Jason Glodt gives me an excuse to put on my old conservative hat and lodge a bonus argument against his proposed “crime victims bill of rights” amendment to the state constitution.
In testimony yesterday to the Jolene’s Law Task Force (to whose mission by Glodt’s own admission yesterday his Marsy’s Law proposal is tangential at best), Glodt said that he himself had been a victim of a crime recently. (A gasp washes across the committee room, and we rename the proposal Jason’s Law.) Glodt said some drunk smashed a window on a building he owns and lives in. Under current law, said Glodt, the state’s attorney would not have to contact him, but the state’s attorney did anyway to talk restitution.
Here comes my conservative hat:
- Jason wants X to happen.
- No law requires X to happen.
- X happens nonetheless.
- Therefore, by Saints Buckley, Reagan, and Rand (genuflect to the passing Escalade and tell some derelict to get a job), the system works fine, and no law is needed.
Jason Glodt got the satisfaction he wants without a cutely named rewrite of the state constitution. Jason Glodt should rediscover the conservatism his party preaches and stop trying to write laws that South Dakota doesn’t need.
Isn’t Glodt an attorney? He is just showing that he is the professional political prostitute that his patron has paid for..
Fact: Petitions for the phony 18 percent loan shark cap are being circulated by those circulating Glodt’s apparently self-serving pet project.
Fact: Victims of crimes are already reasonably protected under current statutes. This provides an answer for which there is no question.
That leads me to wonder:
– Who is bankrolling this ballot measure? (I want real names of people and organizations, not a general response like “a bunch of attorneys”.)
– Who pays Glodt for his political consultant service to promote this unneeded proposal?
– How much is Glodt making?
– What is the budget for the ballot campaign?
– Other than providing more clutter for the law books, whose ox is being gored if this proposal passes and becomes law? (And don’t give me a general answer like “bad guys and their lawyers.”)
I’ve talked with a few veteran attorneys who are well connected in the state, and none of them have heard about Marsy’s Law. That verifies my deep suspicion that this ballot issue is not kosher.
Glodt should be willing to provide verifiable answers to the questions above and allow complete public access to this ballot campaign if there is a shred of usefulness to the proposal. If not, what would he be protecting?
Good questions, 96.
The brother of the murdered Marsy maintains a website and organization dedicated to enacting Marsy’s Law in all 50 states. That website does not appear to mention South Dakota’s push for Marsy’s Law; the news links appear not to have been updated since right after the 2014 elections, when Illinois voters apparently approved such a measure. I have not heard this organization making its presence known in South Dakota.
By the way, one Jerry Miller submitted a note to Glodt’s Marsy’s Law for South Dakota Facebook page pointing to SDCL Chapter 23A-28C, the Crime Victims Act, which appears to lay out for victims pretty much everything Glodt proposes in his constitutional amendment.
SDCL 23A-28C-7 and 23A-28C-8 authorize counties to create victim assistants, who seem to carry out the legal consultation Glodt thinks he needs to write into the constitution, as well as far more useful services for victims.
Victim’s dont get nothing from the state attorney and get beat down by the States attorney!!! and the Victim’s Assistants work for the state attorney. So she sits their with her head down when the states attorney is beating ppl down calling her a liar. Saying she has no rights! If you had ever been in trouble in the system u would all know how wrong it is!