WASHINGTON (AP) – Attorney General Merrick Garland has made significant changes to the U.S. Department of Justice’s approach to capital punishment, as evidenced by the recent decision of federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for a white supremacist who killed 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo. Just a few months into his tenure, Garland halted federal executions, which stands in stark contrast to his predecessor’s action of carrying out 13 executions in a span of six months.
President Joe Biden, who campaigned on a promise to abolish the death penalty, has not taken concrete steps to do so, leading to complexities in the Justice Department’s stance on capital punishment. While the department has significantly reduced the use of the death penalty under Garland’s leadership, it still demonstrates a readiness to pursue it in certain cases.
In the Buffalo case, the 20-year-old perpetrator pleaded guilty to driving to a predominantly Black neighborhood and carrying out a racially motivated mass shooting. This decision to seek the death penalty marks a significant shift in the Justice Department’s approach under Garland.
Garland has reversed more than two dozen decisions to seek the death penalty and has only authorized the continuation of a few cases, including a mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue and an attack on a New York City bike path. His approach reflects a focus on cases involving the most harm to the country, as outlined in the Justice Department’s manual under Garland’s tenure.
While the decision to seek the death penalty in the Buffalo case has garnered support from some, others have condemned it, highlighting the long-standing debate over capital punishment. As the federal trial unfolds, it is likely to continue sparking discussions on the future of the death penalty in the United States.
As of now, the moratorium on federal executions remains in place, with the outcome of Garland’s review of execution policies still pending. The Justice Department’s approach reflects a meticulous and nonpartisan process, reiterating the complexities of the issue at hand.