The New York Times Editorial Board Condemns Secrecy, Arbitrariness of U.S. Death Penalty

The New York Times edi­to­r­i­al board pub­lished an arti­cle on March 13, 2026, con­demn­ing use of the death penal­ty in the coun­try as secre­tive, arbi­trary, and unjust. Relying heav­i­ly on research and data main­tained by the Death Penalty Information Center, the board describes the events of 2025, with its sharp increase in exe­cu­tions, as a ​“dark new peri­od” in the nation’s his­to­ry. The board attrib­ut­es much of the surge to Florida, which alone car­ried out 19 exe­cu­tions in 2025 along­side broad­er polit­i­cal and legal shifts and urges Americans not to ​“look away” from what it calls a ​“cru­el and unjust development.” 

The edi­to­r­i­al board argues that while the death penal­ty is the­o­ret­i­cal­ly reserved for ​“the worst of the worst,” it is applied dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly against peo­ple who are poor, intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled, or inad­e­quate­ly rep­re­sent­ed by coun­sel. The board points to research show­ing that defen­dants are more like­ly to be sen­tenced to death when their vic­tim is white, and high­lights the cas­es of Anthony Boyd, exe­cut­ed in Alabama based on dis­put­ed eye­wit­ness tes­ti­mo­ny; Charles Flores, who has spent 27 years on Texas’ death row based sole­ly on tes­ti­mo­ny from a hyp­no­tized wit­ness; and Robert Roberson, whose con­vic­tion rest­ed on now-debunked evidence. 

The board iden­ti­fies four fac­tors dri­ving the increase in exe­cu­tions in 2025. First, near­ly all states that have con­duct­ed exe­cu­tions since 2012 have enact­ed secre­cy laws lim­it­ing pub­lic insight into how exe­cu­tions are car­ried out. Second, states have increas­ing­ly turned to alter­na­tive meth­ods of exe­cu­tion — includ­ing the fir­ing squad — after phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies cur­tailed the sale of their drugs for use in lethal injec­tion exe­cu­tions. Third, the board argues that today’s Supreme Court make-up has become increas­ing­ly ​“indif­fer­ent to the hor­rors of the death penal­ty.” While the Court issued sev­er­al deci­sions in the 1980s through the ear­ly 2000s restrict­ing its use, the board con­tends the more con­ser­v­a­tive major­i­ty has reversed course since 2020, mak­ing it hard­er for cap­i­tal defen­dants to intro­duce new evi­dence and declin­ing to inter­vene in exe­cu­tions with no expla­na­tion. Fourth, the board points to President Donald Trump, whom it describes as an ​“enthu­si­as­tic” sup­port­er of the death penal­ty. Upon return­ing to office, President Trump issued an exec­u­tive order encour­ag­ing states to pur­sue the death penal­ty, and his embrace of the prac­tice has, in the board’s view, led some elect­ed offi­cials in the Republican Party to follow suit. 

Emblematic of these shifts, the board notes that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has exer­cised his broad author­i­ty over who is exe­cut­ed, sign­ing 24 death war­rants since the begin­ning of 2025. Gov. DeSantis also signed leg­is­la­tion in 2025 man­dat­ing the death penal­ty for undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants con­vict­ed of cap­i­tal crimes, despite its direct vio­la­tion of long­stand­ing U.S. Supreme Court deci­sions that pro­hib­it manda­to­ry death sen­tences for any cat­e­go­ry of crime. 

The board also notes Alabama Governor Kay Ivey’s com­mu­ta­tion of Charles Burton, 75, who had been sen­tenced to death under the felony mur­der rule for a fatal 1991 rob­bery in which he didn’t pull the trig­ger. He was sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed just two days after Gov. Ivey’s announce­ment. While wel­com­ing the deci­sion, the board cau­tioned ​“it should not require a wave of media atten­tion and pub­lic out­cry to secure last-minute jus­tice in every flawed case.” 

In clos­ing, the board calls for sev­er­al reforms short of abo­li­tion: guar­an­tee­ing that those on death row have every oppor­tu­ni­ty to present evi­dence chal­leng­ing their con­vic­tions; urg­ing the Supreme Court to uphold exist­ing pro­tec­tions in cap­i­tal cas­es; reaf­firm­ing the Court’s 2008 rul­ing bar­ring the death penal­ty for crimes oth­er than mur­der; and repeal­ing state secre­cy laws so the pub­lic can ​“con­front the grim real­i­ty of exe­cu­tions.” The board writes the will­ing­ness of so many states to hide that real­i­ty ​“offers one rea­son for hope,” sug­gest­ing the those in sup­port of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment ​“seem to grasp that it is indefensible.”