Domestic violence victims could get access to their abuser’s location if SC bill passes
With South Carolina still ranking among the worst states in the nation for domestic violence, a state lawmaker is pushing legislation aimed at making victims safer by letting them know when their alleged abuser is nearby.
The bill, discussed by a House Judiciary panel Wednesday, would allow a judge to order a domestic violence suspect to wear a GPS monitor, and that monitor would notify the victim in the case when the suspect is in his or her vicinity.
For example, if a judge orders a potential offender not to come within 1,000 feet of a victim, and the suspected abuser breaks that order, the victim would receive a message about the violation.
One of the bill’s sponsors, S.C. Rep. William Bailey, R-Horry, said the bill was aimed at “allowing the victim to truly feel safe by knowing where the aggressor was.”
The GPS monitor would be considered as an option when a judge is making a ruling about whether to set a bond, Bailey said. While he hopes a judge would pick either using the monitoring system or setting a bond amount, he said in extreme cases, a judge could set both.
“I’m not trying to take away the bond and the ability of a judge to set a bond on an individual,” Bailey said. “I want to add an extra tool with this device.”
A similar system is currently used in Oklahoma, Bailey told his colleagues. But while Oklahoma’s law allows judges to dole out monitors that victims can use to track their location to suspected domestic assault, domestic battery, stalking, harassment, sexual assault and forcible sodomy abusers, South Carolina’s proposed bill only includes suspects of domestic violence.
The bill faces questions.
S.C. Rep. Cezar McKnight, D-Williamsburg, said he was concerned that the state’s poorer residents would not be able to pay the fees associated with wearing the GPS monitor, which could cost anywhere from $40 a month to $10 a day, according to Bailey.
Bailey said he hoped that the payments for the monitor would take the place of a bond assigned by a judge.
S.C. Rep. Jay Jordan, R-Florence, questioned whether the new option would be used equitably by judges across the state.
“You can get very different experiences depending on the judge or what court room you’re in or what county you’re in,” Jordan said.
State Rep. Chris Murphy, R-Dorchester, was concerned that the option could end up placing a financial burden on local law enforcement as they would have to expand or contract out for monitoring programs. Jarrod Bruder, the executive director of the S.C. Sheriff’s Association, echoed that concern.
Ultimately, the panel decided Wednesday to study Oklahoma’s program more closely before passing the bill to the full Judiciary Committee.
