This a follow-up to our post from yesterday entitled "Criminal Protection Act". A reader questioned Paul Thurmond about it and forwarded his response.
We would first like to present Thurmond's spirited defense of his time at the 9th Circuit Solicitor's Office. You will remember we mentioned speaking to a few law enforcement officers who were none too impressed with him during his tenure.
"The author goes into my record as an assistant solicitor, which I find a little troubling. I was 13-1 in trials in the three years I was an assistant solicitor. I was also in the top ten of every statistical category that was kept. Not sure where he got the inept, but given that I handled a couple thousand cases, maybe someone wasn’t happy. I took a lot of pride in my work while I was there and I certainly tried to treat others the way I would have liked to be treated. Some of the victims that I helped are still my friends today."
Thirteen wins, one loss, with "a couple thousand cases" handled. Let that one roll around in your cranium for a few seconds. We will respond with this. It is unfortunate the 9th Circuit does not, as a matter of course, report to the county clerk the names of solicitors who were assigned cases. We have seen other circuits in South Carolina where that information is reported. When we search case records in the 9th Circuit we can see the defendant's name, the arresting officer's name, the bond company and the defense attorney's name. As a result we are not able to search the database by the name of the solicitor and come up with a list of the cases assigned to that solicitor. If we could do that we would be able to pull up those "couple thousand" cases and add stats like "number of cases dismissed". We can't help but suspect this lack of reporting is done by design as we have seen other solicitors include the information.
This comment has us a bit concerned.
"In my first year, I have yet to see a perfect bill get introduced, so I am more than happy to make sure that concern is covered with an amendment."
Folks, if S 700 had been written by, say, former used car salesman Robert Ford we could understand why it was such a crappy job. We still wouldn't like it, but we could understand it. Thurmond, however, is supposed to a big time attorney with a superb record. Is it simply too much for us expect a lawyer who makes his living in the law, to know how to actually write one? Well, correction - he didn't actually write it, his staff did. Is it too much for us to expect a lawyer who makes his living in the law to know how to proof-read a law he wants to pass? Is it too much to expect a lawyer who makes his living in the law to foresee basic concerns and conflicts inherent in the legislation he proposes and to address those concerns and conflicts prior to submitting said legislation?
How about a "fer instance" exercise?
Let's say you work at Boeing. What would happen if you submitted an incomplete, ill-conceived and poorly written proposal to your boss? What would happen when your boss called you on it and pointed out the flaws in it and all you really had to say was, "Well, Airbus did it and I just copied them." Maybe you should go just work for Airbus, then.
Get the picture? Thurmond works for you and, at least in this instance, his work isn't up to snuff. We should point out that his comment quoted above was only directed at the concern we had with criminals who pled to or were convicted of charges other than the original charge for which the mugshot was taken. It had absolutely nothing to do with any of our other concerns. You know, concerns like classifying citizens as businesses and making them criminals simply for posting a mugshot. Thurmond didn't appear to be bothered by those at all.
Maybe it is just us, but in our opinion if our elected representatives actually spent some time getting things right the first time they would have more time to concentrate on truly important aspects of "the people's business".
Now, on to the issue at hand - S 700. Quote from Thurmond.
"S.700 would require the removal of a person’s mugshot from an online publication if the charge is dismissed or the person is found not guilty. It was introduced after I read about Georgia passing similar legislation. I am confident you can Google “Georgia mugshot legislation” and the information about Georgia passing a similar law will come up. In fact, staff was instructed to introduce the exact same language consistent with how our code is written. I think the writer of the blog brings up a good point regarding if the defendant pleads to a different charge. In my first year, I have yet to see a perfect bill get introduced, so I am more than happy to make sure that concern is covered with an amendment."
So, let us make sure we have this right. "Georgia did it, so should we," seems to be Thurmond's reasoning. Not exactly the best reason we have ever heard for introducing legislation. Tell you what, if we are going to operate like that how about upgrading our Department of Corrections inmate search website so it compares to Georgia's and provides the same level of detail? Tell your staff to give that one a go.
