According to the North Carolina News & Record, death sen­tences in the state have sig­nif­i­cant­ly declined since the 2001 enact­ment of leg­is­la­tion that allows defen­dants to plead guilty to first-degree mur­der and receive a sen­tence of life with­out parole rather than go to tri­al and risk the death penal­ty. Juries are also return­ing few­er death sen­tences. The paper argues that the emer­gence of the life-with­out-parole alter­na­tive should result in a recon­sid­er­a­tion of the sen­tences of those already on death row: 


It’s unfair to make one per­son serve more time in prison than anoth­er if both com­mit­ted the same crime.

That idea drove a recent change in state law that encour­ages the parole com­mis­sion to release more inmates who were locked up before sen­tenc­ing guide­lines changed in 1994. A pris­on­er serv­ing 20 years for an offense that now requires only a 10-year penal­ty might deserve strong con­sid­er­a­tion for parole. It’s a sim­ple mat­ter of fair­ness.

Too bad leg­is­la­tors did­n’t apply the same prin­ci­ple to inmates on death row. Since a 2001 change in the law, the num­ber of death sen­tences imposed by North Carolina courts has fall­en dra­mat­i­cal­ly.

Under the new law, defen­dants can plead guilty to a charge of first-degree mur­der and receive a sen­tence of life with­out parole rather than go to tri­al and risk the death penal­ty. Many pros­e­cu­tors agree to that out­come. It saves over­worked dis­trict attor­neys’ staffs the time and expense of a tri­al, spares the state a lengthy appeals process and often relieves vic­tims’ fam­i­lies of the ordeal they endure when the facts of the crime are rehashed as the killer’s exe­cu­tion approach­es.

In addi­tion, with pub­lic atti­tudes about cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment begin­ning to shift, many jurors are more com­fort­able vot­ing for a life sen­tence rather than death as long as they know there’s no pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole.

The num­bers tell the sto­ry: In 1999, 24 peo­ple were sent to North Carolina’s death row; in 2000, 17; in 2001, 15. Then, after the new law went into effect, sev­en in 2002; six in 2003, four in 2004; and six so far this year.

Altogether, 156 of the 177 men and women on death row have been there since 2001 or ear­li­er. Whether most North Carolinians still approve of the death penal­ty or not, North Carolina juries are slow­ly elim­i­nat­ing its use.

That invites an obvi­ous con­clu­sion: Death row is large­ly pop­u­lat­ed by inmates who, if tried again by today’s legal stan­dards, would not be sen­tenced to death. Yet many of them will be exe­cut­ed. The excep­tions may win new tri­als for oth­er legal rea­sons, be grant­ed a com­mu­ta­tion of sen­tence or per­haps die of nat­ur­al caus­es.

These peo­ple on death row were left out when state leg­is­la­tors this year tried to insert a mea­sure of fair­ness into the crim­i­nal-jus­tice sys­tem. Lawmakers said to thou­sands of pris­on­ers, ​“You should­n’t be held longer for your crime than you would be if you had com­mit­ted the same offense after 1994.” But to the inmates fac­ing the most severe pun­ish­ment, they said noth­ing.

Maybe it’s not polit­i­cal­ly smart to give mur­der­ers a break. The ques­tion, how­ev­er, isn’t whether mur­der­ers should go free. Of course they should­n’t. But, if juries today are more inclined to sen­tence killers to life in prison with­out parole, it’s only fair for leg­is­la­tors to con­sid­er the same lenien­cy for those already on death row.


(News & Record, November 7, 2005; empha­sis added). See Life Without Parole and Editorials.

Citation Guide