Welcome to This Week In South
Carolina.I'm Gavin Jackson. Last
week all eyes in the political
world were on Columbia, South
Carolina when President Donald
Trump along with many
Democratic presidential
candidates visited Benedict
College to discuss criminal
justice reform. We look at these
proposals and what can be done
at the state level this
upcoming legislative session.
President Donald Trump visited
the palmetto state on October
twenty fifth to speak at the
twenty twenty bipartisan center
forum on criminal justice reform
to the delight of fellow
Republicans and the dismay of
protesters and the ten
democratic presidential
candidates who spoke that
weekend. Trump took the
opportunity as a victory lap
for signing the bi bipartisan
first step legislation into law
that includes alternatives to
prison for low risk offenders
but the president's presence
drew the ire of candidates
including Senator Kamala Harris
who years ago received the same
award the organization bestowed
upon the president. I mean let's
be clear,
this is somebody who has
disrespected the voices that
have been present for decades
about the need for reform of
the system. As for the Democrats
they share similar views on
criminal justice reform
including the need to close
private prisons, reform the bail
system, legalize marijuana,
expunge criminal records and
help diversify the judiciary
branch.
Some of those efforts such as
marijuana legalization won't
fly in South Carolina but
lawmakers are looking to tackle
civil asset forfeiture
preventing pregnant inmates
from being shackled during
labor and post birth, improving
early release for rehabilitated
offenders and other issues.
Thanks to sentencing reform
laws passed in two thousand ten
fewer low level offenders are
going to state prisons but in
turn prisons have become more
dangerous. While cost savings
associate with reforms haven't
been reinvested to improve
dangerous conditions that have
led to deadly riots in recent
years. With a large budget
surplus expected next year
along with several criminal
justice reform bills poised for
movement when lawmakers return
in January, there's hope more
could be accomplished in the
final year of the two year
session.
Joining us to discuss criminal
justice reform is state senator
from Greenville Karl Allen and
criminal offense attorney Jim
McCulloch. Welcome to you both.
Thank you. So we just had
President Trump in town. We had
ten presidential candidates in
town. Senator Allen you're
Democrat from Greenville.Tell me
what were your thoughts seeing
Republican President Donald
Trump here in Columbia talking
about criminal justice reform.
Do you think that was
appropriate? Well as always,
enlightening to talk about
criminal justice reform. I did
not get excited about Donald
Trump coming to an H.B.C.U.
and the palmetto state
but on the issue of criminal
justice reform, when
we're talking nationally about
this issue, I'm always excited
and
will not question the
appropriateness of it what I
question is whether the the
president is genuine about
criminal justice reform and
it's not political. The first
step act that he went into on
the national arena
I wanted to know more about when
it came to the palmetto
state about what's going to be
the second step act and
whether or not he's able to go
have coffee with the governor
of the great state of South
Carolina his friend Henry
McMaster and over coffee they
talk about the state of South
Carolina becoming more involved
in the criminal justice reform
more involved and how we treat
the least of these and more
involved and doing sentencing
reform and putting money in
rehabilitation in our system.
And so I don't think that took
place. They talked, but we've
got to shake the messaging
conversation. So he was in
Columbia. I hope he'll pick up
the phone and call our
governor and that they will
have a passionate commitment to
criminal justice reform in
South Carolina that helps those
that need help.