The Georgia law, which took effect 6 May, 2013 was initially intended to specifically target sites like Mugshots.com which is, indeed, a business based solely on mugshots. They even have a specific website set up where you can sign up and pay them to have the mugshot removed. It is called UnpublishArrest.com. If you would like to read some of the challenges Mugshots.com puts forth regarding the Georgia law you can find them HERE. They cover some things we haven't been able to get to yet.
Let's review the section of the Georgia law to see who it applies to. You can read the full text HERE.
Note: This is SB 1289
We all know who this law is aimed at - sites like Mugshots.com. The flaw in this Georgia bill is that it doesn't bother to define the term "business entity" anywhere. Not even in the section of the law containing definitions. How convenient is that? Nor does it bother to carve out exemptions.
We do hope you realize why legislators everywhere like to pass vague legislation such as this. That way they can go after an "entity" who might be bringing the heat. Maybe even entities like Charleston Thug Life, perhaps? Or entities like YOU if you are particularly critical of those legislators.
Maybe we should review Thurmond's proposed legislation again to see if he bothered to define the term "business entity".
"A person or entity who publishes on the person or entity's publicly available website a mug shot of a person who is arrested and booked in South Carolina is deemed to be transacting business in South Carolina."
Yep, he sure did define it. The definition of a "business entity" in Thurmond's fine legal mind is ANYONE who publishes a mugshot on their website. Now we are back to the vague terms. How would Thurmond define "website"? Without being specifically set forth the term "website" can be applied to your Facebook, your Twitter feed, your blog about mothers of murdered children. It doesn't matter. Did you put up mugshots of the Marley Lion murderers on your Mothers of Murdered Children blog? If you did, you have classified yourself as a business according to the proposed South Carolina statute. Did you post the mugshot of Crazy Alice Boland on your Facebook or Twitter feeds? Guess what - you are a business according to Paul Thurmond.
But wait a second!!! There appears to be a second Georgia bill out there. This one is HB 150. Let's see if it defines "business entity" any better than SB 1289 or Paul Thurmond's bill.
Well would you look at that! We seem to have found the bill Thurmond had his staff copy. Once again folks, YOU are turned into a criminal by your legislators. ANYONE using a computer to post a mugshot is deemed to be a business.
Can people in Georgia get on the interwebs and pull up your Facebook or Twitter feeds or your Mothers of Murdered Children blog? Bet they can. Guess what that makes you. Go ahead, guess. It makes you, a private citizen in Charleston, a "business entity" in Georgia. Isn't that great? Now you are the proud owner of a nationwide business just because you posted Crazy Alice Boland's mugshot or the booking photo of baby killer Demarquise Elkins from Brunswick, Georgia.
Nationwide, you say? Yep. States are jumping on this bandwagon and passing similar vaguely written legislation. Why? Because in most of those states the legislation allows the Attorney General to come after you with civil penalties and levy all kinds of fines on you, in addition to allowing you to be sued by the criminal. They gotta get that money from all of you "businesses" one way or another. Since you didn't apply for a business license prior to putting up Crazy Alice's mugshot they plan to get it from you on the back end.
Can we tell you a little secret about Crazy Alice? She's probably not going to trial on those charges. She's crazy, dontyaknow! Which means you did a no-no by posting her mugshot. Now you are going to be liable for civil suits and you might even be charged with a misdemeanor thanks to Thurmond's proposed legislation.Yaaay! Thank God we have the government to keep you evil one-percenter businesses in line.
Georgia's HB 150 does include a caveat, though. It exempts some folks down in Section 2. Maybe Thurmond's people didn't read that far.
You can probably guess who the exemption in (B) was carved out for. Think - political candidates and their ads. Nice of them to think of themselves, wasn't it? They did the same thing when they "improved" your health care, but exempted themselves from it.
You should notice that the caveats in HB 150 only seem to apply to the 1960's version of "news" sources. Politicians, who must remain friendly with these "accepted" forms of media pointedly ignore the "new" media. They do this even though the new media is normally better than the accepted media. Do you get the same level of crime related reporting from any of the standard "news" sources that you get here at Charleston Thug Life?
There is another thing none of these politicians have bothered to take into consideration. Once something gets out into the wilds of the internet it never goes away. NEVER. We could delete the entire blog today and you would still be able to read it through cached versions for the next hundred years. How are they going to protect you from that horror? Well, maybe they will just limit your internet access. Oh wait, that is already in the works. Silly us!
