The Constitutional Consequences of a Death Row Sentence
The First Amendment of the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What, however, is constituted as “the free exercise thereof?” We know that, based off of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) that a Christian refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding is considered “free exercise,” as is gathering indoors to worship during the pandemic despite health risks based on the precedent from Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York (2020). These examples show that religious freedoms exist in multitudes in the social sphere. But what happens when freedom of religious expression violates other laws? In particular, what happens when religious expression contrasts with the laws set for inmates on death row? That is a question the Supreme Court is trying to answer now.
On November 9, 2021 in Texas, an inmate on death row named John Ramirez sued officials for not allowing his pastor to lay hands on and pray aloud for him during his execution. The laying of hands, Ramirez believes, will be a determining factor in whether he ascends into heaven or descends into hell. Ramirez claims he also wants human contact in his last moments because life on death row is “incarceration in solitary confinement,” and inmates are starved of touch the entirety of the sentence. However, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh have raised concerns about the precedent this case would set in changing execution procedures, and the state of Texas claims allowing physical touch before lethal injection "poses an unacceptable risk to the security, integrity, and solemnity of the execution." There is also the possibility that Ramirez is attempting to delay the date of lethal injection by taking the issue to court.
However, does the Court, or anyone else for that matter, have the jurisdiction to decide whether or not a person’s turn to religion before death is genuine or a postponement tactic? Chief Justice Roberts says so himself that he “suspects impending death focuses people's concerns on religion on a way they may not have had before." In a way, after the horrendous crimes committed, this religious experience could be a way to repent and apologize. It would not change the outcome of the sentence, but it could allow the inmate and his or her family closure.
Additionally, the harsh treatment of death row inmates, as well as withholding religious comforts, risks classifying inmates of death row as “sub-human,” not deserving the comfort and search for something greater that so many people seek in their final moments. Inmates heading to their execution are not getting out — granting them their request is not doing them a favor; it is granting them a modicum of comfort. People on death row are not animals. They are people who committed atrocious acts, but they are still people and therefore deserve to be treated as such.
The United States is a nation built on religious expression, and it would be wrong to deprive an American of basic human comfort in his or her final moments. Such deprivation would simultaneously impede on the expression of religion. The Supreme Court is set to come out with an official ruling on the religious rights and rituals allowed for inmates receiving the death penalty in June 2022. I can only hope that the Court chooses to respect the human dignity and religious comfort that all people deserve, if they so choose, even when on death row. Otherwise, the Court risks impeding on religious rights, and in doing so, is picking and choosing who deserves the right to express religion.