SC lawmakers looking to modify state sex offender registry laws
State lawmakers continue their work to make changes to the state’s sex offender registry laws.
Last year, the state Supreme Court ordered South Carolina’s lifelong registry was unconstitutional. Lawmakers have until June to create a way for offenders who are at low-risk to re-offend to petition to be removed from the registry.
WHENNN will our Supreme Court do the right thing and at the very least curtail Florida’s draconian registry laws??!
There was a comment by one lawmaker criticizing the new SC appointee K. Brown because, according to him, she reflects leniency towards SOs. If that is the case, that could be very favorable to us in future litigations if of gets upthere.
The SC lawmaker has put himself in the fear mongering camp occupied by the likes of Senator Josh Hawley, Missouri’s equivalent of Lauren Book. This week, the White House via Jen Psaki took Hawley to task over his Twitter rant claiming Judge Jackson was unqualified for the Supreme Court because she had an “alarming pattern” in her treatment of sex offenders. He has already played the moral panic card, which will surely come up again in the Senate hearings.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10624869/White-House-slams-Republican-Josh-Hawleys-toxic-claim-Bidens-SCOTUS-nominee.html
Senator Josh Hawley is running for President in 2024, so of course his tough on crime card comes out.
Here’s what she wrote in a law journal article in 1995-96ish, right around the time that registries were beginning:
https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1504221933046534146?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1504221934434799624%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Fblog%2F2022%2F03%2Fjudge_ketanji_brown_jackson_has_a_soft_spot_for_child_predators.html
Doesn’t really seem that extreme to me (it’s not like she called for registry abolition or anything), but Hawley’s trying to push it.
Her child porn sentences are usually below sentencing guidelines, but the same is true of about 75% of federal child porn sentences. (Since most judges realize how ridiculous those sentencing guidelines are.)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-hawley-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court_n_6234b708e4b019fd812d8aab
Would this have any effect on our state S.O. laws?
If by “our state” you mean, Florida. No. This is from South Carolina. Occasionally we report on what’s going on in other states because we have readers from around the world and so we know what other states are doing.
So, lawmakers, explain again how this is all somehow worth the cost to your constituents? Where is the cost benefit analyses? Tell us who you are actually protecting with your registry and these new procedures you want to implement? Give us the actual number of people, age ranges, general data to show having a special department with specific funding with more bureaucracy will be better than allowing for a data proven time limit of registration for those forced to register. Show your constituents how having these extra personnel on the state roll will be more efficient and safer than just adding a sensible time limit to registration. I doubt it can be done. But you are making it sound as if these extra processes are the only options. You need to recognize the actual data that is out there that shows exactly how long after an offense a person is likely to reoffend, and use it. For that matter, let people do the actual punitive time required by judgment and let them at least attempt to move on with their lives. If they mess up again, let the court judge them again just like any other “crime”. Legal judgment needs to end at some point, what better time than when the supposed punishment is over?
If only this applied to Flori-duh.
The issue I have with this is the (Low Risk) part. I’ve been offence free for 33 years in Fl and I still go 4 times a year for registration. And I’m not deemed a predator. It won’t suprise me at at if they make 99% of the registratrants high risk just to avoid letting any off.
Pariah1
At what moment will Florida realize you aren’t a threat since it’s been 33 years since your arrest. I can’t imagine having to give information to the government when it wasn’t a law 33 years ago. Florida’s law are harsh it’s time to ebb away from the overreached lifetime punishment. Hopefully it’ll happen sooner than later.
Looking to modify? No. Forced to modify? Maybe. Let’s see if they care as much as the Michigan legislature when it comes to obeying court orders. I won’t be holding my breath.
Watch them implement something similar to Florida! Sure with no arrests for a misdemeanor or felony, we’ll let you petition after 25 freaking years! What a joke!
I bet you cannot find a single news video showing people, such as those two men, testifying before the SV State Legislature about the cost to enact SORNA because of all the new positions and work required. Why? Because Uncle Sam (that’s taxpayers) would be funding it.
I would also guess the judge told them they needed a procedure for low risk offenders to get off the registry. I bet the judge didn’t say a damn thing about how simple or complicated that process needed to be. The SC Legislature are the ones trying to make this as complicated (code for expensive) a process as possible in the hopes they will be able to keep the majority of the people on the registry.
They definitely want to keep as many as possible on the registry, I can assure you of that. Why? It’s all about election politics. No one that has a hand in this wants to be on the record as being for anyone getting off, however, if RC’s in SC make known their intent to vote based on this issue, it may give some pause perhaps. I don’t know if 17000 voters would have enough influence, however. Perhaps if they enlisted spouses, voting age children, and friends, perhaps that might do it.
This is Actually Many Steps Forward…
Believe You ME!
Just Let things to meld!
In watching the video, I was struck by Attorney General (AG) Wilson and Solicitor Hubbard treating the subject of registry removal as if it were akin to a criminal prosecution. Hubbard even claimed that his office would experience a “massive impact” equivalent to preparing for a cold case. AG Wilson predicted dire budgetary consequences.
He indicated new positions would need to be opened for victims advocates, investigators and prosecutors, and that effects would be felt by agencies including the AG’s office, the solicitor’s office, the prosecution commission and SLEB (whatever that is). The state Supreme Court wrote that “low risk” offenders should be allowed a “judicial process” after petitioning for removal. Registry removal is not a criminal proceeding, and a judicial process could be as simple as a judge reviewing risk assessment documents in private. That is indeed a judicial process.
