HB 48 Utah Legislation 2026
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
LONG TITLEGeneral Description:This bill amends statutory provisions related to the criminal and juvenile justice system.Highlighted Provisions:This bill:▸defines terms related to recidivism in the criminal and juvenile justice system;▸modifies the prohibition on placing a minor in an alternative to detention;▸modifies the requirements for provisionally housing a minor, who is tried as an adult for aggravated murder, in a secure care facility;▸allows a prosecutor to file a motion with the Board of Pardons and Parole regarding the provisional housing of a minor in a secure care facility; and▸makes technical and conforming changes.Money Appropriated in this Bill:NoneOther Special Clauses:NoneUtah Code Sections Affected:AMENDS:63M-7-101.5, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2025, Chapter 36063M-7-102, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2024, Chapter 20863M-7-208, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2024, Chapter 24080-5-102, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2025, Chapter 8880-6-104, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2025, Chapters 173, 20880-6-205, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2024, Chapter 25680-6-507, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2025, Chapter 52680-6-704, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2024, Chapter 256
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
General Document Comments 0
- This is a Utah bill that mostly deals with how the state measures repeat crime (recidivism) for adults and minors and how minors can be detained or housed in secure facilities.
- It creates and cleans up definitions for things like “recidivism,” “juvenile recidivism,” “desistance” (when someone stops offending), and “interventions” so that all justice agencies in Utah are using the same language and time frames when they report data.
- It tells state agencies (courts, corrections, juvenile justice, education) what recidivism data they must collect and share each year—like how many kids are referred to court, what happens to those cases, how long youth stay in the system, and whether they come back into the juvenile or adult system.
- It tightens rules on where minors can be held: staff can’t use adult jails or prisons as “alternatives to detention” for kids under 18, and juvenile courts also cannot send minors to adult correctional facilities as a substitute for detention.
If you picked one piece of this bill to really understand—like how they track “juvenile recidivism” or how kids can and can’t be detained—which part would you want to write about next if you click Continue with AI or head over to Create Document to start drafting your own explanation?
- It sounds like you’re getting ready to group or organize this long bill text, which is a smart move before you start writing about it.
- When you say “a collection,” are you thinking of a list of key concepts and terms (like a glossary), a set of short summaries for each section, or a group of quotes/passages you want to analyze or respond to?
- Once you choose the type of collection, you can go through the bill and pull out items that match—like every place it talks about “juvenile recidivism,” “detention,” or “provisional housing,” and list them together with your own quick notes.
- You might also decide on 3–5 big categories (for example: definitions, data/reporting rules, detention rules, housing minors with adult sentences) and sort pieces of the text into those “buckets” for your collection.
If you had to pick right now, would you rather build a collection of (a) key terms and their meanings, (b) important rules about kids in detention, or © quotes you might use later—then click Continue with AI to talk it through or go to Create Document to start making that collection yourself?
- You’ve already got a clear, focused summary of the bill’s main idea—that’s solid enough to build a strong inquiry question from.
- SDG #16 is about fair laws, equal access to justice, and institutions that protect people (especially vulnerable groups like youth).
- One possible inquiry question that lines up with this goal could be: How do Utah’s new rules for tracking repeat crime and housing minors convicted of serious offenses support or undermine fair justice and protection for young people, as called for in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 on peace, justice, and strong institutions?
- You can tweak this by narrowing (just detention/housing) or broadening (all youth justice data and practices) depending on what you actually want to write about most.
If you imagine yourself writing a whole paper from that question, would you rather focus more on (a) the fairness of putting some minors in adult facilities or (b) whether the new data rules make the justice system more transparent and accountable—then click Continue with AI to refine your question further or go to Create Document to start drafting your own version?
- You’re noticing something real: this bill shows that Utah usually wants minors in youth (secure care) facilities, but it still leaves narrow doors open to move some minors into adult prisons.
- In this bill, a minor can be sent to an adult correctional facility if they were 17 when they committed aggravated murder, are at least 18 when sentenced, and a court or the Board of Pardons and Parole decides adult prison is warranted (see 80-6-507(3), (7)).
