AN ACT relating to the abolition of the death penalty.
SB 98 would abolish capital punishment in Kentucky effective on the bill’s effective date. Any person already sentenced to death but not yet executed would instead be resentenced to life imprisonment without probation or parole. The bill also repeals the state statutes governing execution procedures, death-sentence review, and related safeguards and definitions, including provisions addressing sanity, method of execution, racial discrimination claims in death sentencing, and serious intellectual disability or serious mental illness in capital cases.
Beyond ending the death penalty, the bill revises several criminal procedure and sentencing statutes to remove references to capital punishment and to align Kentucky law with a non-death-penalty sentencing structure. It expands and clarifies post-conviction DNA testing procedures for certain serious offenses, including capital offenses, and preserves evidence while DNA petitions are pending. It also updates sentencing, presentence investigation, probation, jail placement, work release, and youthful-offender provisions to reflect the elimination of death as a sentencing option and to adjust how courts handle felony and juvenile cases.
The bill’s legal impact would be substantial: it would eliminate death as a punishment in Kentucky, convert existing death sentences to life without parole, and repeal a large body of statutes tied to capital punishment administration and appellate review. It would also affect courts, prosecutors, the Department of Corrections, jails, defense counsel, and incarcerated people by changing sentencing options, DNA-testing access, evidence preservation duties, and juvenile transfer and sentencing rules.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or vote history in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a major criminal-justice reform proposal with a clear policy direction rather than a technical adjustment.
The main point of contention likely centers on the abolition of the death penalty itself and the treatment of people already sentenced to death, along with broader concerns about public safety, punishment severity, and the finality of capital convictions. Additional areas that could draw scrutiny include the expanded DNA-testing provisions, the resentencing of existing death-row inmates, and the bill’s revisions to juvenile and felony sentencing rules.
SB 98 would repeal Kentucky’s capital punishment framework and replace it with life imprisonment or other non-capital penalties for capital offenses. It would also amend multiple KRS provisions governing sentencing, post-conviction DNA testing, jail placement, probation, and youthful-offender treatment, while repealing execution-related statutes and capital-sentencing review provisions. The bill would directly affect courts, prosecutors, the Department of Corrections, county jails, defense counsel, victims and families, and incarcerated people sentenced for capital or other serious offenses.
No votes or committee discussion were provided, so the recorded legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the materials. From the bill text, the proposal is clearly reform-oriented and would be viewed favorably by opponents of capital punishment and by advocates for wrongful-conviction safeguards, while likely drawing opposition from supporters of the death penalty and those concerned about sentencing severity and public safety.
The central controversy is the abolition of the death penalty and the mandatory resentencing of people already under death sentences to life without parole. Related points of contention include whether the bill goes too far in changing existing sentencing law, whether expanded DNA-testing access is appropriate in capital and violent cases, and how the bill affects juvenile offenders, probation eligibility, and the handling of serious crimes. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness, finality concerns, and wrongful-conviction protections; opponents would likely focus on retribution, deterrence, and the treatment of the most serious offenders.