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.
So, if you are removed from the registry…is that like clemency?
No
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.
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.
This is Actually Many Steps Forward…
Believe You ME!
Just Let things to meld!
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.
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!