Instead of answering the rest of the concerns in our first article Thurmond took the time to remind the constituent who wrote to him of his support of other bills in an effort to boost his credibility. He pointed out his support for S 19, the bill which dealt with offenders committing additional crimes while out on bond. We initially supported this bill due to these two provisions:
"() If a person is convicted of committing or attempting to commit a subsequent general sessions court offense while on release on bond, the person must be imprisoned for a mandatory minimum of five years, no part of which may be suspended nor probation granted, in addition to the penalty provided for the principal offense. This five year sentence must be served consecutively.
(1) A person sentenced pursuant to the provisions of this subsection is not eligible during the five-year sentence to participate in work release or extended work release nor is the person eligible for parole. A person is not eligible for a reduction in the five-year sentence but may earn good-time credits or work credits during the five-year sentence."
Unfortunately, the bill that passed, with the help of Thurmond and without our support reads like this:
"TO AMEND SECTION 17-15-55, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BOND AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO REVOKE BOND UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE COMMISSION OF A SUBSEQUENT VIOLENT CRIME BY A PERSON RELEASED ON BOND IN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE AND TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY IF A PERSON COMMITS A GENERAL SESSIONS COURT OFFENSE WHILE ON RELEASE ON BOND.
Amend Title To Conform
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Section 17-15-55 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding an appropriately lettered subsection at the end to read:
"( ) If a person released on bond pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for a serious or most serious offense, as defined in Section 17-25-45, is charged with a serious or most serious offense, as defined in Section 17-25-45, while released on bond, the bond hearing for the subsequent serious or most serious offense must be held in the circuit court within thirty days. If the court finds probable cause that the person committed the current offense or that the person is unlikely to comply with any condition of release, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition will assure the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community. If the court finds that certain conditions of release on bond will ensure that the person is unlikely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community and the person will abide by the terms of release on bond, the judge shall consider bond in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and set or amend bond accordingly. If the court finds no such conditions will ensure that the person is unlikely to flee or not pose a danger to the community, bond must be revoked."
SECTION 2. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor."
To sum up the final draft of S 19 - it changed nothing. It was a waste of time. It has no teeth. There is no penalty. Criminals don't care about it because it means nothing to them without the added penalty. It is nothing more than feel good legislation intended solely to deceive you into thinking your elected representatives are doing something worthwhile, when in fact it only shows they didn't have balls to do what was necessary.
Nice work, Paul! Maybe you shouldn't have used that one to show how tough you are on crime.
Thurmond is sponsoring S 509, though. This bill deals with those folks who tamper with, or assist in tampering with, electronic monitoring devices - ankle bracelets. Hard to believe it isn't already a criminal offense to do that! Cut 'em off now while you still can!!
Paul, you are said to be an affable fellow. Some of our crew has met you in the past and tell us that. We realize this is your first year in Columbia and you are going to make some rookie mistakes. You should know your constituents expect better of you. Proposing legislation for the sole purpose of getting your name on something to make it look like you are working is not what they want. Particularly when that legislation is vague, poorly written and makes criminals of them, whether or not that was your intention.
Want to score some points with your constituents? Withdraw this poorly written piece of tripe, clean it up by addressing the points made here and then resubmit it. Charleston Thug Life is just a small crime related blog. We only have a few hundred thousand readers here, but a lot of them hail from your district and are concerned about these issues. Maybe that means something, maybe it doesn't.
Feel free to comment here or drop us a note at chasthuglife@gmail.com if you would like to address any of the points we have brought up.
We would first like to present Thurmond's spirited defense of his time at the 9th Circuit Solicitor's Office. You will remember we mentioned speaking to a few law enforcement officers who were none too impressed with him during his tenure.
"The author goes into my record as an assistant solicitor, which I find a little troubling. I was 13-1 in trials in the three years I was an assistant solicitor. I was also in the top ten of every statistical category that was kept. Not sure where he got the inept, but given that I handled a couple thousand cases, maybe someone wasn’t happy. I took a lot of pride in my work while I was there and I certainly tried to treat others the way I would have liked to be treated. Some of the victims that I helped are still my friends today."
