NC district attorney: death penalty clemency erases jury, prosecutors, victim’s family | Opinion

President Joseph Biden recently commuted federal death sentences of 37 individuals. In an opinion-editorial, my colleague and fellow District Attorney Jeff Nieman lauded the president’s decision, touting his own pledge to never pursue the death penalty. However, the president, in direct contrast to Mr. Nieman’s assertion, determined that the crimes of three individuals were so heinous that they merited the ultimate punishment our system can afford.

Perhaps the bombing of the Boston Marathon, the vile killings of worshipers at the Tree of Life synagogue or the unspeakable racially-motivated murders of parishioners at Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church gave President Biden pause in reversing the judgments of jurors in those communities. I believe if the president had done the hard work of listening to the weeks or months of testimony heard by jurors in the 37 cases he commuted, he might have respected and left unchanged their judgments as well. Unfortunately, when it comes to federal and state commutation decisions, it is often easier not to internalize the gruesome facts or make that life-altering phone call to a victim’s family. Willful ignorance is certainly more comfortable.

In the waning hours of his administration, Gov. Roy Cooper commuted the state death sentences of 15 individuals. Feedback from some of my colleagues reveals it was a flawed process, shrouded in secrecy and devoid of input from victims’ families or communities.

While clemency is a tool available to the president and many governors, its use must strike a careful balance between compassion and the principles of accountability, deterrence and fairness.

In his essay, Mr. Nieman presents his perspective on the death penalty, a view he says is rooted in personal convictions. His opinions do not represent the collective views of North Carolina prosecutors. As a career prosecutor and district attorney, I respect his right to express these views as much as I do the diversity of opinions of the 42 district attorneys across our state and the broad spectrum of values and experiences that inform their work.

In my experience, juries in death penalty cases are thoughtful and meticulous in the performance of one of the most difficult duties a citizen can ever be called to perform. The death penalty is only possible when the jury finds certain aggravating circumstances. It is a solemn responsibility that prosecutors ask the jury to consider only in the most extreme cases, such as mass shootings, execution style murders of citizens and law enforcement officers and murders committed by individuals already serving life sentences for previous homicides.

Tragically, North Carolina has witnessed such cases, including the murders of prison guards by inmates already serving life sentences. These are individuals who have demonstrated a continued threat to society while incarcerated.

The decision to ask a jury to consider death is never made lightly or in isolation. It involves a thorough review of the case, the law and rightfully includes discussions with the victim’s family. Mr. Nieman’s remarks imply that these decisions of his colleagues are deeply flawed or unfairly applied. His misguided statements disregard the professionalism and commitment of those sworn to uphold justice.

The law and facts are the driving forces behind prosecutorial decisions. Any broad generalization ignores the painstaking efforts prosecutors make to ensure fairness and equity in our justice system. Ironically, the claim that not seeking the death penalty ‘frees up resources’ also misrepresents the role of prosecutors. Justice is not a matter of money, convenience or expedience. It is a matter of principle and duty.

Mr. Nieman’s assertion that the death penalty does not serve victims or communities stands in stark contrast to the voices of many families. To dismiss the perspectives of families who have endured unimaginable loss and pain is to disregard the profound impact of the murder.

Commuting sentences of those lawfully convicted by a jury, who had their case reviewed multiple times by various courts, ignores the voices of victims, the decisions of prosecutors and the community at large. Clemency should not render meaningless the hard work of those entrusted with making these weighty decisions. The verdict of a jury is the voice of the people, and their decisions must be given the respect they deserve.

This story was originally published January 13, 2025 at 1:34 PM.