The Legislature has no bills in the hopper yet (Session doesn't open until January 13—ugh! I can't wait!), but Attorney General Marty Jackley has posted his legislative package for the new year. South Dakota's most popular Republican is riding his massive mandate to proposing eight new laws (because Republicans... like... more laws...?) to make us all safer:
- Put child sex traffickers on the sex offender registry: perfectly sensible—selling child porn puts crooks on the sex offender list, so why not selling children?—but techincally necessary? SDCL 22-24B-1 already lists sexual exploitation of a minor and promotion of prostitution of a minor as registrable offenses. I look forward to hearing AG Jackley's committee testimony to explain the necessity of specific trafficking language.
- Make raffle scams illegal: Hey! The Madville Times makes a difference! This blog broke the story in November 2013 of Chad Haber and Annette Bosworth conducting phony raffles. The Attorney General managed to force Haber and Bosworth to refund some ticketholders, but incredibly was unable to prosecute the raffle scammers because state law doesn't actually require that folks selling raffle tickets actually draw for the prize they promise. (I still think Haber and Bosworth may have violated some other prosecutable raffle statutes.) Crazily, Haber ran against Jackley for the AG spot this year, perhaps to stop exactly this kind of legislation. Expect swift and unanimous passage.
- Let cops and first responders administer overdose treatment: AG Jackley wants to train and equip police and first responders to give the drug Naxolone, also known as Narcan, to opioid drug overdose victims. Narcan can save lives, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder promoted its use by federal agents, but expect some serious discussion of the precautions necessary to turn cops into medics.
- Let soldier's spouses get concealed weapons permits: SDCL 23-7-7.1(6) requires an applicant for a concealed weapons permit to have lived in the county of application for at least thirty days. Apparently thirty days is too long for a soldiers's spouse to wait to carry a concealed weapon. (But wait: there still isn't any rule stopping the wife of a new transfer to Ellsworth or anyone else from openly carrying a pistol from the day of arrival in South Dakota, is there?)
- Legalize police scanners! Technically, all the fun South Dakota reporters and citizens have listening to their local cops on police scanners is illegal. In a small nod to transparency, AG Jackley wants to revise that law to make monitoring police communications illegal only while committing a felony.
- Protect DCI and HP bosses from political backlash: AG Jackley wants a law that gives the DCI director and the Highway Patrol superintendent their old jobs back if their appointments are revoked without cause. The Governor appoints the HP chief; the AG appoints the DCI boss. Curious: when's the last time either official was dismissed without cause?
- Make bigger lemons! AG Jackley wants to update South Dakota's consumer protection laws to raise the vehicle weight limit for our lemon law from 10,000 pounds to 15,000 pounds. (Hmm... will we have to change the name to "grapefruit law"?)
- Allow Supreme Court to correct illegal sentences: The AG says he is responding here to federal Supreme Court decisions; I'll have to see the bill and hear the testimony to make sense of the impact, but it sounds like minor bookkeeping.
Stay tuned for the real bills, coming sometime in the next couple weeks!
More laws and more law and disorder for the man to replace Rounds in Washington. When the wheels of justice finally crush Rounds and Daugaard for their illegal activity in the EB-5, the last man standing will be Marty. Then it is off to Washington for Mr. Smith.
Fond hope, Jerry. Wish the first half of your prediction comes true: wheels of justice crush MMR and DDG. Jackley as next SD Senator? Sobering. Where's my drink?
Law and disorder and not only here regarding our home grown now senator and his sidekick, the current governor, it is national. Here is how the republican hate machine works. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/emails-and-racist-chats-show-how-cops-and-gop-are-teaming-undermine-de-blasio
Scare the hell out of the old white guys so they think the sky is falling and then bring in the cavalry to protect them.
Referencing #1: The statute repeatedly refers to minors, people under 16. Could this revision allow for prosecution of people trafficking 17 or 18 year olds as they may still be considered children? Also, "Any federal crime or court martial offense that would constitute a sex crime under federal law;" If it is conducted across state lines, that likely puts it into the federal arena? Is that enough?
#5: Sounds like you are saying unless the police are committing the felony. I would re-word.
#8: Could this be for sentences that were prejudiced by racial bias? We have numerous people sentenced with 1st degree manslaughter serving life WOP that wouldn't have been sentenced as such but they were Native.
