Child Sex Offenders Now Get Shot To Death In Idaho
On March 27, 2025, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 380 into law, a groundbreaking piece of legislation that expands the state’s death penalty to include individuals convicted of aggravated lewd conduct with children aged 12 and younger. This move, effective July 1, 2025, marks a significant shift in Idaho’s criminal justice system, traditionally reserving capital punishment for first-degree murder cases with aggravating circumstances. With unanimous support in the Idaho House and only five dissenting votes in the Senate, the bill reflects a strong legislative push to impose harsher penalties for crimes against children. But beneath the surface of this widely supported measure lie complex questions about justice, constitutionality, and the potential for irreversible errors.
On March 27, 2025, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 380 into law, a groundbreaking piece of legislation that expands the state’s death penalty to include individuals convicted of aggravated lewd conduct with children aged 12 and younger. This move, effective July 1, 2025, marks a significant shift in Idaho’s criminal justice system, traditionally reserving capital punishment for first-degree murder cases with aggravating circumstances. With unanimous support in the Idaho House and only five dissenting votes in the Senate, the bill reflects a strong legislative push to impose harsher penalties for crimes against children. But beneath the surface of this widely supported measure lie complex questions about justice, constitutionality, and the potential for irreversible errors.
In this blog post, we’ll explore the details of House Bill 380, analyze its potential ramifications—particularly the risk of wrongful executions—and provide the latest statistics on wrongful convictions in the United States. We’ll also consider the ethical, legal, and societal implications of this law, offering a balanced perspective on a policy that has sparked both applause and alarm.
What Does House Bill 380 Entail?
House Bill 380, co-sponsored by Representative Bruce Skaug (R-Nampa) and House Assistant Majority Leader Josh Tanner (R-Eagle), introduces a new criminal charge: aggravated lewd conduct with children age 12 and younger. This charge carries the possibility of the death penalty under specific conditions. The legislation outlines 17 aggravating factors, of which at least three must be present for prosecutors to seek capital punishment. These factors include:
Committing three or more incidents of lewd conduct with a minor.
Using force or coercion.
Transmitting a sexually transmitted disease to the victim.
Being in a position of trust or authority over the victim.
Kidnapping, torturing, or trafficking the child.
For cases of aggravated lewd conduct with minors aged 13 to 16 that don’t meet the death penalty criteria, the bill imposes mandatory minimum sentences of 25 to 30 years, depending on the specifics of the offense. Governor Little, in signing the bill, stated, “Heinous sex crimes against children destroy lives, and the perpetrators deserve the ultimate punishment.” Supporters argue that Idaho’s previously lenient laws—lacking mandatory minimums for such crimes—necessitated this tougher stance to protect children and deter offenders.
The bill’s passage comes on the heels of Idaho’s adoption of the firing squad as its primary execution method in 2023, a response to ongoing difficulties in obtaining lethal injection drugs. With only nine individuals currently on death row in Idaho, all for murder convictions, this expansion could significantly increase the state’s use of capital punishment.
Legal Context: A Constitutional Challenge in the Making?
The introduction of the death penalty for non-homicide crimes immediately raises constitutional questions. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kennedy v. Louisiana (553 U.S. 407) that the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, bars the execution of individuals for crimes that do not involve the death of the victim, such as child rape. The 5-4 decision emphasized that punishment must be proportional to the offense and that the death penalty should be reserved for cases where the offender takes a life.
Representative Skaug, a personal injury attorney, has acknowledged this precedent but expressed optimism that the current, more conservative Supreme Court—now including Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—might overturn Kennedy. “I believe that was a wrong decision that took away our state’s right to decide what to do in the most heinous crimes,” Skaug told lawmakers, suggesting that Idaho’s law could serve as a test case to challenge the 2008 ruling. States like Florida and Tennessee have recently passed similar laws, signaling a growing movement among conservative legislatures to push the boundaries of Eighth Amendment interpretation.
Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Idaho, argue that House Bill 380 “demonstrates an arrogant disregard for legal precedent” and risks overwhelming an already strained criminal justice system. Legal experts like Robert Dunham, a death penalty scholar, have called such measures “flatly unconstitutional” under existing interpretations, predicting costly and protracted legal battles if the law is enforced.
The Risk of Wrongful Convictions: A Sobering Reality
One of the most profound concerns about expanding the death penalty is the risk of executing innocent people—an error that cannot be undone. The United States has a well-documented history of wrongful convictions, and Idaho’s new law amplifies this danger by applying capital punishment to a broader range of offenses, potentially increasing the number of death penalty cases and straining an under-resourced legal system.
Current Statistics on Wrongful Convictions Nationwide
According to the National Registry of Exonerations, as of April 6, 2025, more than 3,400 individuals have been exonerated in the U.S. since 1989, having collectively spent over 30,000 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Of these, 185 were death row exonerees—individuals who were sentenced to death but later proven innocent through DNA evidence, recanted testimony, or other means. This translates to approximately one exoneration for every eight executions carried out since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.
