Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
- Utah lawmakers proposed nearly 100 bills increasing criminal penalties in 2025, up significantly compared to recent years.
- Defense attorneys argue these policies don't deter crime and increase recidivism.
- Gov. Spencer Cox and others advocate for a holistic approach, considering broader impacts of the legislation.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah lawmakers have increasingly turned to a policy of enhancing criminal penalties and prison time for various offenses in an effort to reduce crime in the state, proposing nearly 100 enhanced penalty bills in 2025 — up from only 22 such proposals just three years ago.
For Mark Moffat, a criminal defense attorney who lobbies against many of those bills, the impulse on behalf of lawmakers is understandable.
"You have constituents coming to you that perceive problems with the criminal justice system, and they're asking you to do something to fix it," he told the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee on Wednesday. "We've had conversations with many of you about those very things, and we clearly understand that there is a pressure that you ... see and experience with respect to the desire to try to do something to address the problems that your constituents bring to you."
Moffat charted the growing number of bills in recent years that enhance or add criminal penalties, calling the trajectory "not sustainable." He and fellow defense attorney Steve Burton made the case that the policies often do not deter specific crimes and that they can actually increase recidivism among those convicted — all while costing taxpayers money to incarcerate more people each year.
Burton said three factors can deter crime — the certainty, swiftness and severity of punishment — but said most offenders don't consider the specific degree of crime when they act.
"They don't stop and think to themselves: 'Oh, what is the level of offense of this crime that I'm about to commit?'" he said. "That's just not something that usually enters the scenario. Typically, it's something that's much more impulsive or reactionary."
At least one member of the committee expressed some reservations about reducing — or at least not raising — some penalties due to the cost. Rep. Matt MacPherson, R-West Valley City, argued that incarceration accounts for a relatively small part of the state budget and said he was concerned that it could overshadow an important public safety tool.
"I think we should recognize this is a necessary portion of government that we expect there to be costs that we just have to absorb as part of that process," he said.
Moffat acknowledged that there are failures in the criminal justice system but said media attention on those shortcomings inflates the sense of lawlessness that many voters perceive.
"They see a system that doesn't work because that's what the media reports, but that's not real. And unfortunately, the constituents come to all of you with questions and needs to have what they perceive to be problems fixed," he said.
Defense attorneys aren't the only ones who have considered the ramifications of the raft of penalty-enhancing bills — Gov. Spencer Cox called for a more "holistic approach" to criminal justice at the end of the recent legislative session.
"I'm not sure what we're going to end up with at the end of the day, except maybe having to build a new prison," he said at the time, "because if you keep stacking these things and adding them up, and every one might make sense, but how do they work in conjunction?"
Lawmakers have raised similar questions in previous committee hearings, noting that enhanced punishments may make sense on a case-by-case basis, but lawmakers may lose sight of the total number of changes to the severity of punishments for various crimes.
One of the recommendations made by defense attorneys was that lawmakers consider all such bills simultaneously to gain a better understanding of all the changes. They also suggested policymakers "let the dust settle" after making changes to give time to evaluate whether the penalties are having the desired effect.
"That's what we're asking the Legislature to do is to look at that data, to consult the data, consult the agencies that deal with this on a regular basis ... so that we can have informed decisions about whether or not the legislation that's being proposed is, No. 1: necessary; No. 2: going to be effective in addressing the problem," Moffat said.
The panel voted to study methods for reducing crime and policy approaches to criminal justice during the interim period leading up to the 2026 general legislative session, which begins early next year.
