SB93 has been presented as a practical reform meant to give the Utah Department of Corrections more flexibility. Supporters describe it as a way to improve efficiency and day-to-day operations. What has received far less attention is how SB93 affects incarcerated people and, in turn, public safety. By weakening clear standards and expanding discretionary authority, SB93 risks making prisons less stable, less transparent and ultimately less safe.
Correctional systems depend on structure. Clear rules around housing, supervision and access to programs exist to reduce violence, limit retaliation and ensure consistency. SB93 removes or loosens several of these requirements, including mandates around housing standards, supervision practices, and access to programming. When standards are replaced with discretion, decision-making becomes uneven and difficult to challenge. In a closed system, that lack of clarity creates space for abuse and erodes trust.
For incarcerated individuals, the consequences are immediate. Housing placements become less predictable. Access to education, treatment and programming can change without explanation. Grievance processes lose effectiveness when there is no firm standard to measure conduct against. When people do not understand the rules, or believe the rules can shift at any time, tension increases and compliance drops. That environment does not promote safety.
Supporters argue that flexibility allows corrections officials to respond quickly to changing conditions. In practice, flexibility without strong oversight often functions as insulation from accountability. Systemic failures can be reframed as individual discipline issues. Inconsistent decisions can be justified as administrative necessity. Without enforceable standards, it becomes harder for advocates, families and policymakers to identify harmful patterns before serious damage occurs.
Removing mandatory standards in favor of discretionary authority reduces transparency at a time when oversight is most needed.
The public safety implications extend well beyond prison walls. Most incarcerated people will eventually return to the community. When incarceration is marked by instability, limited access to treatment and disrupted programming, reentry becomes more difficult. Individuals released from chaotic environments are less prepared to succeed, increasing the likelihood of recidivism. A system focused primarily on control rather than rehabilitation produces outcomes that harm communities.
Correctional staff are also affected. Officers work most safely in environments with clear expectations and consistent procedures. When rules shift and standards are unclear, staff are left to manage conflict without reliable guidance. This increases stress, burnout and the risk of injury. A system that lacks structure does not protect officers; it places them in the middle of unresolved institutional failures.
What makes SB93 particularly concerning is not any single policy change, but the direction it represents. Removing mandatory standards in favor of discretionary authority reduces transparency at a time when oversight is most needed. It sends the message that scrutiny is an obstacle rather than a safeguard. That approach undermines public confidence and makes meaningful reform harder to achieve.
Public safety depends on predictability and accountability. It requires correctional systems that can be evaluated against clear benchmarks, not explained away after harm occurs. It requires rehabilitation to be treated as a core function, not an optional benefit. SB93 moves Utah away from those principles.
If the goal is safer prisons and safer communities, lawmakers should be strengthening oversight, preserving enforceable standards and protecting due process within correctional facilities. Policies that weaken those protections may offer short-term administrative convenience, but they carry long-term costs for incarcerated people, correctional staff and the public alike.