海角大神

When Fleet Maull was serving his 14-year sentence in a maximum-security prison more than three decades ago, he spent a lot of time with men who were seriously ill or dying.聽

The path that led him there was 鈥渁 little weird,鈥� he says. In the 1970s, he was a 鈥渃ountercultural expat鈥� and a highly educated psychotherapist traveling the world, stopping to study Buddhism with Tibetan masters. To fuel his peripatetic lifestyle, he was a low-level drug peddler smuggling cocaine.

鈥淲hich shows you what a knucklehead I was,鈥� says Dr. Maull, who was caught and convicted in 1985 and given the mandatory minimum sentence that altered his life.

Today, nearly 20 years after his release, he calls the timing of his conviction 鈥渁uspicious鈥� and says, without irony, that 鈥淚 was in the right place at the right time.鈥� His imprisonment set him on the difficult path to discover what has become his life鈥檚 purpose: to help prisoners 鈥渓ive and die with dignity and humanity and with as little pain as possible.鈥�

This aim to uphold the humanity and minimize the pain of those who have committed heinous acts is not a natural impulse for most people.聽But as a Buddhist spiritual adviser and a prisoners鈥� rights activist who founded the while serving his sentence, Dr. Maull sees this goal as springing from an important principle. It's rooted not only in the teachings of the world鈥檚 major religions, but also woven into the political ideals of Enlightenment liberalism, in which prohibitions against 鈥渃ruel and unusual鈥� punishment began to evolve over the past few centuries. 聽

This year, as a newly constituted Supreme Court has begun to readdress capital punishment, the tension between the principle of human dignity and the practical needs of justice has come into focus in a way the United States has not seen for decades, experts say. In fact, the court鈥檚 newest conservative justices are poised to make it .

鈥淐apital punishment cases have come out of the woodwork in a way that I hadn鈥檛 really been anticipating, in part because it鈥檚 been kind of a dormant issue for a while,鈥� says Kathryn Heard, a legal scholar at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Reexamining principles聽

In many cases, the Supreme Court鈥檚 recent rulings have alarmed both liberals and conservatives, who say decisions on the religious freedom of those on death row, as well as the extent of the Constitution鈥檚 prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, have been chipping away at modern concepts of dignity.

Led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the five conservative justices have expressed a new impatience at the constant stays and decadeslong litigation that characterize a lot of capital cases. They have suggested that most death row appeals are simply 鈥減leading games鈥� made in bad faith, thwarting the demands of justice.

In two cases decided this April, Justice Gorsuch, writing for a 5-4 majority each time, rejected the appeals of two men, one in Missouri and one in Alabama, who argued that the lethal injection protocols of these states would cause them an unusual amount of pain, given their individual conditions.

鈥淐ourts should police carefully against attempts to use such challenges as tools to interpose unjustified delay,鈥� Justice Gorsuch in the case that dismissed the claims of the Missouri inmate, who argued that, because of his rare medical condition, the state鈥檚 lethal injection protocol could cause him to die in excruciating pain.

Aside from technical issues of Constitutional jurisprudence, Dr. Maull and others have posed difficult, if fundamental, questions.

Is there a limit to the kind of pain prisoners being executed should experience, even assuming that it will not be pain-free? At the time of execution, should prisoners have a right to have a religious cleric of their own faith or denomination at their side?

鈥淲e just see some really strong crosswinds on these cases right now,鈥� says Corinna Lain, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia. 鈥淪o I think this is a question we have to be asking now, because what principles are behind the death penalty right now? It鈥檚 really not about deterrence anymore,鈥� she says. 鈥淎s it鈥檚 been shown again and again, it doesn鈥檛 exist. It鈥檚 not about the incapacitation of dangerous people. It鈥檚 all retributivism. That鈥檚 it.鈥�

鈥淪o why should we care?鈥� Professor Lain continues. 鈥淲hy should we care about how they鈥檙e housed? Why should we care about the method of their executions, given the way they treated their victims? And why should we care whether they have a person comforting them when the state puts them to death?鈥�

鈥淲e have to care, because we can鈥檛 use the baseline of horrible crimes as our standard for civilized society,鈥� she adds. [Editor's note: This part of the quote was added later for clarity.]

鈥業nspired to serve鈥櫬�

Looking back over his experience in prison, Dr. Maull says it was strange that federal officials sent him to the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, rather than a medium-security penitentiary. Dr. Maull found himself among the cadres of healthy prisoners who were needed to help run the maximum-security hospital just as dozens of prisoners with AIDS were being transferred there from around the country.

鈥淲hen I got there, I realized I was in this hell realm,鈥� says Dr. Maull. 鈥淚 found myself in this world of tremendous suffering, deep suffering, even without the AIDS crisis.鈥�

Suddenly, after being immersed in the meditative practices of Buddhism for 10 years, the convicted drug-runner found himself bathing prisoners with disabilities, assisting peers with mental illnesses, and teaching mindfulness to blind inmates or those dealing with extreme pain.

