North Carolina editorial roundup

Recent editorials from North Carolina newspapers:

___

Dec. 26

The News & Observer of Raleigh on ending the death penalty in North Carolina:

The Center for Death Penalty Litigation is staffed and supported by righteous people but in an end-of-year piece this week it needed no emotion to make the case against the death penalty in North Carolina. And, though it would be quite enough to end the penalty based on wrongful convictions that might have turned into death sentences, there are other, sensible reasons that ought to appeal to people across party lines and philosophical lines as well.

The center notes that the death penalty is fading from favor both across the nation and in North Carolina, which used to issue a lot of death sentences. In this year, North Carolina marked 10 years without an execution, and only five people had been tried for capital crimes statewide. Nationally, death sentences were “at their lowest point in the modern era of the death penalty,” the center wrote, with just 20 executions in the United States. The respected Pew Research Center put out a poll this fall showing that a majority of Americans are opposed to the death penalty.

Gretchen Engel, executive director of the center, brought the issue close to home: “Look at Wake County, which used to send people to death row almost every year, but hasn’t had a new death sentence in almost a decade. This year, in the sixth case in a row, a Wake County jury chose a sentence of life without parole over the death penalty. Society’s beliefs have shifted, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, people no longer think it’s appropriate.”

Just 20 years ago, 20 to 30 people a year were sent to death row across North Carolina, but in the past five years, the average is fewer than two people a year.

Even so, the state has the sixth largest death row in the country with 150 inmates awaiting execution, but the vast majority of those - 75 percent - were given the penalty at least 15 years ago.

The expense of maintaining death row is in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and the expense to the public of pursuing the death penalty has of course been in the millions over decades. And the inmates on death row grow older, creating what Engel calls “a costly warehouse for the elderly.”

It is simply not worth the risk - of executing the wrong person - and certainly not the expense to maintain the death penalty in this state. This drains the taxpayers’ purse and patience and emotions. Certainly all can feel sympathy for the families of murder victims, who understandably want revenge for often-horrendous crimes against their loved ones. But the state has to understand it is in the business of justice, not revenge. And taking away a murderer’s life for all time by incarcerating him or her is justice.

Online:

https://www.newsobserver.com

___

Dec. 26

The Fayetteville Observer on North Carolina public school calendars:

Some issues simply defy solutions. No matter what the answer, someone’s going to be upset. So it is with the setting of public school calendars, an issue that has been debated in North Carolina for about as long as we’ve had public schools.

The issue will be back before the General Assembly when it reconvenes next month. Current state law bars schools from opening before late August. In most counties, the schools would like to open earlier, so fall semester testing can be wrapped up before the Christmas break.

But this conflicts with family vacation plans, and in tourist-dependent areas, it causes an uproar among the many business owners who depend on school-age employees for the summer vacation peaks.

This year, the battle will center on the increasing prevalence of high school students who also take courses at local community colleges. In Cumberland County, some high school classes are located at Fayetteville Technical Community College, where students take both high school and college courses. Community colleges open earlier than high schools, and the scheduling conflicts are a problem for administrators.

So once again, there will be pressure to adjust the calendar.

Maybe it’s time to give individual communities more flexibility, even within a school system. As long as every student gets the required minimum hours of instruction, the calendar needn’t be king. Computer systems certainly can create individual schedules and track attendance. Maybe a little creativity will finally settle it.

Online:

https://www.fayobserver.com

___

Dec. 28

The News & Record of Greensboro on a court case involving public beach access:

The beach scare is over. The North Carolina Supreme Court this month quietly ended the legal threat to public beach access.

The court dropped Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle with as much mystery as when it took up the case last summer, offering no explanation for dismissing it. The move lets stand a unanimous 2015 ruling of the Court of Appeals, which emphatically upheld the right of beachgoers to rub their toes freely in the sand.

The higher court had fueled fears when it said it would review the case, something it rarely does after the Court of Appeals renders a unanimous decision. Was there a reason to think the lower court blew it? What would be the consequences?

That 2015 ruling was written by Court of Appeals Chief Judge Linda McGee, who noted that “public right of access to dry sand beaches … is firmly rooted in the custom and history of North Carolina.”

Indeed. It is rooted in the tourism economy, as well. When people go to the beach, they expect free range from surf to dune. The town of Emerald Isle, one of the coast’s finest beach communities, had granted access for fishing, sunbathing, recreation, horseback riding and driving (with seasonal restrictions) from the time of its incorporation in 1957.

That policy was challenged by a New Jersey couple who bought a beachfront home at Emerald Isle. Gregory and Diane Nies contended it was an illegal “taking” by the town to prohibit them from putting beach equipment “within an area 20 feet seaward of the base of the frontal dunes.” The town wanted to keep a clear path for police and emergency vehicles, garbage trucks and other public-service activities.

The Nieses’ legal claim, if valid, also would have allowed them to keep the public off their property, which their deed defined as including the “white sand” portion of the beach, or that part lying above the mean high-tide level. They could post no-trespassing signs, build a fence or even raise a wall.

“Some states, such as plaintiffs’ home state of New Jersey, recognize different rights of access to their ocean beaches,” McGee wrote. But North Carolina will not be such a state. Our beaches are known not only for their natural beauty but for their openness. Access through or over the dunes may be restricted, but once someone reaches the beach, he or she can walk its length on dry sand or wet. We don’t want it any other way.

In the end, the Supreme Court decided not to disturb that understanding, which may not be explicitly written into state law but is ingrained in the heart of every North Carolinian who has flown a kite, tossed a football or just sunned on the beach. And to alleviate any future doubts, the legislature might want to write it clearly into state law.

As for the Nieses, they sold their Emerald Isle property earlier this year. The people of North Carolina owe them thanks for helping to clarify this question and should wish them happiness - perhaps on a private beach on some other shore.

Online:

https://www.greensboro.com