Joe to pick up on that do you
think the president was sincere
when talking about criminal
justice reform? He did sign that
bill, kinda helping offenders
get back on their feet when
they got out of prison and it
doesn't number of other things
too, alternatives to prison for
low risk
prisoners, prohibits restraints
on pregnant prisoners,
mandates evidence based
treatment for opioid and heroin
abuse among others so a lot of
good things in that bill he
signed into law but do you
think that there's enough going
on at the federal level when it
comes to criminal justice
reform? Well I'm not a big fan
of our president
and it's, I've generally
seen over the last forty almost
forty five years of being a
prosecutor and defense lawyer
that when somebody gets a body
part caught in the criminal
justice system they start
talking about criminal justice
reform so that may be in part,
but the first step act is a
good step forward but it's
really re frying beans that
have been debated for the last
decade and a half or longer but
seriously by Republicans who
came to believe in about twenty
twelve twenty thirteen Grover
Norquist and a group of others
who created a movement call
right on crime, I think there's
still a website up, but the
thrust of that was to reduce
sentences, eliminate mandatory
minimum
sentences to look at
programmatic treatment
solutions and to generally take
a view and accept scientific
discussions that how we reduce
recidivism how we is by
addressing alcohol, drug
addiction, mental illness
because the profile of
people who commit crimes are
those with that suffer those
conditions. Now there are people
that are just dishonest crooked
and mean and for those people
they may need to you know to be
house for years and decades and
so forth, but our president
signed off on a bill that
others wrote and I applaud that
at least. He didn't veto it. So
we're moving in the right
direction, perhaps at the
federal level. We still need to
go back to the Obama
Administration's directives to
the department of justice that
our sentencing guidelines which
are uniformly recognized by
prosecutors and defense lawyers
who practice in the federal
courts they are draconian in
their application if you choose
to do so
and under the Obama
Administration, the directive
was
don't go to the most you can
get them, look at the least,look
at programs, look at solutions.
Unfortunately all that was
reversed by Donald Trump in
his first administration when he
first came in under his very
first Department of Justice
US attorney. And then Senator
Allen kind of keeping in line
with what we're seeing at the
federal level here,
what we're seeing from
these presidential candidates.
Like I said there's ten of them
in town at Benedict college
talking about their platforms
for criminal justice reform. You
haven't endorsed anyone yet in
this race as a Democrat but you
have looked at their plans you
recently had a op-ed about Joe
Biden's stance on criminal
justice. What do you looking for
when you're
evaluating these candidates
should you want to endorse one
when it comes to their stances
on criminal justice? Certainly.
I started before the these
presidential candidates began
to come to South Carolina
reaching out to discuss and
talk with them about their
criminal justice reform.
I am looking for a presidential
candidate and a president that
is a Democrats that is focused
upon
being smart on crime and not
just hard on crime, looking for
someone that has decided that
we must not warehouse these
inmates, we must rehabilitate
them and that they will put
funding there to provide the
specialized services that the
Department of Corrections is
saying that they need because
let's face it these, some
of these folks if you look at
legislation that is now pending
in South Carolina where we're
trying to reduce the time
that they spend there because
they have shown and
demonstrated that they've been
rehabilitated, if we're trying
to reduce that amount of time
these people are going to get
out on this street anyway, so
let's put him out there where
they have been fully
rehabilitated, let's give them a
little oversight once they're
out with specialized treatment.
If they've got mental health
issues, let's give triple P
the monies necessary to treat
those issues. If they are
domestic violence for example
one of the best programs see is
triple P takes now and they've
assigned twenty
new counselors to focus around
the state on those that have
issues with domestic violence
so that type of specialize
rehabilitation. So I'm looking
for a candidate that will
kind of put their money
to the test, put their programs
to the test that will lead
criminal justice reform
passionately to help the
people. I'm looking for one that
recognizes there's this
first step that has been taken
though it's a baby step that
they can transform that into a
giant step and actually get
more people out with the proper
services while they're out.But a
lot of those candidates have a
lot of things
in common too in terms
of you don't decriminalizing or
legalizing marijuana, performing
the bail system, reducing the
prison population, diversifying
the judiciary but when we look
at South Carolina, we can
barely get medical marijuana a
committee hearing,essentially.So
how can we do some of those
things that they're talking
about but I'm not have the
political will to do it in the
sense in state like South
Carolina? Well again in South
Carolina you've got to be able
to take them at their
process, their plan, their
criminal justice reform and get
the people to buy into it and
the only way to to do that is
you've got to be able to show
the benefits of it and so
you've got to be able to say
that look, in South Carolina
we've got twenty four thousand
people in the department of
Corrections and it's strapped.We
don't have enough guards, we
don't have enough people to
oversee of those that are there
and so we have a negative
impact with the riots and
people getting killed, etcetera.
