Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves substitute SB 92 to add three sentencing options while retaining death penalty
Summary
After extended floor debate citing cost and sentencing-impact studies, the Utah Senate passed substitute SB 92 to create three sentencing alternatives for capital crimes while keeping the death penalty as an option; the bill passed 19–9 and moves to the House.
The Utah State Senate on the floor session debated and passed substitute Senate Bill 92, a capital-sentencing measure that adds a three-option sentencing framework for capital crimes while maintaining the death penalty as a possible sentence. Sponsor Senator Farley urged colleagues to view the bill as an option set rather than a replacement of capital punishment and cited national and out‑of‑state research to support his approach.
Senator Farley said the bill addresses two concerns often raised in prior debates: the expense of death-penalty prosecutions and whether offering life without parole would substantially reduce death-penalty sentences. ‘‘The Florida figures show that the expense for using the death penalty is about six times as great as the life-without-parole sentence,’’ Farley said, citing studies he had reviewed and a forthcoming law review article he shared with colleagues.
The nut of Farley’s argument was that adding an intermediate option would alter prosecutorial and jury decision-making in marginal cases: "There are some crimes that fall right in the middle... So the only two choices are the death penalty or life in prison with the possibility of parole. With this middle ground, most people would be in prison for life because there would be that middle alternative," he said.
Other senators pressed procedural and policy concerns. Some questioned whether introducing a life-without-parole option would significantly change the number of death sentences imposed; others asked for more time and data. After floor debate and members’ explanations of their votes, the Senate recorded a final tally of 19 ayes, 9 nays and 1 absent. The bill passed and was transmitted to the House for further action.
The outcome leaves Utah with a statute that expands sentencing options while explicitly preserving the death penalty. Sponsors framed the bill as a compromise designed to give juries and prosecutors more calibrated choices; opponents cited cost, process, and potential impacts on sentencing patterns. The House schedule and any amendments there will determine the next steps for final enactment.
