Getting Iryna’s Law Right for North Carolina and Other States
On August 22, 2025, Iryna Zarutska was fatally stabbed while riding the light rail in Charlotte, North Carolina—a random, senseless act that could have happened in any city. Her death sparked public outrage and led to swift legislative action. Unfortunately, a second stabbing on Charlotte transit suggests this complex issue remains largely unaddressed, and to protect North Carolinians more efficiently, policymakers need to modify the law.
These random acts of violence, while rare, are a serious and growing concern that demands action. North Carolina deserves credit for moving quickly to help prevent future tragedies by passing “Iryna’s Law,” which went into effect on December 1. While the law includes some strong provisions, other parts of it risk straining already overburdened jails, prosecutors, courts, mental health facilities, and more, potentially compromising public safety.
Two key elements of Iryna’s Law focus on long-standing issues in North Carolina and in many other states: mental health crisis response and chronic under resourcing of prosecutors.
Recently, the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office acknowledged that critical staffing shortages are undermining its ability to prosecute cases efficiently and effectively. This has led to mounting case backlogs and significant delays in serious cases. These aren’t isolated issues and exist across the state. Excessive caseloads can cause serious consequences, including dismissals for speedy trial violations or the loss of witnesses as time passes. Lengthy pretrial detention is also costly for taxpayers, overwhelming already packed jails, and devastating the lives of those presumed innocent. Helpfully, Iryna’s Law includes additional funding for prosecutors’ offices, subsequently allowing Mecklenburg County to bring on ten new prosecutors.
The man arrested for Iryna’s death has a schizophrenia diagnosis, shining a light on the troubles that can arise from serious mental health issues in our communities. In North Carolina, a growing number of defendants are deemed “incapable” or “incompetent” to stand trial—meaning that they are too mentally impaired to understand court proceedings or assist in their own defense. When this happens, legal proceedings are suspended until the individual receives a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation and, if found incompetent, the proceedings cannot continue until their competency is restored. This backlog contributes to a mounting inventory of unresolved cases while simultaneously straining the limited psychiatric-hospital bed capacity. Last year, North Carolina completed more than 2,600 capacity evaluations, a 33 percent increase over five years, and 60 percent of those evaluated were found incompetent and required restoration. Defendants often wait months for an initial evaluation and months more for treatment.
Iryna’s Law establishes a legal framework for timely evaluations, immediate transport to medical facilities, and authorizing release only after appropriate commitment review is a sound approach, provided proper safeguards are in place. However, there are justified concerns about whether existing systems can meet increased demand. Without sufficient resources, these changes could exacerbate delays and further burden evaluation, treatment, and court systems already bursting at the seams. Moreover, providing evaluations and potential treatment only after a crime has been committed, rather than responding when individuals exhibit signs of crisis and sought help, reflects a reactive approach that often comes too late.
The most concerning part of the new law, however, is its renewed focus on bail, a policy choice that appears misplaced and difficult to justify. The defendant in Iryna’s murder case had been out on pretrial release for repeatedly calling 911, a charge that rarely results in cash bail, much less pretrial detention, and is indicative of behavioral health issues. It appears the system failed long before that last arrest, yet, political debate quickly fixated on bail as if it were the main culprit. That focus misses the point.
Cash bail rarely changes outcomes, as individuals can often secure release by paying a small percentage through a bondsman and still walk free. Only people without sufficient financial means remain detained. For those that can afford to pay, research shows financial conditions do not reduce risk of flight or danger to the community. Requiring cash bail for serious offenses will not effectively manage public safety. Preventative detention, however, can be a much better safety option. Here, North Carolina introduced a presumption of detention for certain violent offenses, a change that may sound promising but carries significant tradeoffs.
Other states have also looked to expand pretrial detention to avoid the insufficiencies of cash bail, but structured their policies to protect constitutional rights and prevent overburdening the system.
This year, Texas passed a constitutional amendment allowing judges to deny bail outright for individuals accused of certain serious felony offenses if prosecutors provide clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a threat to the community or preponderance of the evidence if the person is a flight risk. New Jersey has a similar model, but with an expanded list of offenses that allow for preventative detention. Texas and New Jersey prioritize risk, not financial resources. Unlike North Carolina, the prosecution in those states must show that detention is necessary, and theyprovide a public defender for these detention hearings. When mere speculation about risk overrides the presumption of innocence, it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens to erode core constitutional rights and due process.
Moreover, no state has unlimited resources. Unnecessarily detaining people is costly, and even with sufficient funding, there are only so many people available to staff state detention centers and mental health facilities. The state should reserve jail and inpatient beds for those who truly need them, especially given the high cost to taxpayers of expanding either system. Policymakers must also weigh the risk of unnecessarily detaining or committing individuals, which disrupts jobs, families, and support systems in ways that can increase, not reduce, the likelihood of reoffending.
Like most states—the vast majority of North Carolina’s criminal cases involve low-level, nonviolent offenses. A 2021 report found that 84 percent of charges were for misdemeanors, and less than one percent of individuals released pretrial were charged with a new violent felony. It is critical to reserve detention for those who pose a real risk, while ensuring the safe release of others. For low-level offenses, approaches such as arrest-and-cite practices, use of validated pretrial risk assessments, and delegated release decisions by trained jail staff can help focus resources where they are most needed, without compromising accountability or safety. North Carolina should also reconsider the removal of release on recognizance. Unsecured bonds add little beyond extra paperwork and empty threats of future payment. It is the arrest itself—not a hypothetical monetary penalty—that drives court appearance.
There’s reason to be encouraged by North Carolina’s recent passage of Iryna’s Law, though some targeted changes are still needed to align with its intended goals. As other states consider adopting similar measures, they should not merely pass laws that feel tough. Lawmakers must ensure that those laws actually make communities safer. That begins with asking the right questions and being honest about what will and will not prevent the next tragedy.