Witness to the History of the Death Penalty in North Carolina
The execution chamber at Central prison in Raleigh, N.C / AP
My Writing
​
The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of Post-Furman Executions in North Carolina: A History of One Southern State’s Evolving Standards of Decency
The State of North Carolina resumed executions post-Furman on March 16, 1984, at 2:00 a.m., with the execution by electrocution of James Hutchins, a severely mentally ill many who had shot and killed three law enforcement agents. Over the next 25 years, North Carolina executed 42 men and one woman. This article provides a brief overview of the more significant events that have shaped the face of the death penalty in this new era - events which the author views as coming in four waves - three that have ebbed and one that is yet to hit. The first wave was the crime wave of the 1980’s and early 90’s. This wave generated much energy, creating a second wave, one of strong public support for the death penalty; this wave, in turn, contributed to a third wave of increased death sentences.
​
These waves have now subsided. Today, there is a de facto moratorium on executions in North Carolina. When and if the moratorium is lifted, Adcock predicts that North Carolina’s newly elected Governor, Beverly Perdue, will likely find herself facing the “fourth wave” - a wave of execution dates not seen by any previous governor of this state or, perhaps, of any state. And this wave will involve a unique backdrop: a “sea change” in both the public support for the death penalty in North Carolina and in the reliability of the death penalty system, which has increased dramatically due to recent reforms. This article, ultimately, is about the Governor’s role at the time of a pending execution. Based on the history of executions in this state and on the changed milieu, this article argues that clemency must be done differently post-moratorium and offers the Governor some ideas for doing justice in the face of the coming wave of executions in today’s new landscape.
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NORTH CAROLINA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES IN SUPPORT OF FOUR RACIAL JUSTICE ACT CASES
In the United States of America, religious institutions have historically played a pivotal role in shaping the national conscience on moral questions. Since our founding, courts and political institutions have recognized that morality and decency are subjects on which religious bodies legitimately claim a particular competence. Cf. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 606-07 (1988) (noting the role of religious organizations in addressing secular problems in society).
​
The North Carolina Council of Churches (the Council) was founded in 1935 in order to address racial inequity. The Council has a long history of naming and dismantling prejudices, and of tending to the damage they have caused. The Council had never appeared as amicus curiae in a capital case, even withstanding its long history of advocacy against the death penalty. It has, rather, limited advocacy to organizing, education, and, in the 1980s and ‘90s, to appearances in clemency hearings before Governors.
​
The North Carolina Council of Churches filed this brief because the State of North Carolina seeks to execute four black persons despite significant evidence of racial bias in the jury selection methods used in their cases. These cases sit at the intersection of racial discrimination and the death penalty as applied in North Carolina, two concerns about which the Council has strong opinions. The Council felt compelled to speak at this critical time when North Carolina seems increasingly stressed by animosities along fault lines of race and class.
​
I write on behalf of the Council that the State actions violate the Eighth Amendment. The Council is especially suited to argue for an Eighth Amendment decision because of the common values of the Church and the Justice System. An Eighth Amendment analysis requires the Court to weigh the morality of executing individuals sentenced to death in proceedings in which race was a significant factor in material decisions of the prosecutors. We pray that the Court find the substantial evidence of racial bias sufficient and the immorality intolerable.
More on the History of Death Penalty in NC