So, you've got to be
able to show the benefits by
saying with sentencing reform
in those candidates with my
criminal justice reform that
we're able to get that down in
South Carolina now.We're down to
eighteen thousand. We were
projected to go to twenty seven
thousand without sentencing
reform. Those benefits is what
sales to the people to
make them buy into
this. you've got to show the
benefits of anything dealing
with marijuana, whether it's
legalizing, decriminalizing
marijuana,
those benefits if the people
see it, the people of South
Carolina. They'll buy in to it.
Gavin,can I jump-I was gonna ask
you about medical marijuana.
Senator Allen said, which
is the the smart on crime
approach, I want to take
this from the national level
down to the state level.
You know money is always a
problem. Do we fix the potholes?
Do we fix the bridges? Do we fix
the criminal justice system? And
I think that we have to keep
the conversation going and make
the point that the most
expensive thing we've got going
is crime and security on the
streets. We spend more
relatively speaking to care for
the animals in our wonderful
Colombia Zoo
than we do at the Department of
Corrections.
One of the proposals I have and
we were talking a little
bit before the taping started
about taking seizure monies
monies that are generated from
police law enforcement seizures
and drug related matters whether
they seize boats, cars,
helicopters, houses that are
used to facilitate drugs they
liquidate that, boil it down to
real money and then it's split
currently between law
enforcement and prosecutors.
That's kind of a
a kind of a fishing honey hole
for law enforcement and it is
recently by,
I don't know whether it was in
Greenville, Karl but the judge
just clear that statute
unconstitutional for exactly
the reasons that it incentivize
is police misconduct. The other
problem is we keep getting
sheriff's indicted for misusing
that money. It's just they're,
they're constrained by
statute that they can only use
it to support drug training,
drug operations, drug equipment
but it keeps getting spent on
stuff that it should not be
spent on. So my proposal and I
hope Senator Allen and others in
the General Assembly I've
spoken this morning with Senator
Harpootlian who happens to
be your suite mate so if you
ever, if you guys can
have this conversation. But
under this proposal that I'm
going to provide Senator Allen
my hope is that they will take
that money which currently
about one hundred percent goes
to law enforcement or
prosecutor's involved in the
seizure of the money and peel
off a big chunk of change like
seventy percent of that money
put it in a special fund for
rehabilitation programs and
give it, split it up between PP
and P, that's probation, pardon
parole and the Department of
Corrections. That doesn't cost
the taxpayers anything and it
has an obvious logic.
You're taking money from
dope dealers and your curing
and rehabilitating people and..
We want to make sure that
that money those assets are
actually illegal and not someone
that got caught up in a
traffic stop and a canine gets a
hit on some sort of, it
might be a scent of drugs so all
of a sudden, get out of the
car. We can deal with that in
court. What we can't do is fix
people without money to do it
and this is a source of money
that doesn't cost taxpayers a
penny. I think
what my friend Joe is talking
about here is that you must
think about this you know he's
talking about money and
if money, if you go around the
world if you don't believe
money makes the world go round
try going around the world with
no money and you don't get,
you do not get very far. We are
on the same page
about whether or not we can
take the larger chunk of
what's been seized, in his
proposal seventy percent you
know.
