Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Capital Punishment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House defeats substitute adding life‑without‑parole option to capital cases
Summary
After several hours of debate, the Utah House rejected a second‑substitute to Senate Bill 92 that would have specified life imprisonment without parole as the fallback if the death penalty were held unconstitutional and added life‑without‑parole as an explicit sentencing option.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House rejected a substitute to Senate Bill 92 on the criminal penalties for capital offenses after an extended floor debate that split lawmakers along procedural and philosophical lines.
Representative William Blunt, the bill sponsor, told colleagues the substitute was drafted to preserve sentencing options if the death penalty were later ruled unconstitutional. “In the event that the death penalty will hold unconstitutional, anybody sentenced to death would automatically go…life in prison without parole,” Blunt said, arguing the change would provide prosecutors and victims’ families another permanent sentencing outcome.
Opponents said the substitute would change jury deliberations and could reduce imposition of the death penalty. “I think all of us realize that Senator Farley’s original bill was to eliminate capital punishment,” Representative Holmes said in opposition, warning the change would tempt juries to choose a middle ground rather than impose the death penalty in appropriate cases.
Supporters countered that offering life without parole preserves public safety and can be less costly than executions. Blunt cited studies and consultations with the Department of Corrections and prosecutors to support the amendment and told the House the option has been adopted in other states without reducing death‑penalty sentences in appropriate cases.
The House adopted floor amendments to the substitute language, but on final passage SB92 as amended failed on a roll call, with the clerk recording 29 affirmative votes and 39 negative votes, and the measure did not move forward.
The debate featured repeated exchanges about the burden placed on juries, the role of the Board of Pardons, and whether the substitute would effectively eliminate capital punishment by creating an easier alternative for sentencing panels. Representative Miller, a supporter of the amendment, said the change “puts in there a safeguard that… perpetrators would be denied parole,” while opponents continued to emphasize jury discretion and public sentiment in favor of the death penalty.
With SB92 defeated, the statute governing capital offenses remains unchanged by this session’s substitute; sponsors said they may revisit sentencing options in future work.
