NEW YORK — The New York Times editorial board warned that the death penalty is resurging in the United States, describing the practice as unjust, flawed and out of step with modern moral standards.
In an opinion article, the board argued that while the early 21st century saw a decline in executions as “more Americans recognized the flaws in the death penalty, and its use fell sharply,” recent developments signal a reversal of that trend.
The decline, the board noted, followed a “wave of DNA-related exonerations” that exposed wrongful convictions and eroded public confidence in capital punishment.
The editorial board wrote that opposition efforts also led pharmaceutical companies to stop supplying lethal injection drugs, forcing states to adopt “less reliable workarounds that led to gruesome scenes in execution chambers.”
With medical professionals refusing to participate, “amateurs filled the gap” and administered lethal drugs improperly, causing prolonged suffering, the board stated, adding that these “botched executions” contributed to growing public discomfort.
Political leaders from both major parties, according to the editorial, contributed to the “growing recognition of the death penalty’s barbaric and arbitrary nature.”
The board cited former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, who “issued a blanket commutation to death row inmates,” acknowledging the state’s “shameless record of convicting innocent people.”
At the same time, Democrats “went further, all but abandoning the practices in states they governed,” the editorial noted.
The federal government also contributed to the slowdown, as no executions took place during George W. Bush’s second term or during Barack Obama’s presidency, according to the editorial.
While acknowledging that “most people on death row are guilty of murder and deserve tough punishment,” the editorial board argued that “a life sentence without parole is a tough punishment.”
The board added that as long as the death penalty exists, “it will disproportionately spare criminals with more resources.”
It further argued that capital punishment is unjust because “people who are executed for their crimes are disproportionately poor or intellectually disabled and often lacked good lawyers.”
The editorial also highlighted that “executions often go awry and become a grisly spectacle.”
As an example, the board cited Charles Flores, who “spent 27 years on death row in Texas for a murder conviction based solely on unreliable testimony from a hypnotized witness.”
The editorial also pointed to the case of Robert Roberson, “who has autism” and “remains on death row despite having been convicted on now-debunked evidence that he had shaken his daughter to death.”
Anthony Boyd, “who maintained his innocence until Alabama executed him,” faced what the editorial described as an unfair trial and a violent execution.
During Boyd’s case, he “had an inexperienced court-appointed lawyer and was convicted on disputed testimony,” the editorial stated.
Despite these concerns, Boyd was executed, and after nitrogen gas was administered, “he violently thrashed and drew agonized breaths for 30 minutes.”
The editorial board noted that most countries have “abolished or effectively ended the death penalty,” including nations across Western Europe and countries such as Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Morocco, South Africa and Australia.
By contrast, about 20 countries, including the United States, continue to carry out executions, with some accelerating their pace, making the U.S. “even more of an outlier among democracies.”
The board noted that “popular support for the death penalty has never disappeared” and that there were “more executions in 2025 than any year since 2009.”
One factor contributing to the increase, the editorial argued, is the passage of secrecy laws that allow states to “obscure the cruelty of executions” and “minimize public backlash.”
For example, Indiana now blocks reporters from witnessing executions, while other states conceal how they obtain lethal injection drugs, including one instance in Idaho where officials “traded a suitcase of cash” for the drugs.
The editorial also cited the use of alternative execution methods, including a firing squad in South Carolina that “missed their intended target,” with the prisoner crying out and struggling before death.
Another factor, the board argued, is the current Supreme Court, which it described as “often indifferent to the horrors of the death penalty.”
While earlier rulings had restricted the use of capital punishment, including bans for minors and people with intellectual disabilities, the court since 2020 has “made it harder for some defendants to introduce new evidence” and has frequently rejected requests to delay executions.
The editorial stated that the court has “prioritized expediency,” increasing the likelihood that innocent people could be executed.
The board also pointed to President Donald Trump as a contributing factor, noting his longstanding support for capital punishment and his encouragement of its use, including for drug-related offenses.
According to the editorial, Trump’s position has influenced the Republican Party and led to renewed support for executions.
Since returning to office, Trump signed an executive order encouraging states to pursue capital charges, the editorial noted.
The effects are visible in states such as Florida, which “executed 19 people” last year, surpassing its previous modern-era high of eight executions.
Florida law gives the governor broad authority over executions, and Gov. Ron DeSantis has exercised that power by signing multiple death warrants, according to the editorial.
The editorial also highlighted a Florida law mandating the death penalty for undocumented immigrants convicted of capital crimes, which it noted conflicts with a 1987 Supreme Court ruling prohibiting automatic death sentences.
The board identified the law as the “TRUMP Act.”
Ultimately, the editorial board argued for “the abolition of the death penalty,” describing it as “a form of institutionalized vengeance that causes a society to mimic the behavior of its worst offenders.”
It also stated that capital punishment “does not deter crime any more than life imprisonment does.”
Even if abolition is not immediately achieved, the board urged steps to reduce injustices, noting that “the chances that an innocent person will be executed remain far too high.”
The editorial pointed to a current Supreme Court case involving protections for intellectually disabled individuals, who face a higher risk of false confessions and difficulty defending themselves.
Finally, the board called on states to repeal secrecy laws and allow the public to fully confront the realities of executions.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
