Did you see the story in March about the dispute
between the now-executed double murderer, Robert Lee Massie, and the California
Department of Corrections? It seems Mr.
Massie wanted to have his minister with him for the forty-five minutes
preceding his execution. The State
Supreme Court unanimously rejected this request, deferring to the San Quentin
Prison and its policy concerning death row inmates and security risks.
This issue arose in 1998 with death row inmate Thomas
Thompson. San Quentin’s old policy
would have taken Thompson’s spiritual advisor from him six hours prior to his
execution. After numerous court
hearings, a compromise was reached in which it was agreed that Mr. Thompson
could have his advisor with him until 11:15 p.m.
What does San Quentin need the forty-five minutes
for? Apparently, there are a number of
pre-execution duties, such as having a physician attach a heart monitor to the
inmate (Why? It’s not going to matter in forty-five minutes.), and time for the
warden to ask the inmate for his last words.
(How would a spiritual advisor interfere with this?)
In addition, time is apparently needed for guards to
have the inmate put on a fresh set of clothes and be escorted from his cell to
the death chamber. (He needs to be
alone for this?) A San Quentin
spokesman indicated that one problem with having a spiritual advisor present is
that it could distract the inmate. (If
I were forty-five minutes from the gas chamber, I wouldn’t mind a little
distraction.)
Their other reason for wanting 45 minutes is more
thought-provoking: the Corrections Department does not want the spiritual
advisor or friends of the executee to learn the identity of the individual who
will be doing the execution, indicating that some renegade minister might pose
a threat to the executioner or his family.
Well, maybe we ought to go back to the old guillotine days, during which
the executioner wore a mask. I mean,
what’s more important, that the individual be permitted to spend his last
forty-five minutes with a spiritual advisor to attempt to perhaps make some
meaning out of the end of his life, or this Department of Corrections concern
that I believe has some merit but is far outweighed in this case.
The State Supreme Court did not see it this way, and
voted unanimously not to second guess the Department of Corrections
decision. The court did acknowledge the
benefit of having one’s spiritual advisor with him right before his execution
indicating that “most religions view the last minutes of life as a time when
the need for spiritual advice and comfort is particularly compelling.” The court, however, decided that prisoners,
including those about to be put to death, have, in effect, forfeited this
benefit.
There are other states which have addressed this
issue that do permit spiritual advisors to stay with the prisoner up until the
execution. This is clearly doable.
There is also a related court challenge coming in
light of the recent Federal Court ruling indicating that media representatives
have a right to witness the entire execution procedure, not just the execution
itself. The court in that case felt
that the public interest in executions outweighs the previously mentioned
security concerns, including the learning of the identity of the
executioner.
Needless to say, if a member or members of the media
become a part of this process and are not excluded forty-five minutes before
death, one’s spiritual advisor ought to be able to stay with the individual as
well.
I want to make it clear that I fully understand the
concerns of the Department of Corrections and don’t want to make light of
them. Well, I do want to make light of
the ministerial (no pun intended) ones not at all related to the learning of
the identity of the executioner, but let’s do a balancing test here, and decide
which is more important, and whether the two are mutually exclusive. Again, other states have found a way to
protect the executioner’s identity and still allow the spiritual advisor to
remain with the executee.
This is one of those situations in which I feel it
would be extremely appropriate for a bureaucracy to compromise. Obviously,
I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for a double murderer who is about to
die; however, I don’t think we are asking too much of our system to have this
issue resolved in a manner in which both parties have their needs met.