We may need to tweak that just
a little bit but we're on the
same page of saying let's get
that back into programs because
with the rehabilitation
going forward in South Carolina
is going to be the focus and
now you have your state
agencies Department of
Corrections and trouble P
on board agreeing that
rehabilitation is the
wave of the future because
that's what's going to reduce
the population and this was
gonna to stop a lot of the
technicalities that you're
seeing where they were getting
revoked and sent back into the
system stop them and they
reduce that population and saved
the state of South Carolina a
great deal of money. Because one
of your bills Senator also
dealing with what no pro
offenses that you want to help
get people early release if
they do, if they do good jobs
in prison if they do kind of
keep up with things and and is
that something that we need to
see more where there are people
concerned when we look at you
know someone getting out of jail
early an offender
getting out of jail early. How
does
that make the victim feel? I
mean I think that might be a
point of contention with that
that bill going forward? Well S
one fifty five is one of the
greatest pieces of
legislation that could be
passed by the state of South
Carolina because what that does
is save money to the state of
South Carolina and in all of
the hearings you had victims
that will coming advocating
that S
one fifty five was a great
legislation because they looked
at the fact the test is not
what they went in for. The test
is what what type of person is
being released and what it does
is focus on rehabilitation so
they are rehabilitated from the
time they went in and it
focuses on re entry courses
which means that they are give-
not only rehabilitated but they,
you are treating them correctly
on how to re enter society.
That bill does that. I t also
rewards them while they are in
the Department of Corrections
with the work credits
and education credits and
things of that nature so the
what she was sending out back
on the street keeping in mind
that they're going to come out
anyway. They're going to be
released at the eighty five
percent anyway so would you not
rather your next door neighbor
that is coming out be
rehabilitated and have been
taught how to re enter
society of so that they can be
productive citizens? That's
the wave of the future and
that's that what that
legislation does and the money
savings along with that to the
state of South Carolina. It
makes it a no brainer. I goes
back to money. Well with due
respect to Senator Allen
there are members of the
General Assembly who nearing
the end of the session because
of contention disagreement
can't get anything done. The
simplest thing to do is find
something else to make against
the law to increase the
penalties for things to make it
an eighty five instead of a
fifty five percent service time.
That's easy because there's no
constituent group to say that
doesn't make any sense to do so
we do it and then that just as
a self perpetuating problem.What
we can do are the things that
are on the table.They're to some
extent the first step bill
announces them once again but
we-that nails been hit
resoundingly for decades. We've
got to look at furlow programs
letting people out to I can
appropriately be released
treat people as we talked about.
There are a host of things that
we can do. To my understanding
largely work release programs
through the Department of
Corrections have seized because
they don't have the manpower to
oversee people leaving the
institution at seven in the
morning and going in learning
and working in a in a
restaurant or wherever working
on a scale that they'll possess
when they are released and I
mean this only makes sense even
even my friends on the
Republican side of the aisle on
the national and some on the
local level are saying this
only makes sense. Fix the
fixable ones and keep locked up
the ones that that should be.
But does it get caught up in
politics from people on look
tough on crime?
Absolutely.
I had a case not terribly long
ago. It was a felony D.U.I.
case. A college student who
unfortunately struck another
college student on the highway.
He had no prior record. Without
any question he was under the
influence. That is what many
many people call an accidental
crime. It is one of course that
the MADD mothers rise up it
leaves a terrible tragic impact
on the families both the
accused to has to go to prison
and and the families of the
victims a terrible thing that
involves a tragic death.
The sentence in that case was
twenty years.
Twenty years.
I have had murders get ten
years and that's just
difficult. Every case is
different. The judge I respect
his judgment in that case. We've
asked to reconsider that
sentence but there are those
offenses that really will never
again occur. You know
shoplifters,
sex offenders there is a body
of literature and science that
says that they are likely more
likely to offend, re offend.
They're actually aren't. If
you look at the numbers of,
well it depends on what
age. If you've got a forty or
fifty year old who's had five
D.U.I.'s
then that's probably gonna
happen again but most people
what I see through our offices
are are one time one shot
offenders who made a mistake
who will never make that
mistake again. I would like to
just piggy back on that
and say that from those that you
say are popular to
be hard on crime
most of those what I've found
in this S
one fifty five legislation to
reduce the amount of
time that were in there for
those that have been
rehabilitated and those that
have earned a work credits
and educational credits,
I'm right on the right
side of history
as a Democrat because most of
that opposition was Republican
opposition in particular a
couple of colleagues who had
previously been solicitous and
they were catering to
that crowd,
but let's face it if you went
to our director of corrections
if you went to our director of
triple P
and ask them about the
legislation they will they will
tell you that this legislation
is is is positive legislation
because it helps manage and
control inmate population on
the inside and let's just think
about it from humanity
standpoint if there are no
rewards to me for good behavior
if there is no real penalty
that's going to affect the
amount of time that I do then
why should I do good time? Why
should I involve myself in
education in those
rehabilitative and it measures?
