Editorials from across South Carolina: littering, unfit eleced officials

S.C. litter law

South Carolina’s laws against littering should become more effective and enforceable with approval of amendments in 2018.

Revising the laws was needed to give officers and the courts greater flexibility in the prosecution of litter cases.

A key component Act 214 makes it easier to achieve court-ordered community service/litter pickup by removing the requirement for supervision. The litter-gathering community service portion of the penalty may not be suspended, except the court may, upon request, accept an additional monetary penalty equal to $15 per hour in lieu of the community service. Probation may be granted only due to physical or other incapacities.…

Changes in the law are a positive step, but they alone will not result in an end to the litter problem. While those deserving punishment should receive it in sufficient doses to make people aware the litter laws are real, putting a halt to littering is about pride.

For the majority of people not littering, those who do are mysteries. The questions remain: “Where have they been? Do they not know any better? Do they really care so little about their surroundings? Do they care about anything?”

Perhaps tougher enforcement of litter laws and stiffer penalties for violating them will get their attention and produce a change in behavior.

Mayor removed

Gov. Henry McMaster was not only operating within the law when he removed Ware Shoals Mayor John Hansen from office, he was also doing what needed done.…

A minor traffic violation would not warrant removal from office by the state’s highest elected office, but certain crimes do rise to that level. For example, several state sheriffs have been found guilty of committing the very crimes they are supposed to make arrests for or prevent. They have broken the very laws they were sworn to uphold. And when they were found guilty, they were removed from office by the governor. Most, one would hope, would simply resign and not force the removal issue, but all too often those who are elected to offices think of themselves as above the law.

The state’s constitution gives the governor the authority to remove someone found guilty of a “crime involving moral turpitude.” That constitutional article exists for an obvious reason: All too often, those who are guilty of such crimes are not going to voluntarily step down from the public office they hold.

And why does that matter?

It matters because people who are in elected office are, for better or worse, held to a higher standard than those who elect them. We expect — and should expect — those who write and pass the laws, those who levy property taxes, those who enforce the laws, codes and statutes to uphold and abide by them. When they do not, then their ability to serve, their capacity to serve, their right to serve comes into question.