Thanks, Deb! I assume statute will be clearer than blog. How about, "make non-police monitoring of police communications illegal only while the non-police monitors are committing a felony"? Or, "You can listen to your police scanner, but not if you use it to help commit a crime"?
On #1: that might be a reasonable point to bring up during committee... or maybe even now, before LRC drafts AG Jackley's final copy. There appears to be no age limit on victims for placing criminals on the sex offender registry, as evidenced by the inclusion of jail employees having sex with detainees, psychotherapists having sex with patients, and rapists in general. If traffickers are predators, why not add all of them to the list, regardless of whether they are preying on children or adults?
Re #1: Just something to think about.
Aren't people who traffic in adult sex pimps? The purpose of sex offender list is to allow citizens to know who in their midst pose direct sexual threat to them and/or their children. Maybe the reason they are left off is to not dilute the list.
And, speaking of dilution, did the change ever get made that said the drunk college guy picked up for peeing between two cars isn't on the sex offender list?
To be clear, I'm not defending being a pimp. Just concerned that adding non-threats might make the registry less relevant and open to justification.
Bishops hiding predator priests are pimps: why should South Dakota legislatures escape being on sex offender lists for covering up clergy crimes?
Troy, reasonable point. I wondered the same thing when I read #1. Traffickers may not be posing the direct sexual threat, at least not in terms of doing the dirty deed. They are just the middle men, facilitating someone else's performance of the dirty deed.
But what if we read it this way: the child molester views a child as an object for his own sexual gratification. The trafficker/pimp views a child as an object for some other paying customer's (or some customer's customers') sexual gratification. Do the molester and the trafficker pose the same ultimate danger to a child? Should both the molester and the trafficker be forbidden from lingering around elementary schools? Or does the molester suffer a mental illness that makes him a different kind of threat that justifies this form of perpetual, humiliating probation?
And good grief: can Troy be permitted to participate in the discussion here without every one of his comments being blasted with another general indictment of his Church? He gets the point, Larry; little value is added by repeating it every time. It actually comes out sounding as trivial and obsessive as Sibby's shibboleths.
Church capitalized, Cory? And after you blasted PP for capitalizing State?
Nobody has proved Bendagate wasn't about sex trafficking: note Jackley's obsession with slamming the barn doors after the lead stallion escaped for a date with a shotgun.
Do the molester and the trafficker pose the same ultimate danger to a child?
Yes.
Should both the molester and the trafficker be forbidden from lingering around elementary schools?
Yes.
Or does the molester suffer a mental illness that makes him a different kind of threat that justifies this form of perpetual, humiliating probation?
No. Both are equally sick.
Cory,
Just to be clear: I'm thinking about pimps who only traffic in adults being excluded. Not those who traffic minors who I think should be on the list.
And, I'm very open to an argument adult traffickers should be on the list. Just want to hear the argument (pro/con) before forming an opinion.
And, Bill, I agree. And, your comment for some reason makes me lean to not diluting the list with pimps (unless of course the prior offense has an element I'd say is kidnapping in the vernacular, not strictly legal). The list has to be one that flashes unequivocally this person is a direct threat to you, your neighbors and children.
There, Cory: Troy believes bishops who traffic priests from parish to parish should be excluded from sex offender lists.
Is there a list of people who have a history of domestic violence?
A list of people who have a history of abusing (physical, mental, and neglect,) of children 17 years old and younger?
Should there be those list readily available to the public?
Btw, Sibby has gotten nearly everything he wants from the Jackley wing of SDGOP as it covers up the seizure of some 2000 American Indian kids, raping them then wonder why they populate South Dakota's corrections industry.
You poor sots.
My comment was also in reference exclusively to minors. There is, however an interesting development in social media the has become somewhat puzzling from a legal standpoint, and I'm not sure what – if anything – could (or should) be done about it.
http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/June/Sexting-Study/
Hey Lar, I am told Mr. Fleming's office building has a beer named Gravy that they are selling in a couple days. Buy me a flagon?
Perhaps sex offender "lists" do not actually protect anyone. Instead, these lists may only be a modern means of shaming the offender. In addition, the list may be a means of increasing the punishment and interfering with rehabilitation by making it more difficult for the convicted offender to find work or find a place to live in peace.
