Death Penalty

, , , , , ,

Complicated question in the news: What do Jews believe about the death penalty?

, , , , , ,
Complicated question in the news: What do Jews believe about the death penalty?

QUESTION:

What do Jews believe about the death penalty?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

There was relief last week when a unanimous Pittsburgh jury approved the death penalty for the man (not to be dignified here with a name) who in 2018 massacred 11 worshipers at the Tree of Life Congregation, in the deadliest act of anti-Jewish violence in U.S. history.

There’s a strong aversion to capital punishment in the teaching across the branches of Judaism but, as we’ll see, this is not absolute, and Judaism’s biblical and textual tradition on this is complex.

There were mixed feelings in Pittsburgh’s historically close-knit Jewish community. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that capital punishment “was the preference of some but not all of the victim’ families” and “some local Jews openly opposed” execution. The New Light Congregation, which also worships in the Tree of Life building, said “many of our members prefer that the shooter spend the rest of his life in prison” and question feelings of “vengeance or revenge against him.”

As appeals grind away, presumably for years, the antisemitic murderer will join the 41 inmates awaiting execution at the federal prison system’s death row or “Special Confinement Unit” in Terre Haute, Indiana, which was established when Congress reinstated the federal death penalty in 1988.

Meanwhile, The Associated Press says the morality and practicality of capital punishment could become a big issue in the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign for the first time since 1988. Republican front-runners Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are both making execution central to their anti-crime messages.

And the opposite. Liberal Democrats are vexed that President Joe Biden pledged in 2020 to abolish the death penalty in federal statutes but has not done so. However, his Department of Justice currently has a moratorium in place while it conducts a thorough examination of problems with methods of killing and racial unfairness in judicial application.

Consideration of Jewish belief begins at the beginning.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Justice in the Tree Of Life synagogue shooting -- will killer be executed?

, , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Justice in the Tree Of Life synagogue shooting -- will killer be executed?

I’m back in Oklahoma after spending big chunks of the last week in California and Texas.

This is our weekly roundup of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith. We start with the killer’s sentence in the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting.

What To Know: The Big Story

Antisemitic attack: “The man who killed 11 congregants at a Pittsburgh synagogue was formally sentenced to death Thursday, one day after a jury determined that capital punishment was appropriate for the perpetrator of the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S. history.”

That’s the lede from The Associated Press’ Peter Smith (a religion writer who has covered this case from the beginning) and Michael Rubinkam.

Painful process: Survivors characterized Robert Bowers’ trial as extremely difficult to endure and a necessary accounting, according to the New York Times’ Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, Anna Betts and Jon Moss. The Times:

“Most families of the victims have said that they supported a death sentence, but some have been outspoken in their opposition to it. One, Miri Rabinowitz, whose husband was killed, said executing the gunman would be a “bitter irony” because her husband had been devoted to “the sanctity of life.”

What’s next: But a big question remains: When will Bowers be put to death?

An even bigger question: Will he actually be executed?

As Religion New Service’s Yonat Shimron points out, “it will take years and likely decades for the sentence to be carried out, if it happens at all.” RNS explains:

Bowers will join 41 others on federal death row. Sixteen people have been executed by the federal government since Congress reinstated capital punishment in 1988.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Nation's religion-beat pros gather -- in person this time -- for annual conference

, , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Nation's religion-beat pros gather -- in person this time -- for annual conference

BETHESDA, Md. — Let’s make this quick. I need sleep.

Seriously, I wrote this week’s post after an exhilarating — but exhausting — first day of the Religion News Association’s annual meeting.

Journalists who cover religion news — including ReligionUnplugged.com’s own Meagan Clark and Hamil Harris — convened Thursday at a hotel northwest of Washington, D.C.

It’s RNA’s first in-person conference in 2½ years.

Session topics range from expanding global religion coverage to when to label a religious group a cult. Follow the Twitter hashtag #RNA2022 to keep up with all the Godbeat discussions.

But be warned: The news doesn’t stop for any conference.

As attendees picked up their name tags Thursday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court “ruled 8-1 in favor of a death row inmate seeking to hear vocal prayers and feel his pastor’s touch as he dies,” as the Deseret News’ Kelsey Dallas reports.

“OF COURSE the Supreme Court is making me handle breaking news during my conference trip,” Dallas tweeted.

For more background on the case, see past coverage here and here.

