Posted on 11/10/2021 5:52:08 AM PST by Kaslin
Dustin Honken was convicted of murdering five people, including two children, and was sentenced to death in a federal court in 2004.
Sixteen years later, he was executed.
He also received the last rites of the Catholic Church -- in the execution chamber -- from Father Mark O'Keefe, a Catholic priest who accompanied him there.
"On the day of the execution, Father O'Keefe was screened thoroughly by security and accompanied by an agent escort at all times -- except for the brief period during which he accepted Mr. Honken's final confession," said a brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in Ramirez v. Collier, which the Supreme Court heard this week.
"When it was time for the execution to begin, Father O'Keefe was led to the execution chamber," said the brief. "Mr. Honken was already strapped to a gurney with an IV inserted into his body, wires attached to him that appeared (to) be for a heart monitor, and an oxygen gauge placed on his finger.
"In the presence of prison officials and the agent escort, Father O'Keefe went to Mr. Honken to administer his last rites," said the brief. "Father O'Keefe gave him his final communion, placing a host on Mr. Honken's tongue, putting holy oil on his head and hands, and delivering several prayers out loud.
"Though he stepped back while the lethal drugs were administered, after Mr. Honken was pronounced dead, Father O'Keefe again went to his body, blessed him, and prayed out loud," said the brief.
While it may be difficult to muster any empathy at all for a man convicted of multiple murders, did this priest not have a right to minister to this man at the moment of his death?
The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Texas Department of Criminal Justice now claims it has the right to prohibit a clergyman from touching a prisoner in an execution chamber or saying any words there, including prayers.
Under a policy Texas established this year, a prisoner's "spiritual adviser" may be in the chamber when a prisoner is executed, but that spiritual adviser may neither touch the prisoner nor utter any words out loud.
Not even a prayer.
In Ramirez v. Collier, the Supreme Court will decide whether Texas has the authority to do this.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Solicitor General Judd Stone submitted a brief to the court that described in detail the horrendous crime John Ramirez committed in 2004.
"In 2004, Pablo Castro, a father of nine, lived in Corpus Christi," said their brief. "He worked hard to support his family.
"Lydia Salinas, his long-time manager, testified that they worked the night shift at the Times Market and took turns buying dinner," the brief said. "On July 19, 2004, Salinas bought dinner because Castro had only about $1.00 in his pocket. Near close, Castro went to empty the garbage; when Salinas next saw him, Castro was dead -- beaten, stabbed 29 times, and lying in a pool of his own blood."
In 2008, Ramirez was brought to trial for this murder.
"At trial," said the Texas brief, "he admitted to killing Castro but denied the robbery that made it a capital offense. A jury disagreed, and Ramirez was sentenced to death in December 2008."
The case that Ramirez brought to the Supreme Court this year under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act did not seek to overturn his conviction or his death sentence. It sought to reverse the policy of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice that prohibits his pastor from touching him or speaking while in the chamber where Ramirez will be executed.
"Petitioner has always believed in God," his lawyers argued in the brief they submitted asking the Supreme Court to take up his case. "But it was in prison that petitioner 'came to salvation' through spiritual guidance and became a devout Christian."
"For the past four years," it said, "petitioner has been a member of the same church, the Second Baptist Church in Corpus Christi, Texas."
"Petitioner's RLUIPA and section 1983 First Amendment suit does not challenge his conviction, his death sentence, or the State's chosen method of execution," said the brief.
"Instead," it said, "petitioner seeks a narrow, but vitally important, remedy essential to his religious faith: He asks the State to allow his chosen spiritual advisor, Pastor Dana Moore, to perform ministrations in the execution chamber that include laying hands on petitioner and audibly praying over and with petitioner during the final moments of petitioner's life."
In a brief to the court, the Texas attorney general and solicitor general argued that Ramirez's own interests might be harmed by his pastor's presence.
"An outsider touching the inmate during lethal injection poses an unacceptable risk to the security, integrity, and solemnity of the execution," they told the court. "Even inadvertent interference with the IV lines could cause pain to Ramirez and emotional distress to his victim's family. Vocalizing during the lethal injection would interfere with the drug team's ability to monitor and respond to unexpected occurrences. TDCJ's prohibitions on contact and vocalization further its compelling interests."
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sided with Ramirez, citing the Constitution and the Gospel of Luke.
"The key spiritual guidance provided by the church is of particularly grave importance at the moment of death, and the formation and communication of that guidance is constitutionally protected from government interference," the USCCB said in its brief.
"The pre-eminent example of this," said the bishops, "is the Bible's account of the repentant 'Good Thief' who asked Christ for forgiveness on the Cross: 'Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, 'Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.'"
The Supreme Court should recognize that the free exercise of religion extends even into execution chambers.
