In the wake of a tragic stabbing on Charlotte’s commuter rail, North Carolina lawmakers have pushed through a sweeping criminal justice bill that is already stirring debate across the state. The legislation, dubbed “Iryna’s Law,” comes after the August 22, 2025, killing of 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska, whose death on a light rail train was captured on security video and quickly became a rallying point for public outrage and political action.
The alleged assailant, Decarlos Brown Jr., has a lengthy criminal history: more than a dozen prior arrests and a prison sentence exceeding five years for robbery with a deadly weapon. Earlier in 2025, Brown was released by a magistrate on a misdemeanor charge for misusing the 911 system, despite concerns about his mental health and his mother’s attempts to seek involuntary commitment for him. These facts, widely reported by The Associated Press and The Charlotte Observer, have fueled calls for reform, with critics pointing to what they see as systemic failures that allowed Brown to remain free.
On September 23, the North Carolina House voted 81-31 to approve the new criminal justice package, following a 28-8 party-line vote in the Senate the previous day. The measure now sits on the desk of Democratic Governor Josh Stein, who has voiced support for some pretrial reforms but has not yet indicated whether he will sign or veto the bill. As AP noted, a spokesperson for Stein said only that the governor was “reviewing the measure.”
The legislation’s core provisions are aimed squarely at tightening the state’s approach to pretrial release. Cashless bail would be eliminated for a wide range of offenses, and magistrates’ and judges’ discretion in granting pretrial release would be sharply curtailed. For those accused of violent crimes—especially defendants with recent involuntary commitments or a documented history of dangerous behavior—release would only be possible through a secured cash bond or house arrest with electronic monitoring. The law also requires that more defendants undergo mental health evaluations, especially if they have been involuntarily committed within the past three years or are deemed a risk to themselves or others.
Supporters of the bill, largely from the Republican side of the aisle, argue that these changes are essential to prevent tragedies like Zarutska’s death. Charlotte-area Republican Rep. Tricia Cotham made her case forcefully during the House debate: “Brown should have never been allowed out of the jail. The catch-and-release practices for violent offenders will end today with your support. This heinous act was preventable.”
The bill goes further, shifting some judicial responsibilities from local judges to state leadership. The chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court would now have the authority to suspend magistrates and detail grounds for their permanent removal, a move designed to ensure greater accountability at the top levels of the judiciary.
But perhaps the most controversial element of the bill is a late-stage amendment from Senate leader Phil Berger. This provision directs the Department of Adult Correction to explore alternative methods of execution if lethal injection—the state’s only current method—is declared unconstitutional or becomes unavailable. The secretary of the department would be required to select from methods already adopted by other states, potentially including the firing squad or electrocution. South Carolina, for instance, used a firing squad twice this year, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by those following the North Carolina debate.
Berger defended the move, saying, “For nearly two decades, judicial and administrative roadblocks have stopped true justice for victims, and it’s time for that to end.” North Carolina has not carried out an execution since 2006, with more than 120 inmates currently on death row. The bill also sets a deadline for death penalty appeals to be heard by December 2027, aiming to break the nearly 20-year hiatus.
Democrats and civil rights advocates have blasted the amendment, calling it an overreach and a cynical exploitation of a tragedy. Rep. Vernetta Alston, a Democrat and former death-row appeals attorney, argued, “No matter what you think about the death penalty more generally, there’s just no question that these methods are risky and have the potential to be extremely gruesome.” Others, like Rep. Marcia Morey, a former judge, criticized the bill for failing to address the root causes of violent crime: “Tough on crime doesn’t only mean let’s pay attention to punishment after the fact. We grieve the murder. It was senseless, it was horrible. But what you are voting on today does nothing to take it back or would have prevented it. Let’s get smart on crime.”
Notably, the House vote was not strictly along party lines, with over a third of present Democrats joining Republicans in support. The margins suggest that even if Governor Stein were to veto the measure, an override is possible—an indication of the political urgency and public pressure surrounding the issue.
Meanwhile, the broader context is one of ongoing tension in North Carolina politics. The legislature has yet to pass a new budget for the fiscal year that began July 1, and a stopgap measure has left Medicaid funding $319 million short, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Lawmakers have been unable to agree on a solution, with the Senate and House offering competing plans for additional funds, including for a proposed children’s hospital and rural health care. The legislature is not expected to reconvene until October 20, leaving critical health and social services in limbo.
Back in Charlotte, the community has been left to mourn. Hundreds attended a candlelight vigil for Zarutska, reflecting on her journey as a refugee seeking a better life and the senseless violence that ended it. The outpouring of grief has been matched by calls for increased safety and for policies that prevent such tragedies from recurring.
As North Carolina waits for the governor’s decision, the debate over “Iryna’s Law” is far from settled. The bill’s supporters see it as a long-overdue correction to a system that failed Zarutska and others. Its critics warn that it may double down on punitive measures without addressing the deeper issues of mental health, funding, and prevention. One thing is clear: the conversation about crime, justice, and compassion in North Carolina has only just begun.
