“There will be no firing squads in North Carolina during my time as governor,” Governor Josh Stein said Oct. 3 after signing a criminal justice bill into law in response to the tragic murder of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska on the Charlotte light rail. A statement we can’t believe had to be uttered in 2025. Iryna’s Law contains valuable legal system reforms, including mandatory mental health evaluations and a review of pretrial release processes. However, the law not only reinstated the death penalty in North Carolina—which had been halted for 20 years—but also allows convicted individuals to choose between the electric chair, lethal injection, or a firing squad.
One of the bill sponsors, Representative Reece Prytle, stated the bill “seeks to restore the death penalty as a deterrent and an option for prosecutors across the state.” In the 1976 Supreme Court ruling for Gregg v. Georgia, the Court noted that there may be several purposes for the death penalty, including deterrence. However, there is little evidence to support the claim that capital punishment deters homicide. In fact, some studies have found that homicide rates are higher in death penalty jurisdictions. This suggests that we may be heading in the wrong direction if the goal is to prevent incidents like Zarutska’s murder from happening again.
Even if deterrence were proven, serious concerns remain about how the death penalty is applied. According to reports, Decarlos Brown Jr., the man accused of stabbing Zarutska, has a history of schizophrenia, and he has been referred for a competency to stand trial evaluation. This indicates the court has concerns about his ability to understand the proceedings or participate in his own defense due to his current mental state. In the 2002 ruling of Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that executing individuals who are intellectually disabled violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Although the Court has not banned capital punishment for all individuals with mental illness, subsequent cases have considered it cruel and unusual punishment. For instance, Oklahoma v. Quarterman clarified that executing a mentally ill person whose illness prevents them from understanding the reason for the death penalty is unconstitutional. In the 2007 decision of Panetti v. Texas, the Court ruled that a person must have a rational understanding of the reason for their execution. Since then, leading organizations–including the American Bar Association (ABA), American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)–have adopted policies opposing the use of the death penalty against people with mental illness.
The risk of wrongful executions associated with capital punishment cannot be ignored. Since 1973, at least 200 people on death row in the United States have been exonerated, including 12 from North Carolina. Advances in technology have helped prevent some wrongful convictions, but it cannot safeguard every case. While the evidence against Brown is undeniable due to the stabbing being caught on video, history has shown that innocent people have been sentenced to death and even executed. Reinstating capital punishment in North Carolina reopens the door to this irreversible injustice in future cases.
Furthermore, these policies can indirectly affect youth who engage in serious offending, as 16- and 17-year-olds are transferred into adult courts. In 2024, House Bill 834 expanded the number of youth who can be automatically tried in adult court for serious felonies. While that law doesn’t explicitly authorize the death penalty for minors, it increases the likelihood that teens could face adult sentencing. Twenty years ago, in Roper v. Simmons, the Court held that executing individuals who were under age 18 at the time of the offense was excessive and, again, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
We are all seeking solutions to deter and reduce crime in North Carolina. But bringing back the death penalty shifts the focus toward retribution rather than prevention of crime. Evidence-driven solutions, such as investing in mental health services, strengthening community-based violence prevention, and expanding educational and economic opportunities, offer real promise. If our commitment is truly to community safety and justice, the death penalty is not the path forward.
Apryl Alexander is the Metrolina Distinguished Professor of Health and Policy and Director of the Violence Prevention Center at UNC Charlotte. Ava Peters is a PhD student in Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. The views in this article are not representative of their institutions.
Hence then, the article about north carolina needs evidence driven solutions not retribution to reduce crime was published today ( ) and is available on NC news line ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( North Carolina needs evidence-driven solutions not retribution to reduce crime )
Also on site :