It seems very doubtful that such lists actually prevent a recidivist from re-offending, or even identify the real dangers to children in the community. Studies have shown that the vast majority of child sex abusers are either family members or close friends of the family or trusted adults, such as priests or other members of the family's church. As one study revealed:
"During the 1970s and 1980s society became more aware of the sexual victimization of children. We began to increasingly realize someone they know who is often a relative — a father, stepfather, uncle, grandfather, older brother, or even a female family member — sexually molests most children."
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
The premise behind the list requirement seems quite optimistic but entirely flawed. A better alternative may be to be more cautious in releasing any sexual offender by taking steps to provide treatment aimed at helping the offender control whatever urges he or she may experience prior to release.
BCB, I tend to agree with your assessment. Our legal system is so "brittle" oftentimes that it fails to actually do what we intend (wish?) it to. But along the same lines, our understanding of mental illness and treatment of same is so hopelessly remedial that I fear the type of healing and care you envision is quite simply unavailable to the general public on a routine basis.
Perhaps, as you suggest, if we could shift the focus from "shaming" and "punishment" to something more closely resembling real rehabilitation?
We could start by transforming prisons into mental therapy units and addiction treatment centers. But where to find qualified workers? Talk about a tough job. And the politics around it ...as in even having such a discussion civilly?
Oh man. Where do you even start?
BCB raises a discussion-worthy point about shaming. I put his comment together with JeniW's questions and am reminded of a question I asked a few years ago: for what other crimes should we have public registries? Should we have murderer registries? How about bank robber and burglar reigstries? Is it not just as important for folks with no kids but lots of money to know that a burglar has moved into their neighborhood as it is for a good father to know that a convicted child molester has moved into his neighborhood?
What crimes deserve lifelong public shaming?
I've heard about a proposed law to criminalize 'revenge porn.' That's the term used to describe when a dumpee who is angry about it, publishes video online that was intended to be private between the two of them. It's usually a video of the two engaged in sexual behavior. I don't remember if it was in MN or elsewhere. I don't know if there was a plan to put the offender on the list, but it seems unlikely.
MN has a sex offender treatment program. Perverts are sentenced there and they don't get out. The sentence says they stay there until they have become safe enough to release. I think it's been in existence for more than a decade, and only 2-3 inmates have been released. Common wisdom is that successful treatment of sex offenders is extremely, extremely rare. However, SCOTUS does not like MNSOP. They say it's an indeterminate, unconstitutional sentence. It's very controversial.
My personal opinion is that they should lock those perverts up and throw away the key. Through the years I've seen the effects of their behavior on dozens of people. That's why the special list just for the perpetrators of sex crimes is necessary. While being burgled can be very difficult, it's not on the level of the trauma from sexual crimes.
My question about a list of those who have a history of domestic violence was not about shaming, it was about prevention.
Perhaps if Angela, who was recently murdered, had known about her boyfriend's history of domestic violence, maybe she would not have gotten so emotionally involved in the first place and left.
Domestic violence is probably the most dangerous situation of where men and women end up being abused, injured, or killed.
This would be even more important if there are children involved. Watching and/or hearing your parent being abused and knowing that there is not a darn thing that a child can do about it, is horrible. Plus children get the wrong message.
So far, we (collectively,) have not done much to address domestic violence.
I remember when I was a kid, a neighbor during one of his drunks broke his wife's harm, and I cannot tell you the horror I felt when I witnessed a situation of domestic violence.
Domestic violence has a lot of victims who are harmed, permanently.
What is an alternative if not a list?
I agree with Jenny about putting domestic abusers on a public list.
Last year MN began providing Naxolone to the cops. They've already saved lives by using it.
You're all, already on a list. Make more lists and get the tar and feathers. Yee Haw.....welcome back to SoDak, Kurse. Singapore sling gonna getcha.
Marty Jackley should be disbarred for practicing law while catholic.
Deb and JeniW, at peril of sounding like I'm belittling the harm done in sexual assault and domestic violence, let me take a swing at the public burglar registry.
