Breathing

Earlier today, Louisiana executed a man, Jessie Hoffman, Jr. Their first execution since 2010, the state made national news today when a the Supreme Court turned down Hoffman's appeal for a stay. Hoffman's case rested on the fact that this was Louisiana's first attempt to execute someone using nitrogen gas. 

Mr. Hoffman was convicted of killing a woman, Molly Elliot, kidnapped from a parking lot in 1996. Hoffman was 18 at the time.

His lawyers advanced a religious liberty rationale. When I first heard the story, the summary delivered sounded odd. The lawyers argued that the execution method violated Hoffman's rights as a Buddhist, interfering with his practice of "Buddhist breathing." 

I figured there had to be more to the story. Don't all executions interfere with all breathing? It was only after I read Justice Gorsuch's dissent (he joined the three liberal justices in a 5-4 decision) that I understood. Hoffman maintains that a particular kind of meditative breathing prior to death holds a profound meaning for Buddhists. Lower courts (the 5th circuit) overrode this claim, declaring Hoffman's practice spurious. This, Gorsuch points out, courts may not do. Courts may not invalidate someone's religious practice by declaring it the "wrong" way to practice that faith. Louisiana's lawyers argued that it hardly matters whether his breathing is interrupted by nitrogen or by firing squad. Gorsuch disagreed, wanting at least the chance to look further into the matter. 

His five conservative colleagues, however, declined to stop the execution. Mr. Hoffman died.

I am opposed to the death penalty for religious, ethical, and pragmatic grounds. Ethically, I do not think the state should have the right to carry out vengeance against people who do wrong. "Justice" is different than eye-for-an-eye revenge. Religiously, I believe in the possibility of change and redemption, and I think the criminal justice system ought to be framed around rehabilitation rather than pure punishment. 

Just as a matter of practice, the death penalty does not accomplish its stated goals (deterrence and justice) due to the hard fact that the criminal justice system suffers from well-documented systemic biases against people who are Black, brown, poor, and disabled. Those who cannot afford the best representation suffer disproportionately. The same crime results in different punishment for any number of variations. That alone makes the death penalty the most egregious example of injustice masquerading as fairness. (Separate but also relevant are the many cases where convictions are proven to have been mistaken or flawed. Execution is an inappropriate measure given the imperfections of the system.)

Molly Elliot's murder was a horrible crime. Mr. Hoffman's murder by the state (calling it execution is a too-neat rationalization) is, too. God be with both of their spirits, and with their friends and family members.

I don't know that the religious liberty argument was a winner. I imagine his lawyers had exhausted all other avenues, and it was worth a try. 

I teach my students breathing as a centering practice. "You don't have to believe in it," I say. "It works anyway." 

I'm breathing now, remembering Mr. Hoffman's final request.