US court stays Muslim inmate's execution over denial of imam request

RNG

Moderator
Jan 2015
13,327
9,100
Left coast
#1
How much brainpower should it have taken to figure out this logical consequence?

A federal appeals court has blocked the execution of a Muslim inmate in Alabama after the state refused to allow his imam to be present at his death.

Domineque Ray, convicted of murdering a 15-year-old girl in 1995, was scheduled for execution on Thursday.

But his lawyers argued that the state infringed on his religious rights by denying his request for an imam over a chaplain during the execution.

The state has now appealed the stay to the US Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel reversed an earlier court ruling and delayed Ray's death by lethal injection, writing in an opinion that Ray had a "powerful" claim against the state.

"The central constitutional problem here is that the state has regularly placed a Christian cleric in the execution room to minister to the needs of Christian inmates, but has refused to provide the same benefit to a devout Muslim and all other non-Christians."
US court stays execution over imam row
 
Aug 2018
1,063
1,647
Vancouver
#2
As a former po things like this just piss me the fuck off.

Two issues here.

A man was sentenced to death for raping a minor.

Someone made a mistake while doing their admin job and breached the convicts rights.

Logically, just plain common sense logically, the administrator who fucked up has to pay the consequences for fucking up. They might be reprimanded, punished, or even fired. They may have to go get some training or something. But NOTHING done administratively while carrying out the sentence should affect the sentence.

Execute the rapist. Then deal with the administrative issue.

If a cop forgets to read you your rights he should be reprimanded, demoted, fired etc.... But that shouldn't affect the prosecution and sentencing of the criminal.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2010
33,301
22,996
between Moon and NYC
#3
As a former po things like this just piss me the fuck off.

Two issues here.

A man was sentenced to death for raping a minor.

Someone made a mistake while doing their admin job and breached the convicts rights.

Logically, just plain common sense logically, the administrator who funked up has to pay the consequences for fucking up. They might be reprimanded, punished, or even fired. They may have to go get some training or something. But NOTHING done administratively while carrying out the sentence should affect the sentence.

Execute the rapist. Then deal with the administrative issue.

If a cop forgets to read you your rights he should be reprimanded, demoted, fired etc.... But that shouldn't affect the prosecution and sentencing of the criminal.
This is an awkward one.

Both sides of the case present good arguments. The BBC article/link in the OP is a good read.





..
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
71,473
39,400
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#4
Logically, just plain common sense logically, the administrator who fucked up has to pay the consequences for fucking up. They might be reprimanded, punished, or even fired. They may have to go get some training or something. But NOTHING done administratively while carrying out the sentence should affect the sentence.

Execute the rapist. Then deal with the administrative issue.
There is no "administrative issue" here. He will be executed anyway. But he also has a right to have present the cleric of his choice, not the state's choice. Why is it even a problem to provide this?
If a cop forgets to read you your rights he should be reprimanded, demoted, fired etc.... But that shouldn't affect the prosecution and sentencing of the criminal.
Yes, it should. It would not affect the sentencing; the crime is the crime, with its attendant circumstances, and police behavior after that is not a mitigating factor. But yes, the prosecution should be affected by bad behavior by law enforcement, else LE will have no motive to abstain from such behavior. That is exactly how it was before the exclusionary rule was instituted, and administrative measures against an officer amounting to a slap on the wrist does nothing to protect individual rights. If the state does not behave itself, the fruit of the poisonous tree is and should be excluded.
 
Aug 2018
1,063
1,647
Vancouver
#5
There is no "administrative issue" here. He will be executed anyway. But he also has a right to have present the cleric of his choice, not the state's choice. Why is it even a problem to provide this?

Yes, it should. It would not affect the sentencing; the crime is the crime, with its attendant circumstances, and police behavior after that is not a mitigating factor. But yes, the prosecution should be affected by bad behavior by law enforcement, else LE will have no motive to abstain from such behavior. That is exactly how it was before the exclusionary rule was instituted, and administrative measures against an officer amounting to a slap on the wrist does nothing to protect individual rights. If the state does not behave itself, the fruit of the poisonous tree is and should be excluded.
I must have misinterpreted the term "stayed" . To my Canadian brain I assumed that meant "removed from court's consideration"

Emotional reaction to a headline? Shame on me.

Tomorrow's a better day.