Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the House Bill 2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House Convenes and Passes Amendment Letting Board of Pardons Consider Some Third‑Degree Felons for Intensive Parole
Summary
The Utah House concurred with a Senate amendment and then passed House Bill 2 (early-release/intensive parole) on Feb. 19, 1993, allowing the Board of Pardons to consider certain third‑degree felony offenders for intensive parole if determined low risk; the concurrence passed 43–26 and final passage was 48–20 amid safety concerns and an announced intent to seek a gubernatorial veto.
The Utah House voted on Feb. 19, 1993, to concur with a Senate amendment to House Bill 2 and then gave final passage to the measure as amended. The concurrence vote passed 43–26; final passage of HB2 as amended was recorded 48–20. The amendment permits the Board of Pardons to consider some inmates convicted of third‑degree felony offenses for early release to intensive parole, subject to a determination that the individual poses minimal risk to public safety.
Sponsor remarks explained that the amendment does not guarantee release but enables review of a narrow subset of prisoners — the sponsor estimated roughly 80–90 candidates could be considered and said the legislature is funding space in the program for about 90 participants. The sponsor and supporting representatives argued that intensive parole with electronic monitoring and counseling can facilitate rehabilitation, preserve family support, and reduce incarceration costs. "This bill is is critical to the board of pardon or to the Department of Corrections...it is a cornerstone to their 5‑year projection of controlling the growth," the sponsor said.
Opponents pressed for specifics about the offenses at issue and worried about risks to children and communities. Representative Arrington asked the sponsor to explain the types of offenses covered; the sponsor acknowledged the statutory category is broad and cited prior debate in the Senate. Representative James used personal privilege after the vote to say he planned to request a veto from the Governor, listing statutes he said were affected and warning of public-safety consequences.
Floor supporters emphasized safeguards in the amendment and the parole process: the Board of Pardons would review case files, set conditions of parole, and victims would be notified before release hearings. Backers also cited prior audit and fiscal considerations, arguing that supervised intensive parole can be less costly than continued incarceration.
The House first voted to concur with the senate amendment, approving the concurrence 43–26. Immediately afterward the chamber moved to final passage on the amended bill; final passage was recorded at 48 affirmative and 20 negative votes. Following the vote, several members signaled continuing disagreement — one representative said he would seek a gubernatorial veto — and the House adjourned for the day.