- The law also says that even when a minor is “sentenced to prison,” they are supposed to be kept in a secure youth facility until age 25 unless there is a safety risk or a specific legal decision to move them, so the default is youth custody with adult-level punishment (80-6-507(2), (4), (8), (9)).
- The basic idea is: the state treats certain very serious offenses as adult crimes, but still tries—at least on paper—to house young people in youth settings first, and only uses adult facilities if (1) the crime is extremely serious and (2) the system decides that youth facilities can’t safely or appropriately manage that person.
If you were going to write a short paragraph reacting to this—maybe arguing whether you think it’s fair or unfair that 17-year-olds convicted of aggravated murder can be moved to adult prison—what’s one strong claim you’d want to make if you click Continue with AI or go to Create Document to start drafting?
- This is a clear, logical claim: if the law says under-18-year-olds aren’t mature enough to vote, then it’s inconsistent to treat them as “mature enough” for adult prison.
- You’re already setting up a values clash: the system protects minors in some areas (voting, contracts, drinking) but removes that protection when punishment or “public safety” is involved.
- You could push this idea by asking: if their brains and judgment are still developing, how can an adult prison—built for fully grown adults—ever be the right place for them?
- To build this into an argument, you might: name this as “legal inconsistency,” bring in brain science about adolescent development, and then suggest what should happen instead (like always using youth facilities).
If you turned that one sentence into 3–4 sentences (claim + one reason + one example + how it connects back to minors in adult prison), what might you draft next if you click Continue with AI or head to Create Document to build a full paragraph?
- This paragraph already has a strong, clear stance and a logical thread: laws treat minors as not fully mature, so punishment should match that.
- Your example from Equal Justice Initiative adds real-world weight, though you might later decide whether you want more detail (like what kind of cases or numbers) to sharpen that point.
- The last sentence shifts into a policy recommendation—asking legislators to balance safety with brain development—which gives your paragraph a forward-looking, solution-focused move instead of just criticism.
- One choice you might think about is whether you want to name what “being more careful” would actually look like (for example, banning adult prison for minors, or requiring youth placement until a certain age), or if you like leaving it more open on purpose.
If you were going to add just one more sentence—either a vivid example or a clear fix you’d demand from legislators—what would you try next if you click Continue with AI or go to Create Document to keep building this argument?
- You’re asking a really sharp, research-style question: what are Utah (and nearby states) actually doing with minors in adult court or adult prison, not just in theory.
- From Utah: you could look at Utah’s Serious Youth Offender Law (explained in plain language by a Utah defense firm) which describes when minors must or may be tried as adults for crimes like murder or aggravated murder ((Intermountain Legal, Juvenile Felony Charges, n.d.)).
- Also in Utah, the official courts FAQ explains that minors 14 and older can be tried in adult court for serious felonies and points you to Utah Code 80‑6‑503 for the exact rules ((Utah State Courts, FAQ’s About Juveniles and Juvenile Court, n.d.)).
- For a regional / national legal overview that includes Utah and nearby states, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s report on trying juveniles as adults goes through the different ways states transfer kids into adult court ((OJJDP, Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court, 1998)), and the Interstate Commission for Juveniles’ “Age Matrix” shows at what age states (including Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming) treat people as juveniles or adults in corrections ((Interstate Commission for Juveniles, Age Matrix, 2023)).
If you skim one of those Utah sources and jot down 2–3 key facts about when a Utah minor can be tried or housed like an adult, what kind of short paragraph could you draft next if you click Continue with AI or go to Create Document to start building your own evidence section?
- Nicholeen Peck is a Republican member of the Utah House of Representatives (District 28), an author, and a self-branded parenting/“family values” advocate who has been active in conservative causes for years before taking office ((Wikipedia, Nicholeen P. Peck, 2025); (The Salt Lake Tribune, 2024)).
- News coverage describes her as closely aligned with socially conservative groups and causes—leading a nonprofit focused on “parental rights” and “the proper role of government,” opposing restrictions on child marriage, and sponsoring recent bills to block public funding for gender-affirming care and Planned Parenthood health curricula in schools ((The Salt Lake Tribune, 2024); (News From The States, 2025); (KSL, 2024)).
