Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Death Penalty topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House amends and passes bill removing condemned person’s choice of firing squad
Summary
After floor debate and a successful amendment to preserve alternative state methods if lethal injection is unavailable, the Utah House passed House Bill 180 (death-penalty provisions) by 57–15 and sent the amended measure to the Senate.
The Utah House on January 26 passed House Bill 180, a measure that removes the condemned prisoner’s ability to choose the firing squad and makes lethal injection the default method, sending the amended bill to the Senate by a vote of 57–15.
Representative Cheryl Allen, sponsor of HB180, told the chamber the bill “does remove from the perpetrator ... the right to choose the firing squad or lethal injection” and said the policy’s intent is to have the state, through statute, decide execution method rather than the condemned individual. Allen said the change is meant to focus attention on victims and avoid international media attention on execution method.
Opponents raised several concerns during debate. Representative Hughes warned the proposal could be seen as an attempt “to lessen the scrutiny” of executions, saying sanitizing the method risks obscuring the seriousness of capital punishment. Representative Daniels framed the issue as a broader moral question about whether society should use capital punishment at all, saying history may judge current practices harshly.
Representative Dunigan pressed the sponsor on retroactivity. Allen confirmed the bill applies retroactively to three people who had selected the firing squad; she said two of those individuals still have pending appeals and that retroactivity might slow but would not necessarily prevent execution.
Representative Morley offered Amendment 1 to make lethal injection the default while preserving the state’s access to alternative methods if lethal injection were found unconstitutional or otherwise infeasible. Morley argued the change would help the state carry out sentences if lethal injection were later unavailable. After an initial voice vote and a subsequent division vote, the amendment passed on a recorded division, 38–33. Allen opposed the amendment on the grounds it could require other states to revisit their statutes if lethal injection were later ruled unconstitutional.
After summation by Allen and brief floor discussion, the House voted to pass HB180 as amended, 57–15. The bill now moves to the Senate for further consideration.
Key procedural developments: the House temporarily circled HB180 to receive a visitor and then uncircled it for debate; the amendment process included both voice and recorded division votes. No implementation timetable or effective date for the amended statute was specified on the floor during this session.
What’s next: HB180 will be referred to the Utah Senate for committee assignment and consideration. Any change to execution method could prompt legal challenges; members noted the Utah Sentencing Commission had reviewed the issue and offered support in committee.