A 2014 study by Samuel Gross, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, estimated that at least 4.1% of death row inmates in the U.S. are innocent. Given that over 1,500 executions have occurred since 1976, this suggests that as many as 60 innocent people may have been put to death. More recent analyses, including a 2021 report from the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), indicate that the wrongful conviction rate could be even higher—potentially between 4% and 8%—when factoring in cases where innocence is suspected but not definitively proven due to lack of resources or closed investigations.
For non-homicide crimes like those covered by House Bill 380, wrongful conviction data is less comprehensive, but sexual assault cases provide a useful proxy. The Innocence Project reports that approximately 20% of its DNA-based exonerations involve sexual assault convictions, often due to mistaken eyewitness identification, false confessions, or flawed forensic evidence—issues that could easily arise in child sex abuse cases, where testimony from young victims may be unreliable or coerced.
Idaho’s Specific Vulnerabilities
Idaho’s criminal justice system faces unique challenges that heighten the risk of wrongful convictions under this new law. Critics, including David Martinez of the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, have pointed to the state’s shortage of qualified death penalty defense attorneys. Capital cases require specialized legal expertise, and Idaho’s public defense system—historically underfunded and recently transitioned to statewide oversight—may struggle to provide adequate representation. In a 2024 Senate committee hearing, Martinez warned that many of the bill’s aggravating factors are present in nearly every lewd conduct case, potentially making the death penalty a common pursuit rather than a rare exception, as Skaug has claimed.
Moreover, Idaho’s execution infrastructure has faced scrutiny. The state’s failed attempt to execute Thomas Creech in February 2024—due to difficulties establishing an IV line for lethal injection—underscored logistical challenges that could compound legal and ethical concerns. With the firing squad now the primary method, the pressure to expedite executions might further limit opportunities for appeals or post-conviction investigations that could uncover innocence.
Ramifications of Executing the Innocent
The execution of an innocent person is the ultimate miscarriage of justice, with ripple effects that extend far beyond the individual case:
Irreversible Loss of Life: Unlike a life sentence, which can be overturned if new evidence emerges, the death penalty offers no recourse once carried out. The case of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in Texas in 2004 for arson despite significant doubts about his guilt, remains a stark reminder of this peril.
Erosion of Public Trust: Each wrongful execution undermines confidence in the justice system. In Idaho, where the bill passed with overwhelming support, evidence of an innocent person’s death could spark backlash against lawmakers and prosecutors, fueling calls to abolish the death penalty altogether.
Trauma to Victims and Families: For victims of child sex abuse, the knowledge that an innocent person was executed in their name could compound their trauma. Conversely, the families of wrongfully convicted individuals face profound grief and disillusionment.
Financial Costs: Death penalty cases are notoriously expensive, often costing millions more than life imprisonment due to lengthy trials, appeals, and specialized legal teams. A wrongful conviction that leads to execution could result in lawsuits and settlements, further burdening taxpayers.
Moral and Ethical Fallout: The deliberate taking of an innocent life by the state raises profound ethical questions. Opponents argue that it contradicts the principle of justice, while even supporters of capital punishment may balk at the risk of error in cases lacking the certainty of a homicide victim’s death.
Broader Implications for Society and Justice
Beyond the risk of wrongful convictions, House Bill 380 carries additional ramifications:
Impact on Victims: Critics like Abraham Bonowitz of Death Penalty Action argue that requiring child victims to testify repeatedly in capital cases—potentially over decades of appeals—could retraumatize them. Skaug counters that Idaho’s victim witness coordinator program mitigates this, but the emotional toll remains a concern.
Deterrence Debate: Studies, including a 2012 National Research Council report, have found no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than life imprisonment. For sex crimes against children, which are often impulsive or driven by psychological factors, the deterrent effect may be even less pronounced.
Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities: Nationwide, the death penalty disproportionately affects minorities and the poor. In Idaho, where the population is predominantly white, socioeconomic status could play a larger role, with indigent defendants more likely to receive inadequate defense and face harsher outcomes.
National Precedent: If Idaho succeeds in challenging Kennedy v. Louisiana, it could embolden other states to expand capital punishment, reshaping the legal landscape. Conversely, a Supreme Court reaffirmation of the 2008 ruling would strike down these laws, reinforcing limits on state power.
Conclusion: A Balancing Act Between Justice and Risk
Idaho’s new law reflects a visceral societal desire to protect children from unimaginable harm—a goal few would dispute. Yet, its implementation thrusts the state into uncharted territory, where the promise of retribution must be weighed against the peril of irreversible error. The statistics are clear: wrongful convictions happen, and in a system expanding the death penalty to complex, emotionally charged cases, the odds of such mistakes may rise.
As of April 6, 2025, House Bill 380 stands poised to take effect in less than three months, barring a successful legal challenge. Whether it will deliver justice or sow tragedy remains to be seen. For now, Idaho has cast its lot with a policy that tests the boundaries of law, morality, and human fallibility—a decision that could echo far beyond its borders.
What are your thoughts? Should the death penalty extend to non-homicide crimes, or does the risk of executing the innocent outweigh the pursuit of ultimate punishment? Let’s discuss below.