It comes down to that
rehabilitation need, too.
We about five minutes
and there's still plenty to talk
about but Senator we look at the
twenty ten sentencing reform
bill that really did help
reduce a lot of incarceration
help reduce arrest, help
reduce the prison populations
but now
prisons have become more
dangerous because of the people
that are in those prisons. We
saved money by closing prisons
but it doesn't seem like we've
reinvested in these,
in prisons. What's the hold
up in the general assembly?
We had a huge riot last year.
We didn't see anything move to
help trying and you know put
more money to put ten more
minutes ten more million
dollars into the budget this
past year for better locks on
doors and prisons which you
would think would be something
that you'd have to do but we're
doing it but why isn't there a
bigger movement when we keep
hearing such horrible things
coming
from the Department of
Corrections
as are trying to improve these
conditions? Well I think
what we're what we're saying is
a disconnect
again between the the have any
or what we call the intestinal
fortitude of the director of
corrections and the director of
triple P
to have coffee with the
governor and politically get
everyone on the same page to
say Hey look this is what's
happening you you've got the
riots you've got people dying
you've got people being
warehoused and so that is
inhumane and almost rises to
the level of violating the
eighth amendment against cruel
and unusual punishment. When you
look at the mental health dorm
where these people lost their
lives you realize that we need
to come forward and it's not
just putting more money in
there but dissect the programs
that are in there the
management control aspect of it
is huge in the Department of
Corrections so that's what we
need to go as opposed to just
throwing money and changing
locks. It's not about
the locks. It's about the
training and the quality of the
correction officer this there,
it's about the programming that
is there and whether we are
treating. If you've got a person
in that in these mental health
counseling and medication then
you got to have someone in
there this qualified to do that.
If we do that then we'll shape
and re change the attitude and
the conduct within the
Department of Corrections.
Really quick,quickly.It would be
nice if Governor McMaster were
here because of course he is
one of the principal keys to
this problem. PPP's head, Bryan
Stirling is Department of
Corrections. They're his
appointees. They work in a sense
for us but really they respond
to him they report to him I can
tell you that there's a
marvelous program out of
Charleston that I was a part of
offering
to the Department of
Corrections. It's an educational
program. People from outside
come in they don't get paid they
are volunteers, they bring books
They teach English, they teach
history to people who didn't
pay attention in school or
never had an opportunity to go.
They're improving their lives
but it took us many many months
not because of of of Bryan
Stirling who was very receptive
to this it took many months to
find the funding because there
had to be some oversight extra
security to get people in and
get people out. That's
counterproductive. The governor
can fix this or be a part of
the solution rather than
banging on the lectern and
saying we got to be tough on
crime because that's what's
going to get the votes. And it's
our governor and so if we're
talking about our governor,
then he should talk to his
friend Donald Trump, and take
this first
step back to the second step in
South Carolina, if they're truly
friends.I want to extend a nice
ivitation to Governor McMaster
definitely have him on the show
hopefully soon but
I want to thank both of you for
being on this
show. We got some great insight
about criminal justice reform
and the state of criminal
justice in South Carolina
and thank you for joining us.
also check out the South
Carolina Lede, It's a political
podcast that can be found on
your podcast app on any mobile
device. Each week I recap the
weekly political news with
reporters to cover it.
From the Kennedy Greenhouse
Studio on the campus of the
University of South Carolina,
I'm Gavin Jackson.
♪
♪