Thirteen wins, one loss, with "a couple thousand cases" handled. Let that one roll around in your cranium for a few seconds. We will respond with this. It is unfortunate the 9th Circuit does not, as a matter of course, report to the county clerk the names of solicitors who were assigned cases. We have seen other circuits in South Carolina where that information is reported. When we search case records in the 9th Circuit we can see the defendant's name, the arresting officer's name, the bond company and the defense attorney's name. As a result we are not able to search the database by the name of the solicitor and come up with a list of the cases assigned to that solicitor. If we could do that we would be able to pull up those "couple thousand" cases and add stats like "number of cases dismissed". We can't help but suspect this lack of reporting is done by design as we have seen other solicitors include the information.
This comment has us a bit concerned.
"In my first year, I have yet to see a perfect bill get introduced, so I am more than happy to make sure that concern is covered with an amendment."
Folks, if S 700 had been written by, say, former used car salesman Robert Ford we could understand why it was such a crappy job. We still wouldn't like it, but we could understand it. Thurmond, however, is supposed to a big time attorney with a superb record. Is it simply too much for us expect a lawyer who makes his living in the law, to know how to actually write one? Well, correction - he didn't actually write it, his staff did. Is it too much for us to expect a lawyer who makes his living in the law to know how to proof-read a law he wants to pass? Is it too much to expect a lawyer who makes his living in the law to foresee basic concerns and conflicts inherent in the legislation he proposes and to address those concerns and conflicts prior to submitting said legislation?
How about a "fer instance" exercise?
Let's say you work at Boeing. What would happen if you submitted an incomplete, ill-conceived and poorly written proposal to your boss? What would happen when your boss called you on it and pointed out the flaws in it and all you really had to say was, "Well, Airbus did it and I just copied them." Maybe you should go just work for Airbus, then.
Get the picture? Thurmond works for you and, at least in this instance, his work isn't up to snuff. We should point out that his comment quoted above was only directed at the concern we had with criminals who pled to or were convicted of charges other than the original charge for which the mugshot was taken. It had absolutely nothing to do with any of our other concerns. You know, concerns like classifying citizens as businesses and making them criminals simply for posting a mugshot. Thurmond didn't appear to be bothered by those at all.
Maybe it is just us, but in our opinion if our elected representatives actually spent some time getting things right the first time they would have more time to concentrate on truly important aspects of "the people's business".
Now, on to the issue at hand - S 700. Quote from Thurmond.
"S.700 would require the removal of a person’s mugshot from an online publication if the charge is dismissed or the person is found not guilty. It was introduced after I read about Georgia passing similar legislation. I am confident you can Google “Georgia mugshot legislation” and the information about Georgia passing a similar law will come up. In fact, staff was instructed to introduce the exact same language consistent with how our code is written. I think the writer of the blog brings up a good point regarding if the defendant pleads to a different charge. In my first year, I have yet to see a perfect bill get introduced, so I am more than happy to make sure that concern is covered with an amendment."
So, let us make sure we have this right. "Georgia did it, so should we," seems to be Thurmond's reasoning. Not exactly the best reason we have ever heard for introducing legislation. Tell you what, if we are going to operate like that how about upgrading our Department of Corrections inmate search website so it compares to Georgia's and provides the same level of detail? Tell your staff to give that one a go.
The Georgia law, which took effect 6 May, 2013 was initially intended to specifically target sites like Mugshots.com which is, indeed, a business based solely on mugshots. They even have a specific website set up where you can sign up and pay them to have the mugshot removed. It is called UnpublishArrest.com. If you would like to read some of the challenges Mugshots.com puts forth regarding the Georgia law you can find them HERE. They cover some things we haven't been able to get to yet.
Let's review the section of the Georgia law to see who it applies to. You can read the full text HERE.