Perhaps I’m missing the essence, but I don’t think I see where the thoughts, vocalizations, or actions of the man being executed are being infringed.
Instead, there is a priest in the execution chamber and the situation seems to be that the actions and vocalizations of the priest are being restricted while he is in that chamber.
Is this such a big deal? Can’t the priest perform actions at a distance? Step outside of the room?
When is the point in time that GOD no longer will 'save' a sinful man?
Why am I reminded of a parable?
Matthew 20:1-16
Can Americans Exercise Religion in an Execution Chamber?
I know religion seems to be missing in the abortion chambers of America.
When is the Priest of Heaven going to say Last Rites over us?
"Even inadvertent interference with the IV lines could cause pain to Ramirez and emotional distress to his victim's family.
Vocalizing during the lethal injection would interfere with the drug team's ability to monitor and respond to unexpected occurrences.
TDCJ's prohibitions on contact and vocalization further its compelling interests."
...and pigs could fly.
It is shameful for a state run by Christians not to let clergyman do a historically done Christian religious rite.
If the interests were truly compelling the regulation would be decades old.
Another example of toxic diversity
Texas law, I mean. Can’t allow last rites (I don’t subscribe to RCC myself) because then we’d have to allow some diversity religion access too.
Apparently no Catholic took part in drafting that law or if Catholic, never observed Last Rights. If the criminal was truly repentant, Last Rites serves as the Lord’s warm, welcoming embrace.
If he was acting, the administration of Last Rites has no effect on saving his immortal soul.
Is this such a big deal? Can’t the priest perform actions at a distance? Step outside of the room?
______________________________________________________________________
If it isn’t a big deal just let the priest, pastor or whatever in the room. I don’t know how it could hurt anything as long as the pastor or priest is well vetted.
I think they should just throw the guy down a well and forget about him but I don’t think letting a priest in will hurt anything.
No such touching should ever be permitted during an active exucution.
I can imagine some death row inmate arranging for the priest to have some kind of chemical on his fingertips that may work to slow down or even stop the execution chemical from working.
No. Bad idea.
While I actually agree with you, the article attempts to detail the government’s reasons why touching the prisoner and/or speaking in the chamber are “bad things” to do.
I think it’s BS. But I also think that doing things outside the room would be just as useful to the soul of the condemned man. Seems like both sides are “trying” to have a disagreement.
You are really ignorant you know that?
“Even inadvertent interference with the IV lines could cause pain to Ramirez and emotional distress to his victim’s family.
************************************************************
I think if the court agrees that the above alleged fact is accurate, real and/or substantive then the Church loses.
That said, I’ve experienced IV lines several times in my life and they got bumped, pulled, yanked and generally messed with all the time.
Personally, I think this guy should be given to the local butcher and put into his hamburger meat grinder and fed to the dogs.
You have a wild imagination! Nothing the priest would or could do with a touch would prevent the drugs they use from killing the inmate. They use enough potassium chloride to kill everyone in the room.
If the priest would dislodge the IV, highly unlikely, they would simply reinsert it.
And when the method of execution is by hanging, the priest cannot be standing on the trap door with the condemned person or when the person's neck is snapped at the end of the drop.
More reason to eliminate the lethal injection method of execution!
Devil: I lost Mussolini that way, all that work, then right at the end with the rope around his neck, he says, ‘Scusi. Mille regretti,’ and up he goes!”
It would cause no more pain than the initial IV placement. Regardless, some pain is not Cruel & Unusual Punishment.
No part of life is pain free. Certainly not death.
I
What if the priest touches him after death, and he rises from the dead????
Better not have a chance at that!!!!
This is a confusing article.
It’s confusing because the current case before the court has to do with a prisoner who is a Baptist(?) but the precedent being cited is for a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church has very precise rituals for receiving last confession from the dying and the final blessing of the deceased. Whether or not you agree with them, they are administered in a restrained manner by an ordained priest. There’s no such guarantee with respect to the conduct of the pastor that the condemned prisoner wants to have in the execution chamber with him.
Although the article reports the state framing it’s objections to the pastor’s presence in the form of interfering with the actual process of the execution, it does also mention detracting from the solemnity of the occasion.
My concern would be that, once the gates are opened to allow anyone claiming to be the condemned person’s religious counselor into the execution chamber, that it will turn into a total clown show when some offbeat religion decides to do it’s thing during the execution. This is what inevitably happens when you have people with their own agendas (to include the condemned person mischievously wanting to “make a statement”) interjecting themselves into the process.
Since you can’t discriminate against one religion over another, there’s no way to allow religions with acceptable practices with respect to the dying and dead into the execution chamber while excluding the ones that would cause a disruption through untoward behavior.
That’s just another “free speech/free exercise” ACLU lawsuit waiting to happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.