Power Up: The Week’s Best Reads

1. Jackson invokes her Christian faith, stays mum on specifics: “Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has put her religious faith front, center — and vague.” I love that lede by The Associated Press’ Peter Smith.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking about prayers at executions: These stories offer glimpses of an old church-state unity

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about prayers at executions: These stories offer glimpses of an old church-state unity

This is a “feeling guilty” post. For quite some time now, I have been planning to examine the coverage of some important religious-liberty cases that have been unfolding in the death-row units of prisons.

The decisions are worthy of coverage, in and of themselves. At the same time, these cases have demonstrated that it is still possible, in this day and age, for church-state activists on the left and right to agree on something. Maybe I should have put a TRIGGER WARNING notice at the start of that sentence.

Like I said the other day in this podcast and post — “Covering a so-called 'religious liberty' story? Dig into religious liberty history” — this kind of unity in defending religious freedom has become tragically rare (from my point of view as an old-guard First Amendment liberal). Indeed, to repeat myself, “America has come a long way since that 97-3 U.S. Senate vote to approve the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.”

The problem is that you rarely, if ever, see reporters catch this church-state angle in these decisions. The key is to look at who filed legal briefs in support of the religious liberty rights of the prisoners.

This brings me to an important Elizabeth Bruenig essay that ran the other day at The Atlantic, under this dramatic double-decker headline:

The State of Texas v. Jesus Christ

Texas’s refusal to allow a pastor to pray while holding a dying man’s hand is an offense to basic Christian values.

Here is the meaty overture:

Devotees to the cause of religious liberty may be startled to discover during the Supreme Court’s upcoming term that the latest legal-theological dispute finds the state of Texas locked in conflict with traditional Christian practice, where rites for the sick, condemned, and dying disrupt the preferences of executioners.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Friday Five: Dallas clergy abuse, God and abortion, Colorado hero, 'Whiskeypalians,' Tenn. execution

, , , , , , , , , ,

Here’s your periodic reminder that — from “Save Chick-fil-A” legislation to the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandals — the Dallas Morning News sure could use a religion writer.

When police this week raided Diocese of Dallas offices related to allegations of sexual abuse by priests, the Texas newspaper — to which I subscribe — put a team of reporters on it and produced two front-page stories (here and here).

The team included a projects/enterprise writer, two police/crime reporters and a city hall writer/columnist. A Godbeat pro on the team? Sadly, the Dallas Morning News doesn’t have one, despite the importance of religion in that Bible Belt city. (There’s another Page 1 report today, again by a public safety reporter.)

Ironically, the paper’s initial coverage included an opinion piece (“Why it's good Dallas police ran out of patience with the Catholic Diocese on sex abuse”) by metro columnist Sharon Grigsby. Those of a certain age will recall that in the 1990s, Grigsby founded the Dallas Morning News’ award-winning religion section (now defunct) and oversaw a team of six religion writers and editors.

Those were the days!

Turning from the Big D, let’s dive into the Friday Five:

1. Religion story of the week: Alabama’s passage of a law banning abortion in almost all cases tops the week’s headlines.

Since my post pointing out the holy ghosts in much of the news coverage, the religion angle has received major treatment from the New York Times (here and here) and showed up in The Associated Press’ headline on the state’s governor signing the anti-abortion bill into law.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Religious freedom case involving Buddhist death row inmate in Texas just got more intriguing

, , , ,

At first glance, it might seem like a simple solution.

The state of Texas had a quick response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Buddhist death row inmate who asked for his spiritual adviser to be in the execution room with him.

In case you missed it earlier, the high court granted a rare stay of execution to Patrick Murphy last week. This came, as we noted, after a different high court ruling in an Arkansas case concerning Muslim inmate Domineque Ray.

The Lone Star fix? Ban all religious chaplains from the death chamber.

OK, problem solved. Or not.

The better news reports I’m seeing — both in Texas papers and the national press — reflect the crucial legal arguments in Patrick Murphy’s case and not just the simplified sound bites.

Among the incomplete coverage, CNN reports the Texas change as if it’s the end of the discussion:

(CNN) The Texas Department of Criminal Justice will bar chaplains, ministers and spiritual advisers from execution chambers in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling last week that halted the execution of an inmate who sought to have his Buddhist spiritual adviser in the death chamber.

The move is the latest step in a controversy that pit the religious liberty concerns of death row inmates against security concerns of prisons.

The justices agreed to stay Patrick Henry Murphy's execution, but weeks earlier, had denied a similar request from an inmate in Alabama.

Murphy's initial request had been denied by Texas because officials said for security reasons only prison employees were allowed into the chamber, and the prison only employed Christian and Muslim advisers.

Lawyers for Murphy challenged the policy arguing that it violated Murphy's religious liberty rights. The Supreme Court stepped in and put the execution on hold.

