In America: North Carolina responds with House Bill 307 after Charlotte Light Rail Killing
Over seven weeks ago, Iryna Zarutska was murdered on the Lynx Blue Transit Line in Charlotte, North Carolina. Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, was living in Charlotte and attending college. On the evening of August 22nd, Iryna took the transit after work to go home. She sat down in front of DeCarlos Brown Jr who, unprovoked and malevolently, stabbed Iryna with a knife repeatedly. Demonstrating no remorse for his actions, Brown left the light rail. Iryna crying and in shock, received help from passengers; however, she unfortunately bled out and died from her wounds.
There has been major publicity regarding how this murder case should be handled. DeCarlos Brown Jr. has an extensive criminal history and lives with schizophrenia as close relatives suggest. For now, he is held in Mecklenburg County Detention Center without bond and charged with “one count of committing an act causing death on a mass transportation system.”
Several viewpoints have emerged on how to handle this case. Government officials call for accountability behind “soft-on-crime” policies that they claim are responsible for this killing. Critics claim North Carolina’s response to this case doesn’t resolve the issues experienced with mental illness, poverty, and criminal development. Regardless of these perspectives, the public generally expects for the justice system to do its job. How can North Carolina respond to this murder to benefit society?
The Impact of “Iryna’s Law”
The state of North Carolina has highlighted this case as a means toward criminal justice system reform. The General Assembly of North Carolina has named House Bill 307 “Iryna’s Law,” exemplifying the significance of this particular murder case to the city of Charlotte. Governor Josh Stein signed the Bill into law October 3rd after it was quickly passed through the North Carolina State House of Representatives.
The Bill addresses several controversial topics including modifications to pretrial release conditions, strengthening the collaborative relationship between mental health and the criminal justice system, reinstating the death penalty in the state, adding aggravating sentencing factors, and more. The changes the Bill provides to North Carolina criminal-justice statutes are an immediate response to the public's outrage with Zarutska's murder.
Pretrial Release Conditions and Bail
The Bill focuses on creating stricter processes for defendants with extensive criminal background and/or charged with violent offenses; in particular, the Bill made changes to bail and release conditions for defendants. The statute's definition for a “violent offense” has been rewritten to now include any Class A through G felony involving assault, use of physical force or threat of force. Violent offenses definitionally under this change now include: assault, arson, certain types of drug trafficking, sex offenses requiring registration, and attempts to commit these crimes.
Individuals accused of committing these offenses now have rebuttable presumptions to no release conditions. This means the court will keep the defendant in custody pretrial to ensure the public’s safety and the defendant’s appearance in court. It is the defense’s burden under no release conditions to argue through rebuttal why the defendant should be released pretrial.
Rebuttal must include written findings to justify release conditions. Those who are released pretrial are required to have secured bonds and other strict conditions (e.g. house arrest with electronic monitoring). Repeat offenders deal with tighter provisions; judges are required to impose secured bond or house arrest for these individuals.
Secured bond is the agreement that a released defendant during pretrial will guarantee appearance in court. This agreement is backed by collateral (e.g. cash or personal property). This decision comes from holding defendants accountable in ensuring their appearance in court. Iryna’s Law now requires judges and magistrates, when setting bail or conditions, to consider the defendant's criminal background, previous pretrial violations, involuntary mental health commitments (within three years of trial), and take into account any dangerous behavior by the defendant during their arrest.
If a defendant faces violent offense charges, has been in an involuntary mental health confinement within the past three years, and/or is considered to be a danger to themselves or others, judges must order a mental health assessment by a commitment examiner for the defendant. The Bill punishes magistrates who fail to document release decisions properly with suspension.
Bill Enhances Sentencing & Returns Death Penalty to North Carolina
Iryna’s Law creates a new aggravating factor for crimes committed on public transportation systems, increasing sentences for both general and capital cases. Aggravating factors are circumstances that make a crime/offense considered more severe. This results in harsher punishments intended to fit the crime.
The Bill brings back the death penalty in North Carolina. For 19 years, the state has not executed a prisoner as it remained in de facto moratorium (state avoiding the death penalty due to legal/policy challenges). As it relates to the Zarutska murder, DeCarlos Brown Jr., if convicted, would face maximum sentencing of life in prison or death. Adding the aggravating factor to the Brown’s conviction allows prosecution to pursue the death sentence if they find it just.
House Bill 307 creates several revisions to death penalty policies. In North Carolina, a defendant can be sentenced to death only if there was an unanimous decision by the jury for this punishment. This decision comes from a jury’s finding that the aggravating factors of the case outweigh the mitigating factors. The default method of execution will be lethal injection with an alternative used when the default is unavailable. The electric chair and lethal gas however are abolished methods. Appeals to the death penalty sentencing are accelerated requiring courts to hear the arguments within 24 months. There are now required explanations by the courts if appealment hearings are delayed.
Recognizing Difficulty in Handling Mental Illness in Crimes
House Bill 307 calls for a state study of mental health and the justice system. This will build a stronger foundation of assessing and handling defendants with mental health concerns. The state is relying on the North Carolina Collaboratory for the study. There will be focus on the following: initial response, mental health evaluation, inpatient and outpatient involuntary commitment, incarceration, post-release monitoring and treatment, and any other items the Collaboratory deems relevant. The Collaboratory will provide findings within the next two years which should provide policy and funding recommendations.
What Changes will be Made amongst NC's Principles of Criminal Punishment?
Public opinion varies on what should happen with the Zarutska murder case. Supporters of the Bill believe the harsher conditions for defendants of violent offenses prevents criminals from walking free from their actions. The accountability is a sole value held in this perspective. Attorney General Pamela Bondi shares her perspective as she pursues federal charges in this case.
"Iryna Zarutska was a young woman living the American dream — her horrific murder is a direct result of failed soft-on-crime policies that put criminals before innocent people,” said Bondi in a statement. “I have directed my attorneys to federally prosecute DeCarlos Brown Jr., a repeat violent offender with a history of violent crime, for murder. We will seek the maximum penalty for this unforgivable act of violence — he will never again see the light of day as a free man.”
Critics voice their concerns with the case and how the Bill will impact future trials. Governor Josh Stein voiced his concern for the Bill's impact and shares his belief that there should be focus by the state to keep people safe.
“...I’m troubled by [HB 307]’s lack of ambition or vision. It simply does not do enough to keep you safe … Violence prevention measures like keeping kids out of gangs and getting people off drugs. And if we are serious about making people safer, we have to acknowledge the role that guns and mental health play in violence that we’re seeing all across the country…”
Others have warned about the Bill’s impact on possible jail overcrowding, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups, and encouraging the error-prone death penalty system.
The North Carolina Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (NCCADP) claims “[Iryna’s Law] opens the door to brutal execution methods. Instead of investing in solutions that reduce violence, lawmakers have chosen to double down on a system that is racist, error-prone, and deeply unjust.”
“The way to build true safety is through mental health care, re-entry support, violence prevention, and strong resources for survivors and families. This Bill ignores proven solutions and doubles down on a system that will never deliver justice or security.”
The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) criticizes the Bill claiming it won’t create criminal deterrence ensuring public safety. Rather than addressing underlying issues in the criminal justice system the Bill, according to DPIC, only creates more uncertainty in public opinion of criminal justice proceedings. This Bill tightens time frames for courts to carefully review the defendant's innocence and recognize trial errors or bias. These concerns become even more inflamed when claims of wrongful convictions, unfairness, or racial discrimination are made.