Note: This is SB 1289
| Sec. 109.002. APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. This chapter | ||
| applies to a business entity that: | ||
| (1) publishes or otherwise disseminates, including | ||
| through a print or electronic medium, criminal record information, | ||
| including information: | ||
| (A) originally obtained pursuant to a request for | ||
| public information under Chapter 552, Government Code; or | ||
| (B) purchased or otherwise obtained by the entity | ||
| or an affiliated business entity from the Department of Public | ||
| Safety under Subchapter F, Chapter 411, Government Code; and | ||
| (2) requires the payment of a fee or other | ||
| consideration to remove, correct, or modify criminal record | ||
| information. | ||
We all know who this law is aimed at - sites like Mugshots.com. The flaw in this Georgia bill is that it doesn't bother to define the term "business entity" anywhere. Not even in the section of the law containing definitions. How convenient is that? Nor does it bother to carve out exemptions.
We do hope you realize why legislators everywhere like to pass vague legislation such as this. That way they can go after an "entity" who might be bringing the heat. Maybe even entities like Charleston Thug Life, perhaps? Or entities like YOU if you are particularly critical of those legislators.
Maybe we should review Thurmond's proposed legislation again to see if he bothered to define the term "business entity".
"A person or entity who publishes on the person or entity's publicly available website a mug shot of a person who is arrested and booked in South Carolina is deemed to be transacting business in South Carolina."
Yep, he sure did define it. The definition of a "business entity" in Thurmond's fine legal mind is ANYONE who publishes a mugshot on their website. Now we are back to the vague terms. How would Thurmond define "website"? Without being specifically set forth the term "website" can be applied to your Facebook, your Twitter feed, your blog about mothers of murdered children. It doesn't matter. Did you put up mugshots of the Marley Lion murderers on your Mothers of Murdered Children blog? If you did, you have classified yourself as a business according to the proposed South Carolina statute. Did you post the mugshot of Crazy Alice Boland on your Facebook or Twitter feeds? Guess what - you are a business according to Paul Thurmond.
But wait a second!!! There appears to be a second Georgia bill out there. This one is HB 150. Let's see if it defines "business entity" any better than SB 1289 or Paul Thurmond's bill.
"(2) Any person who is engaged in any activity involving or using a computer or
computer network who publishes on such person's publicly available website a subject
individual's arrest booking photograph for purposes of commerce shall be deemed to be
transacting business in this state."Well would you look at that! We seem to have found the bill Thurmond had his staff copy. Once again folks, YOU are turned into a criminal by your legislators. ANYONE using a computer to post a mugshot is deemed to be a business.
Can people in Georgia get on the interwebs and pull up your Facebook or Twitter feeds or your Mothers of Murdered Children blog? Bet they can. Guess what that makes you. Go ahead, guess. It makes you, a private citizen in Charleston, a "business entity" in Georgia. Isn't that great? Now you are the proud owner of a nationwide business just because you posted Crazy Alice Boland's mugshot or the booking photo of baby killer Demarquise Elkins from Brunswick, Georgia.
Nationwide, you say? Yep. States are jumping on this bandwagon and passing similar vaguely written legislation. Why? Because in most of those states the legislation allows the Attorney General to come after you with civil penalties and levy all kinds of fines on you, in addition to allowing you to be sued by the criminal. They gotta get that money from all of you "businesses" one way or another. Since you didn't apply for a business license prior to putting up Crazy Alice's mugshot they plan to get it from you on the back end.
Can we tell you a little secret about Crazy Alice? She's probably not going to trial on those charges. She's crazy, dontyaknow! Which means you did a no-no by posting her mugshot. Now you are going to be liable for civil suits and you might even be charged with a misdemeanor thanks to Thurmond's proposed legislation.Yaaay! Thank God we have the government to keep you evil one-percenter businesses in line.
Georgia's HB 150 does include a caveat, though. It exempts some folks down in Section 2. Maybe Thurmond's people didn't read that far.
"Said part is further amended by revising paragraph (2) of Code Section 10-1-396, relating
to acts exempt from part, as follows:
(2) Acts done by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of a newspaper, periodical,
or radio station or network, or television station or network in the publication or
dissemination in print or electronically of:
(A) News or commentary; or
(B) An advertisement of or for another person, when the publisher, owner, agent, or
employee did not have actual knowledge of the false, misleading, or deceptive character
of the advertisement, did not prepare the advertisement, or did not have a direct
financial interest in the sale or distribution of the advertised product or service."
You can probably guess who the exemption in (B) was carved out for. Think - political candidates and their ads. Nice of them to think of themselves, wasn't it? They did the same thing when they "improved" your health care, but exempted themselves from it.