In a statement released Wednesday, the state now says that, "effective Immediately," the protocol now only allows security personnel in the execution chamber.

To its credit, CNN notes:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Buddhist vs. Muslim: Journalists ask why SCOTUS intervened in one death penalty case, not another

, , , , , , ,

“Journalists really need to follow up on this crucial religious-liberty case,” our own tmatt wrote in February after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the execution of a Muslim inmate. The big issue in that case was Alabama inmate Domineque Ray’s execution without a spiritual leader from his own faith at his side.

But last week, the high court granted a rare stay of execution for a Texas inmate as he was waiting in the death chamber. Justices ruled that the refusal of Texas to allow a Buddhist spiritual adviser to be present violated Patrick Murphy’s freedom of religion.

Wait, what gives?

Why let one inmate die and another live in such similar cases?

Such questions sound like perfect pegs for inquisitive journalists.

Speaking of which …

Robert Barnes, the Washington Post’s veteran Supreme Court reporter, points to the court’s newest justice:

It’s difficult to say with certainty why the Supreme Court on Thursday night stopped the execution of a Buddhist inmate in Texas because he was not allowed a spiritual adviser by his side, when last month it approved the execution of a Muslim inmate in Alabama under almost the exact circumstances.

But the obvious place to start is new Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who seemed to have a change of heart.

Kavanaugh on Thursday was the only justice to spell out his reasoning: Texas could not execute Patrick Murphy without his Buddhist adviser in the room because it allows Christian and Muslim inmates to have religious leaders by their sides.

“In my view, the Constitution prohibits such denominational discrimination,” Kavanaugh wrote.

But Kavanaugh was on the other side last month when Justice Elena Kagan and three other justices declared “profoundly wrong” Alabama’s decision to turn down Muslim Domineque Ray’s request for an imam to be at his execution, making available only a Christian chaplain.

“That treatment goes against the Establishment Clause’s core principle of denominational neutrality,” Kagan wrote then.

Keep reading, and the Post notes differences in how the inmates’ attorneys made their arguments:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Friday Five: Matt from Walmart, pope vote, icky details, execution reprieve, butts and bagels

, , , , , ,

Hey Godbeat friends, can we please get a faith angle on Matt from Walmart — and pronto?

I kid. I kid. Well, mostly.

I heard about “How a dude named Matt at an Omaha Walmart went viral” via a tweet by Mary (Rezac) Farrow, a writer for Catholic News Agency. She described the Omaha World-Herald story as her “favorite piece of journalism” she’s read in a while.

After clicking the link, here’s my response: Amen!

Now, let’s dive into the Friday Five:

. Religion story of the week: We are blessed here at GetReligion to have religion writing legends such as Richard Ostling on our team of contributors.

Ostling’s post this week “Down memory lane: A brief history of Catholic leaks that made news” is a typical example of his exceptional insight.

The news peg for the post is Vatican correspondent Gerard O’Connell’s recent scoop in America magazine on the precise number of votes for all 22 candidates on the first ballot when the College of Cardinals elected Pope Francis in 2013. Ostling offers praise, too, for Washington Post religion writer Michelle Boorstein’s coverage of the story.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

This journalist — a Catholic — has witnessed 400-plus executions, but he won't say if he approves

, , , ,

It's almost incomprehensible: Associated Press journalist Michael Graczyk has served as a media witness for more than 400 executions.

When I worked in AP's Dallas bureau from 2003 to 2005, Graczyk was a Houston-based colleague of mine — and a great guy.

Graczyk, 68, is making headlines this week because of his retirement after 46 years with the news service. 

The Dallas Morning News featured the veteran newsman on today's front page. The Washington Post had a story on him Tuesday. And AP got the scoop on Graczyk's plans. No surprise there, right?

All of the interviews, of course, are fascinating. And all paint a portrait of an accurate, fair-minded journalist: In hundreds of cases, Graczyk has made it a point to interview condemned inmates who were willing. But not only that, he also has given victims' relatives an opportunity to speak, if they so desired.

Here's a journalist who epitomizes the best of his profession.

But right about now, you may be thinking, "OK, but what's the religion angle?" I'm glad you asked.

Each of the stories makes reference to Graczyk's own faith, although the Post fails to mention his Catholic background specifically.

Let's start with AP's religious note:

Graczyk has been asked many times whether he believes the death penalty should be legal. He said he’s a practicing Catholic and respects the church’s teachings against capital punishment, but that he has not made up his own mind.

“I’m not dodging the question,” he said. “I don’t know.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy