We are troubled by a vow made by Gov. Josh Shapiro to grant reprieves to any inmate sentenced in our courts to be executed who has a date for that execution scheduled.

We recognize, of course, that Shapiro has the legal standing to continue this policy, which as an Associated Press article in Friday’s Sun-Gazette noted, began under Gov. Tom Wolf.

But, as we’ve editorialized about concerning a number of issues, all Americans should find the use of executive actions and executive powers to circumvent the Legislature to be troubling.

Whether it happens in Washington D.C. or in Harrisburg.

It is our view that there are crimes so horrific and cases so certain that execution is the only suitable punishment.

We can concede the likelihood that many states are too broad, too permissive with how and when the death penalty is carried out. We can concede the possibility that Pennsylvania is too permissive in who can be sentenced to death — but only if we note that, with the last execution in Pennsylvania occurring in 1999 and only three total since 1976, the possibility is an exceedingly remote one.

Our legislative process, with its transparent debate, can yield a compromise. Our legislative process can, if trusted, amend our laws concerning capital sentences. We can limit the death penalty to cases in which the defendant’s guilt is the absolute most certain. We can limit the death penalty to the most brutal of homicides.

Perhaps members of the Legislature who agree with Shapiro can persuade the Legislature to abolish the death penalty in all instances.

But the correct venue for that persuasion is our legislative process — precisely because it requires persuasion.

A unilateral decision by the executive branch does not allow for compromise and it does not require transparent debate or persuasion. It instead does a disservice to our elected representatives and more importantly, to the voters who want their concerns thoughtfully contemplated rather than dismissed by a single branch of our government.