- Based on that record, a reasonable interpretation is that she tends to support “tough on crime” and “protect the family/children” frames, so sponsoring a bill about juvenile recidivism, detention rules, and when minors can be treated like adults probably fits her broader interest in shaping how the state disciplines and supervises young people (this is an inference from her pattern of bills rather than something she has said directly).
- You might also see a tension: she talks a lot about protecting youth and parental authority, but she also backs measures that can increase state control and punishment (like limiting health curricula or tightening rules around juvenile justice), which is exactly the kind of contradiction your paragraph was already pointing at.
If you were to write 2–3 sentences that connect her background and past bills to this juvenile justice bill—either as consistent with her values or as contradicting them—what angle would you want to try next if you click Continue with AI or head over to Create Document to draft it?
- You’re asking me to “pretend to be” Representative Peck and write her reply, but my job here is different: I’m designed to help you think through what you think she (or someone with similar views) might say, not to write that answer for you.
- One way to start is to list what you already know about her values: she talks a lot about “public safety,” “family protection,” and “personal responsibility,” and she tends to support tougher responses to serious crimes by youth.
- Someone with that outlook might argue things like: extremely serious crimes must have “adult consequences,” or that adult facilities are sometimes needed to protect the public and other youth, even if they also say they care about rehabilitation.
- They might also say your points about brain development are important but claim their bill already “balances” that by keeping most youth in secure care facilities and only moving a few to adult custody for the worst offenses.
If you were to draft your own imagined response from someone like Peck—maybe 3–5 sentences starting with “Thank you for your letter…” and then giving their best argument—what would you want that voice to say if you click Continue with AI to think it through or go to Create Document to sketch it out?
- Your imagined response captures a believable stance: she partly agrees (prison is “in general” bad for minors) but then carves out a “really serious crimes” exception that justifies adult-style punishment.
- Notice how this voice shifts the focus from the minor’s rights to “society’s best interests,” which lets her frame adult facilities as regrettable but necessary for safety.
- She also does a softening move at the end—offering mental health funding—which sounds caring but doesn’t actually back away from putting youth in harsher custody.
- You now have a solid “opposition voice” you can argue against by asking: if we admit prison is bad for minors, why is it okay for any of them, and does mental health funding really fix that?
If you wrote a quick follow-up letter back to this imagined Peck—directly answering her “society’s best interests” point with one sharp question or counterexample—what would you want to say next if you click Continue with AI or go to Create Document to draft it?
- Sen. Jen Plumb is a pediatric emergency doctor and long-time public health and juvenile justice reform advocate; a lot of her work focuses on treating addiction, preventing harm to youth, and using data to drive policy, rather than increasing punishment ((Wikipedia, Jennifer Plumb, 2026)).
- Her own bills around courts and corrections tend to tighten protections for young people (like restricting child marriage age gaps in SB 76) and expand access to health care and treatment inside jails and prisons (like SB 212 on medication-assisted treatment) rather than expanding harsh penalties ((Utah News Dispatch, Utah bill would further restrict teenage marriages, 2025); (Utah News Dispatch, Legislature passes bill allowing methadone, 2024)).
- On recent incarceration-related bills, she’s publicly pushed for more treatment and data-based reforms (for example SB 115 to track substance use and connect people leaving jail/prison with Medicaid-funded care) and has spoken out against measures she sees as targeting vulnerable incarcerated groups, like restrictions on gender‑affirming care and housing for transgender inmates ((The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah’s SB115 looks to track substance misuse, 2025); (Utah News Dispatch, Bill banning hormone therapy for transgender inmates, 2025)).
- Based on that record, it would be reasonable to expect her to look very closely at a bill like HB 48: she might support the data and recidivism‑tracking parts but raise concerns about anything that increases the chance youth end up in adult prisons, especially without strong evidence it improves safety (that’s an inference from her pattern of votes and public comments, not a direct quote on HB 48).
If you were going to write to Sen. Plumb about HB 48—maybe thanking her for her past work on youth protection and then asking her to oppose sending minors to adult prison—what’s one key point you’d want to highlight if you click Continue with AI or go to Create Document to draft that message?
on the uploaded document.
0 archived comments