鈥淚 was just inspired to serve,鈥� says Dr. Maull, who embraced the work of making things better for dying men confined in maximum security.聽

Rebalancing religious freedoms

Earlier this year, the high court denied the appeal of a Muslim death row inmate in Alabama who wanted his imam at his side at the moment of his death. Prison policy would allow only a 海角大神 chaplain at his side.聽Many religious conservatives decried the decision.聽

鈥淭he state鈥檚 obligation is to protect and facilitate the free exercise of a person鈥檚 faith, not to seek reasons to deny him consolation at the moment of his death,鈥澛爐he conservative social critic David French in the National Review.

Just a few weeks later, the court stayed the execution of a Buddhist inmate in Texas, even though the facts of his case were nearly exactly the same,聽.

鈥淲hat the State may not do, in my view, is allow 海角大神 or Muslim inmates but not Buddhist inmates to have a religious adviser of their religion in the execution room,鈥� wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a 7-2 decision that left many court observers puzzled.聽After the decision, Texas聽聽all religious chaplains and advisers聽from the death chamber during an execution.

Which makes sense, says Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the in Sacramento, California, and a strong advocate of the death penalty for those who commit horrible crimes.聽

鈥淐ertainly a person who is about to be executed should be allowed to consult with his adviser, and for many religions, confession at the end is considered very important, and that should all be accommodated,鈥� says Mr. Scheidegger, who has written more than 150 briefs for the Supreme Court advocating for the rights of victims. 鈥淏ut actually having a spiritual adviser in the execution room is not necessary, and if it can鈥檛 be done as a practical matter for all religions, then it should be done for none of them.鈥�

鈥淏ut of course we should avoid making an execution undignified, or an unnecessarily painful event, to the extent we can as a practical matter,鈥� he says. 鈥淭he penalty of death is just the penalty of death, and we shouldn鈥檛 be heaping additional things on it, and I don鈥檛 think anybody today thinks we should.鈥�

What is 鈥榗ruel and unusual?

The Supreme Court鈥檚 new conservative majority, however, appears to be embracing a different understanding of what constitutes an 鈥渦nusual鈥� amount of pain during an execution, scholars say.

In previous cases, the Supreme Court has done away with certain methods of execution that聽violate 鈥渆volving standards of decency,鈥澛爎uling that states should employ聽less painful methods at their disposal.

In his majority decision denying the Missouri man鈥檚 appeal, however, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the Constitution does not guarantee a painless death and that聽鈥渢he question in dispute is whether the State鈥檚 chosen method of execution cruelly superadds pain to the death sentence.鈥�

In previous opinions, only the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas advocated this position. In their view, the Constitution sets a high bar, only prohibiting states from 鈥渟uperadding鈥� extra聽鈥渢error, pain, or disgrace.鈥澛�

But the principles behind evolving standards of decency are woven into聽the very origins of the secular, liberal state, says Professor Heard at Dickinson College, who traces the evolution of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment to the Enlightenment.聽

As an emerging middle class began to challenge the hierarchy of kings and lords, philosophers聽began to insist on an individual鈥檚 鈥渋nalienable rights,鈥� including freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, she says. 聽

鈥淧ublic displays of both state-sponsored violence and established religious belief delegitimized a state鈥檚 claims to securing the rights, freedoms, and liberties of all individuals,鈥� says Professor Heard.

This shift in thought is in many ways fundamental to the evolving standards of decency that have governed the implementation of the death penalty since then. Once-common punishments, including聽the聽execution of people committing nonlethal crimes or the execution of minors or the聽mentally disabled, are now widely considered cruel and unusual.聽

鈥淪o what does that mean for us as a society?鈥� says聽Robin Konrad, an assistant professor聽at Howard University School of Law in Washington and a critic of the Supreme Court鈥檚 recent capital cases.聽鈥淚 mean, really, the issues surrounding the death penalty are, in general, about this as much as anything: What is our sense of humanity, and how do we want to carry out our punishments?聽And if we are going to have a death penalty, how do we want to carry it out, and are we OK with saying, well, it鈥檚 OK if we torture people to death?鈥�

Common humanity聽

In the Alabama case in which the inmate said the lethal injection would cause him an unusual amount of pain, state Attorney General Steve Marshall echoed many of the concerns of the Supreme Court鈥檚 majority, saying the family of the death row inmate鈥檚 victim were 鈥渞evictimized鈥� and 鈥渄eprived of justice.鈥� The inmate had 鈥渄odged his death sentence for the better part of three decades ... by desperately clinging to legal maneuverings to avoid facing the consequences of his heinous crime,鈥澛燗ttorney General Marshall聽听听

鈥淎 lot of inmates will drag everything out as long as they can, and there are plenty of judges willing to accommodate them,鈥� says Mr.聽Scheidegger at聽the聽Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. 鈥淏ut聽I think it鈥檚 possible now that we can make some progress on these kinds of delays.鈥�

Legal matters aside, for Dr. Maull, helping prisoners live and die with dignity and humanity and with as little pain as possible is an expression of compassion that asserts our common humanity.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think any of us can imagine what it鈥檚 like to face death in prison,鈥� he says. 鈥淭hese prisoners are often dying apart from their families, unwitnessed, and with just about the least dignity a human being can die with.鈥�

鈥淪o we try to bring as much dignity to their journey and to their deaths as we possibly can.鈥