There is also the question of how risk is to be determined. There are literally dozens of tests and thousands of counselors claiming to accurately assess risk. This is not a job for prosecutors or investigators. Risk should be determined by verifiable data and individualized testing and analysis by mental health professionals, not by prosecutors strumming emotions.
My last comment will certainly raise the most emotional hackles. In these registry removal proceedings, there is no role for former victims or their advocates. Of course victims deserve our greatest sympathy. They are also entitled to appropriate retribution, emotional closure, and financial compensation. However, their interests are fully addressed by the courts during criminal proceedings, particularly at sentencing where their input is of utmost importance. If the criminal system is not adequate, then that system should be updated rather than invoking registration to achieve these goals.
The registry is not supposed to extract additional punishment, to assuage victims, to bring justice or any other goals of the criminal system. It is justified only as a civil regulatory measure to increase public safety. If a registrant’s assessed risk is gauged to be below a certain level, a petition should be routinely granted as regulatory relief. Prosecutors and victims are certainly stakeholders in criminal proceedings, but not in the process for removal from this civil regulatory measure.
You sir should be writing to a SC newspaper editor. You understand the assignment. The “punishment” is supposed to stop at the end of the punishment. So are these public servants insinuating the registry and all of its tangled web is a form of punishment? Sounds to me like they are. For everyone who wants smaller, more efficient and less expensive government, just listen to what these guys are proposing as an answer to a SC law the SC courts deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It’s literal insanity.
The full meeting videos are available in the archive below for those interested.
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php
Wednesday, March 16, 2022 11:00 am
Senate Judiciary Committee — Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:00 am
Senate Judiciary Committee — Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
@Concerned. Thanks for the links to the entire hearings. I found statements made by SC Attorney General (AG) Wilson on 3/16/2022 to be both illuminating and concerning. I am paraphrasing, but the thrust of the AG’s arguments regarding victims’ concerns was that releasing registrants early would be “unfair” to victims. Any unfairness in victims’ perceptions of whether or not they had received adequate retribution is created by prosecutors.
The objectives of expeditiously obtaining a plea agreement and of making victims feel that adequate punishment has been obtained are somewhat at odds. Prosecutors have professional interests in obtaining the largest prison terms or fines. Having to take a case to trial represents a failure on their part, and is likely a black mark at promotion time. Defense attorneys want just the opposite. Offers that are viewed as excessive or even outrageous by the defense attorney can result in the case going to trial. Plea negotiations between these two parties hopefully result in an acceptable compromise.
Note that victims of crime are not a party to this formal process. Victims report crimes. Prosecutors bring charges and prosecute defendants. Victims are not even empowered to drop charges, nor do their sentencing desires carry any legal weight. A negotiated plea agreement – a legal contract – is presented to the judge who can decide to accept or reject the plea, or to modify specific terms of the agreement where she has the discretion. At this point, victims absolutely have the right to provide input to the court. Victims’ wishes are paramount, and can certainly sway the judge.
Because of this, prosecutors have the additional imperative to satisfy victims. Victims who feel a plea agreement is too lenient will often vehemently express that to the judge. AG Wilson insisted that victims’ feelings are soothed by being told that a perpetrator will be on the registry for a long period, perhaps for life. In essence, prosecutors mislead victims by presenting registration to victims as a promise of continuing punishment beyond any period of incarceration.
This is not a representation that could be made to victims in good faith. Incarceration and fines are specified in criminal statutes. This punishment is applied by the judicial branch, and can be modified by the judicial branch through the appeals and habeas corpus processes. Collateral consequences such as registration, firearms prohibitions, loss of voting rights, etc. are legislative prerogatives and can be reduced, enhanced or eliminated at any time. These decisions belong to neither the executive nor judicial branches. It is certainly not appropriate for executive branch prosecutors to use these as red herrings to assuage victims.
AG Wilson represents registration as a promise made to victims. These are promises prosecutors are not empowered to make, since district attorneys have no control over collateral effects, nor are they included in criminal statutes or the plea contract. It is the height of prosecutorial cynicism and misdirection for the AG to subsequently represent registry changes as somehow a breach of promise and unfair to victims. Any unfairness was created by various South Carolina district attorneys. AG Wilson should be investigating rather than justifying this process at a Senate hearing.
For “hands on” offenses, as it pertains to victims, THEY should not equate (nor confuse) the difference between their perps getting out of prison with being removed from the registry.
Just a question: Why can’t we use SC as an example for Florida to modify the registry here ?
SC is far from the best example.
@ExMedic…
Different judicial circuits. Different set of politicians/legislators.
@ExMedic The reason is that under the U.S. Constitution, a state’s laws or court decisions have no relationship to other states unless there is some tension with the U.S. Constitution.
That tension could result in a federal lawsuit, first going to a district court. If on appeal a circuit court creates a precedent, it is binding only in that circuit. If that precedent conflicts with that of another circuit, only the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) can resolve the “circuit split.” If SCOTUS doesn’t take up the case, then each circuit’s precedent applies in that circuit. A specific circuit’s decision can be used to persuade other courts, but is not binding law.
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I even play one on TV. So the above is only my perception of how the process works.
So, if you are removed from the registry…is that like clemency?
No
As someone on both the South Carolina and Florida registries, this gives me a bit of hope. My county sex offender coordinator in the Sheriff’s office said that if I get removed in another state, there’s a good chance that I could be removed in FL.
Fingers crossed!
I am in a similar situation. I am registered in Florida initially and then had to register in California when I moved there. Both WERE lifetime registry states. Last year CA moved to a tiered system and I am waiting to get off of it (should be in 2 months)…then I am going to work on getting removed from FL.
Fingers crossed for both of us!