You should notice that the caveats in HB 150 only seem to apply to the 1960's version of "news" sources. Politicians, who must remain friendly with these "accepted" forms of media pointedly ignore the "new" media. They do this even though the new media is normally better than the accepted media. Do you get the same level of crime related reporting from any of the standard "news" sources that you get here at Charleston Thug Life?
There is another thing none of these politicians have bothered to take into consideration. Once something gets out into the wilds of the internet it never goes away. NEVER. We could delete the entire blog today and you would still be able to read it through cached versions for the next hundred years. How are they going to protect you from that horror? Well, maybe they will just limit your internet access. Oh wait, that is already in the works. Silly us!
Instead of answering the rest of the concerns in our first article Thurmond took the time to remind the constituent who wrote to him of his support of other bills in an effort to boost his credibility. He pointed out his support for S 19, the bill which dealt with offenders committing additional crimes while out on bond. We initially supported this bill due to these two provisions:
"() If a person is convicted of committing or attempting to commit a subsequent general sessions court offense while on release on bond, the person must be imprisoned for a mandatory minimum of five years, no part of which may be suspended nor probation granted, in addition to the penalty provided for the principal offense. This five year sentence must be served consecutively.
(1) A person sentenced pursuant to the provisions of this subsection is not eligible during the five-year sentence to participate in work release or extended work release nor is the person eligible for parole. A person is not eligible for a reduction in the five-year sentence but may earn good-time credits or work credits during the five-year sentence."
Unfortunately, the bill that passed, with the help of Thurmond and without our support reads like this:
"TO AMEND SECTION 17-15-55, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BOND AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO REVOKE BOND UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE COMMISSION OF A SUBSEQUENT VIOLENT CRIME BY A PERSON RELEASED ON BOND IN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE AND TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY IF A PERSON COMMITS A GENERAL SESSIONS COURT OFFENSE WHILE ON RELEASE ON BOND.
Amend Title To Conform
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Section 17-15-55 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding an appropriately lettered subsection at the end to read:
"( ) If a person released on bond pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for a serious or most serious offense, as defined in Section 17-25-45, is charged with a serious or most serious offense, as defined in Section 17-25-45, while released on bond, the bond hearing for the subsequent serious or most serious offense must be held in the circuit court within thirty days. If the court finds probable cause that the person committed the current offense or that the person is unlikely to comply with any condition of release, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition will assure the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community. If the court finds that certain conditions of release on bond will ensure that the person is unlikely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community and the person will abide by the terms of release on bond, the judge shall consider bond in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and set or amend bond accordingly. If the court finds no such conditions will ensure that the person is unlikely to flee or not pose a danger to the community, bond must be revoked."
SECTION 2. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor."
To sum up the final draft of S 19 - it changed nothing. It was a waste of time. It has no teeth. There is no penalty. Criminals don't care about it because it means nothing to them without the added penalty. It is nothing more than feel good legislation intended solely to deceive you into thinking your elected representatives are doing something worthwhile, when in fact it only shows they didn't have balls to do what was necessary.
Nice work, Paul! Maybe you shouldn't have used that one to show how tough you are on crime.
Thurmond is sponsoring S 509, though. This bill deals with those folks who tamper with, or assist in tampering with, electronic monitoring devices - ankle bracelets. Hard to believe it isn't already a criminal offense to do that! Cut 'em off now while you still can!!
Paul, you are said to be an affable fellow. Some of our crew has met you in the past and tell us that. We realize this is your first year in Columbia and you are going to make some rookie mistakes. You should know your constituents expect better of you. Proposing legislation for the sole purpose of getting your name on something to make it look like you are working is not what they want. Particularly when that legislation is vague, poorly written and makes criminals of them, whether or not that was your intention.
Want to score some points with your constituents? Withdraw this poorly written piece of tripe, clean it up by addressing the points made here and then resubmit it. Charleston Thug Life is just a small crime related blog. We only have a few hundred thousand readers here, but a lot of them hail from your district and are concerned about these issues. Maybe that means something, maybe it doesn't.
Feel free to comment here or drop us a note at chasthuglife@gmail.com if you would like to address any of the points we have brought up.