As the number of invoices that improve the punishments for crime, the lawyers grow that there is a better way

Salt Lake City – The legislator of Utah has increasingly turned to a policy of improving criminal punishments and prison periods for various crimes to reduce crime in the state and to propose almost 100 increased criminal invoices in 2025 – compared to only 22 such proposals three years ago.

For Mark Moffat, a criminal defense lawyer who is committed to many of these legislative regulations, the impulse is understandable in the name of the legislator.

“You have voters who come to you who have problems with the criminal judicial system, and they ask you to do something to fix it,” he told the Interim Committee on law enforcement and criminal justice on Wednesday. “We have had conversations with many of them about exactly these things, and we understand clearly that there is a pressure that they can see and experience in terms of the desire to do something to solve the problems their voters bring.”

In recent years, Moffat has given the growing number of invoices that improve or add criminal punishments and described the trajectory as “not sustainable”. He and his defender Steve Burton made the case that the guidelines often do not deter any certain crimes and that they can actually increase the relapse among those convicted – and at the same time taxpayers cost more people for each year.

According to Burton, three factors can scare off the crime – the certainty, speed and severity of punishment – said that most criminals do not consider the specific degree of crime in the plot.

“You don't stop and don't think about: 'Oh, what is the measure of this crime that I will commit?',” He said. “It's just not something that usually penetrates the scenario. Usually it is something that is much more impulsive or reactionary.”

At least one member of the committee expressed some reservations about the reduction – or at least not increased – some punishments due to the costs. MP Matt Macpherson, R-West Valley City, argued that the detention is a relatively small part of the state budget, and said he was concerned that it could overshadow an important instrument.

“I think we should see that this is a necessary part of the government, from which we expect that there are costs that we only have to absorb as part of this process,” he said.

Moffat admitted that there are mistakes in the criminal justice system, but said that the media attention to these shortcomings increases the feeling of lawlessness that many voters perceive.

“You see a system that does not work because this is what the media report, but that's not real. And unfortunately voters come to everyone with questions about everyone, and must be resolved what they perceive as problems,” he said.

Defenders are not the only ones who have considered the effect on the raft of punishment for punishment-governor Spencer Cox at the end of the latest legislative session called for a “holistic approach” for the criminal justice.

“I am not sure what we will end at the end of the day, apart from maybe having to build a new prison,” he said at the time, “because if they continue to stack and add these things and make them sense, but how do they work in connection?”

Legislators raised similar questions in previous hearing of the committee and found that improved punishments can be useful from case to case, but the legislator can lose sight of the total number of changes to the seriousness of the punishment for various crimes.

One of the recommendations of defenders was that legislators consider all of these bills as a better understanding of all changes. They also suggested that political decision -makers “have the dust dropped” after making changes to evaluate whether the punishments have the desired effect.

“This is what we ask the legislator to examine this data, consult the data, to consult the agencies that regularly deal with it … so that we have informed decisions about whether the proposed legislation, No. 1, is necessary: ​​necessary;

The committee voted for the investigation of methods to reduce crime and political approaches for criminal justice during the meantime before the General Legislation Judgment 2026, which begins at the beginning of next year.