The basic values of our social contract are life, liberty, and property. A violation of any one of those values undermines the social contract. People feel violated when their property is taken. They feel a constant lack of security. They feel the need to be on alert to threats all the time. If we can justify subjecting rapists and spouse abusers to a life sentence of public scorn in order to prevent others from falling victim to their criminal behavior, why can I not get a public list of burglars to prevent those criminals from violating my basic rights? Or how about a murderer and manslaughterer registry, so we all can be aware of criminals released among us who might take out lives? Or how about a securities fraud registry so we can avoid doing business with the Wall Street wizards who screwed the entire economy for their gain? (Oh, whoops, no list for them, since we won't arrest and try them to start with.)
Deb, I can understand the Court's concern about an indefinite sentence violating the Eighth Amendment. I feel the same way in part about the lifetime tier of South Dakota's sex offender registry. If the offenses on that tier are so heinous and the convict so dangerous that we keep him on a watch list forever, why not just put him in prison forever? Alternatively, if a burglar or drug dealer serves his ten-year sentence, then gets out unreformed, why don't we put that threat to society on a public watch list?
Cory, would you want a registered sex offender living in your neighborhood? Maybe right next door to you? Or would you want a man living next door to you that had a history of sex crimes that you didn't know about?
I called up my DFL legislator once out of concern that a sex offender was moving into my neighborhood. She told me that it's actually better that they have a place of address rather than just living on the streets because that way law enforcement can keep track of them. I could see her point but at the same time no one wants sex offenders moving into their neighborhood especially when you have kids. I have great neighbors, because in the end we all rallied to get the offender out. He left. I'm sorry, but with sex crimes, I don't really think we should go easy on them. 25% of girls will be molested by the time they're adults. Sickening statistics.
Deb, what is Naxolone and why would it be given to the cops?
Narcan:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/12/29/371770229/teaching-friends-and-family-how-to-reverse-a-drug-overdose
Thanks Larry, very interesting.
Deb and Jeni, don't you think that women should be aware enough to choose a man who won't beat them? After that first drunken rage and drug high, a woman should be smart enough to know that he's a loser and leave immediately.
Trust me, I have a lot sympathy for women in domestic violence situations. I have had girlfriends stay with drunks who weren't abusive but just drunks, and I could never understand why they stayed. One told me b/c they didn't want to be alone or that it would be so much harder for them financially. Such low self-esteem and I don't feel sorry for her at all. It's her choice.
*Cory, my argument is that one's own body is more sacrosanct than one's home. I'm not trying to diminish the trauma of having one's home invaded, but the affects of such trauma are substantially less than sex abuse.
There is a reason that well over 90% of the women and 80% of the men imprisoned are victims of sexual crimes, not burglary.
People can always move. It's not a perfect remedy, but a different home is very helpful.
*Jenny, I wish the big question about domestic violence was Why does he beat her? He's the criminal, not her. What's wrong with a guy who professes to love a woman - but he beats her up, breaks her bones, sends her to the hospital, rapes her?! WTH is wrong with such a lousy excuse for a human being?! And WTH is wrong with a nation that doesn't have such horrific crimes at the top of the Fix This List!?
When I hear good answers to those questions, I'll address the "blame the victim" question.
BTW, anybody notice that the only victims of violent crimes who get blamed are women or else men who are perceived as insufficiently 'manly'? Grrr.
Okay, one thing I'll say Jenny: When a woman leaves, the likelihood that he'll murder her, and possibly the children, goes up 75%.
75% out of 100%, Ms. Geelsdottir, or an increase from 1% to 1.75%?
75% out of 100%. Women killed by strangers is uncommon.
My mother stayed married to my father who was a SOB when he was drunk.
She told me that she stayed because of my siblings and me. She thought it would be better for us. Parents tend not to pay attention to what their children are trying to tell them, because parents think they know what is "in the best interest" of the children. Each of us would have told her to leave and that he was not worth it. She was only kidding herself. She thought she deserved to be treated the way she was.
My grandfather was abusive of my grandmother, so that is what my mother thought was normal and to be expected.
After my father died, she bloomed like a rose. She was seriously considering another guy whom I thought was abusive. When I told her of a childhood memory, and told her that she did not deserve to be abused, she acknowledged having been abused by my father and did not marry the jerk.
Why I advocate for a list of men and women who have a history of domestic violence is in hopes that people do not become so dependant on the boy/girlfriend that they cannot break free, or get children involved.