could be argued, in the sense that you could argue almost anything. It would be out of keeping with two millennia of Christian practice, though. And in general, I think the early Christian experience of martyrdom at the hands of the state has made Christianity wary of claims about what is "deserving" of death.

And interestingly, also, such an argument could possibly refuted by the example of the thief on the cross, who received religious consolation from Christ.

It's my experience that two thousand years of Christian faith and practice, and what Jesus Christ Himself actually said doesn't really matter much to the sorts of people we're talking about.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sketcher]

During Tuesday’s arguments, the Justices on the conservative-leaning court appeared unmoved by arguments that the federal government under Donald Trump and others, various states, and even Texas during past eras, have all allowed religious advisers to touch and vocally pray over the condemned.

My default leaning would be in favor of this, with rules and limitations. As in, nothing that could facilitate the escape of the condemned or harass/endanger those facilitating the execution, etc.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think it takes much imagination to see religious bigotry at work.

In some forms of Buddhism, touching a religious object, such as a statue, is encouraged at the point of death. Other than that, I am not sure why there would be a need for a Buddhist priest or minister to touch anyone.

 

[Whyayeman]

He has been on death row for16 years, has had his execution delayed three times and is about to die - probably in agony for many minutes.

And the argument is about a Buddhist minister? I hope there some here who see the grotesque in this.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

‘The most fraught situation anyone can imagine’: Supreme Court hears case around prayer during executions

The fight over what kind of religious rights death row inmates have during their executions is not going anywhere, if arguments today at the US Supreme Court in a Texas lawsuit are any indication.

On Tuesday morning, oral argument began Ramirez v. Collier, a suit from Texas death row inmate John Henry Ramirez. Ramirez, convicted of the gruesome 2004 murder of convenience store worker Pablo Castro, argues that a 2021 Texas prison policy, which doesn’t allow spiritual advisers in the execution chamber to vocally pray over inmates or touch them, is infringing on his statutorily and constitutionally protected religious rights.

The state has argued, and lower courts have agreed, that Texas has a compelling security interest in keeping faith leaders from getting too close to individuals during their death, and that Ramirez is raising last-minute objections to once again delay an execution that has been postponed three times.

During Tuesday’s arguments, the Justices on the conservative-leaning court appeared unmoved by arguments that the federal government under Donald Trump and others, various states, and even Texas during past eras, have all allowed religious advisers to touch and vocally pray over the condemned.

Instead, they seemed apprehensive that if Ramirez is victorious, it could lead down a slippery slope of ever-more permissive religious accommodations during executions….

… Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by the Trump administration and known for her strong personal Christian faith, questioned whether allowing Texas to keep prayer out of the execution room could set a worrying standard of prisons blocking religious exercise under the guise of maximum security...

... As both the court’s more liberal Justices pointed out, and Ramirez’s lawyers have argued, the state of Texas, home to the country’s most prolific death chamber, carried out hundreds of executions where religious advisers prayed out loud and touched inmates on their deathbed.

More…

‘The most fraught situation anyone can imagine’: Supreme Court hears case around prayer during executions (msn.com)

Does the condemned’s right to prayer trump state concerns over security, or is there a compromise?

OB

Religious accommodations should be made where possible. But if the state can show that it presents an unnecessary security risk then this should be limited. The best solution is to get rid of executions but that is a different discussion.

 

[Whyayeman]

Perhaps the reluctance is that if the condemned man prays really hard there might be a miraculous event which saves his life. That would be a poser for all the God-fearing folk who wanted to see him die. So best not take the risk!

This is the only scenario I can imagine for a man to escape while strapped to a gurney, surrounded by armed officers inside a high security perimeter.

 

[essentialsaltes]

SCOTUS goes 8-1 in favor Ramirez

Texas must allow a death row inmate to have a pastor ‘pray over’ him and touch him as the prisoner is put to death by lethal injection, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justice Thomas dissenting on procedural grounds.