8 Pages Posted: 17 Jun 2016
Date Written: August 10, 2015
In this short essay, I consider how the logic of the complicity-based claims in Hobby Lobby and subsequent nonprofit cases could be applied to challenge the common policy of “death qualifying” jurors in capital punishment cases — removing any juror who reports conscientious opposition to the death penalty. I argue that just like religious nonprofits that object to reporting a religious objection to contraceptives on the grounds that it enables someone else to provide contraceptives, a juror might object to reporting a religious objection to the death penalty on the grounds that it will enable someone else to replace them who is more likely to impose the death penalty.
Keywords: constitutional law, religious freedom, death penalty, eighth amendment, free exercise
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Evans, Danieli, Religious Objections to the Death Penalty after Hobby Lobby (August 10, 2015). Stanford Law & Policy Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2015. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2796278