Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate adds ‘life without parole’ sentencing option in substitute to capital-case law
Summary
The Senate passed a substitute to Senate Bill 92 that keeps the death penalty but adds life in prison without parole as a third sentencing option for capital cases; supporters said it gives juries a middle ground while critics warned it could reduce death sentences.
Sen. Francis Farley, sponsor of the substitute, told senators the bill ‘‘does not do away with the death penalty’’ but ‘‘adds one other alternative to our current law’’ — life in prison without parole. The measure creates an intermediate sentencing option: if a jury cannot unanimously recommend death, it may next consider life without parole; if that also fails to reach unanimity, the court imposes a life sentence with possibility of parole.
Prosecutors and legal observers urged support. Warren Peterson, Miller County attorney, said the change ‘‘adds a middle ground’’ that helps jurors who now face an all-or-nothing choice between death and parole-eligible life sentences. He told the Senate the substitute ‘‘would benefit, in my opinion, prosecution in the state of Utah’’ by allowing juries an alternative that removes the perceived risk of dangerous offenders returning to the community.
Mike Norman, a political science professor at Weber State University, told senators life without parole ‘‘can provide that measure of retribution’’ and argued the option could reduce the length and cost of death-penalty litigation. A defense representative noted the Board of Pardons’ policy and the timing of commutation hearings and said the substitute would change how appeals and commutation hearings play out in practice.
Sponsors stressed the draft clarifies that the Board of Pardons would not use the change to reopen or review completed death sentences retroactively. An amendment added language that the Board ‘‘may not pardon or parole any offender, commute or terminate a sentence, which is life without parole’’ to make that restriction explicit.
The Senate debated appeals, potential impacts on litigation and prison populations, and fiscal considerations; proponents cited studies and examples from other states showing lower litigation costs where a life-without-parole option exists. The roll-call showed the measure passed with 23 ayes, five nays and one absent and was placed on the third-reading calendar.
The next procedural step for the substitute is placement on the third-reading calendar for final passage and referral as required by Senate rules.
