Supreme Court Allows Religious Discrimination: Death Row
In a 5-4 decision, seemingly along party lines, the Supreme Court ruled against allowing Dominique Ray, an Alabama death row inmate, the right to have a Muslim imam present with him in his final moments. Ignoring the shaky constitutional law used to justify the death penalty, which is surely debatable in its own accord, it would seem rather clear that such a ruling egregiously and completely ignored the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which has traditionally barred the institutions of the government from giving preference to one religion over another.
As noted by the dissenting liberal justices, Alabama allows the condemned to have a Christian minister by their side for final prayers but does not provide the same protection to Muslims. In doing so, Alabama gives credence to the rights of Christians over those of Muslims and lends its support to Christian rituals without extending that same support to Islamic rituals. And the excuse the state provided—that allowing outside ministers (as the imam was) poses a threat to prison security—is laughable at best, considering that the imam had himself been vetted by the prison.
While, of course, then, it would seem that the decision of Alabama was constitutionally questionable, there is an even deeper point hidden beneath the surface. Critics of the death penalty, myself included, point out that it would seem that capital punishment is a solely retributive form of justice, failing to meet the three traditional elements of a balanced justice system—retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. In short, the first serves to punish crime, the second to prevent it and the third to change the behaviors of prisoners. Retribution has its place in any system of justice—it seems rather clear that those who do awful things should be held accountable. But what is the point of a justice system that merely punishes people without making any effort to change them?
Of course, proponents of capital punishment have their responses prepared. They contend that capital punishment reduces crime, rattling off various studies. Of course, as with most politically-charged issues, there are studies on both sides, and for every report alleging that capital punishment reduces crime, there is another saying the exact opposite. So, the argument that the death penalty reduces crime is shaky at best.
What the Alabama case does, however, is dismiss the other argument—that the death penalty provides a rehabilitative value in that it forces the condemned to make peace with themselves, the world and God in a set time. If such a notion were true, surely every feasible religious accommodation would be provided. And if the state appreciates the importance of religion in people's lives, to such an extent that it has already agreed to protect priest-penitent privilege and otherwise provide legal accommodation to the faithful, such securities would surely extend to those on death row. If a person wishes to make peace with their God, they ought to have every right to do so, particularly if the punishment is designed with that very purpose in mind, as death penalty proponents so claim.
In fact, the failure of Alabama to accommodate Ray goes beyond Islamophobia. It ventures into sheer cruelty. Imagine yourself in Ray’s position. Despite having done something terrible, in Ray’s case, murder, you are still fundamentally human, and you wish to turn to God in genuine repentance formally to spend your final moments with your God. Yet, the very system that tells you your punishment is “justice” and allows you to “make peace,” denies your simple request to have a clergyman present to give formality to your penance. In your final moments, the state denies you the right to practice your religion as you wish.
Those trying to argue that capital punishment isn’t inherently “cruel” or “unusual” should perhaps consider affording basic rights universally to those on death row. And people trying to claim that the death penalty is anything but vengeance should at least treat inmates like humans, entitled to the right to practice their religion both with and without the presence of a minister or imam. And those very same people who claim that our criminal justice system somehow isn’t discriminatory should at least make an attempt to avoid projecting their own biases onto the treatment of inmates.
Until then, I’m calling shenanigans.