Another example of why legislators need to fix South Dakota’s system of restitution.
*Updated*
I was in meetings all day Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and let me tell you – they were long, long days.
All work and no play makes PP a dull boy. But I did have a couple of interludes that re-energized my political batteries. First, I was approached about possibly serving as the governmental representative for an org I’m involved in. That was cool, and we’ll have to see if it works out. No lobbying is involved, but it’s still nice to be thought of.
In another instance, I had a chance to chat with one of the staffers involved in a US Senate race, and I got a quick update on some of the upcoming activities. Also cool.
The third was probably the best, but it was not cool. I was speaking to one of my bosses (you work two jobs, and you serve many masters), and I was offhandedly mentioning to him that I’m on a bit of a crusade to reform South Dakota’s system of how restitution is handled.
His comment was “you know, I read about a case like that in the Brookings newspaper where someone who had sexually assaulted a young girl got let off the hook for paying for her therapy, despite the expense being included in the judge’s order because the criminal was discharged from parole.”
This was a case I hadn’t noticed (probably because I wasn’t in Brookings when it happened), but after I did a little digging, I see that’s exactly what happened. And once I found it, I knew exactly what the case was.
What were the facts?
Several years ago, a person named Jeffrey Holsing had been accused of sexually abusing a young girl. According to the Supreme court decision, in 1998, Holsing pleaded nolo contendere to three counts of sexual contact with a minor. One of the three victims was R.S.
On August 12, 1998, the trial court sentenced Holsing to three concurrent 7-1/2 year terms in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. The trial court suspended three years of each sentence on certain conditions, one of which was Holsing make restitution to the victims for the costs of counseling. The trial court further ordered that restitution be paid according to a schedule to be determined by the Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board), should Holsing make parole.
On December 13, 2002, the Board held a restitution hearing. The victims were given notice of the hearing. The amount of restitution for R.S. was set at $5,709.25. R.S. did not object to the Board’s plan of restitution. Holsing paid restitution of $5,709.25 to R.S. while on parole.
The trial court advised Holsing that restitution would be a part of his sentence. As part of the sentence it ordered Holsing to pay restitution to the victims for the costs of counseling. It sentenced Holsing to the penitentiary and ordered the Board to determine the schedule of payment of restitution.
After Holsing was discharged from parole, bills from on-going therapy for the little girl were submitted in the amount of $190,768.83. And (according to existing law,) because he had been discharged from parole, he was utterly off the hook, leaving the family holding the bag for the therapy that the judge intended Holsing to pay for.
Read the decision here for yourselves. (and for political junkies, the victim’s family was represented by Bill Janklow).
Because the offender had been discharged from parole, there was no way for the family to collect, outside of suing him (which has plenty of pitfalls itself, including bankruptcy).
So because of some of the flaws in our system, an offender got off from paying for the therapy of an abused little girl.
Another reason the broken system needs to be fixed.
*UPDATE*
I just wanted to let you know what I thought was a productive discussion this (Monday) AM with a member of the Governor’s Staff regarding this issue.
From our discussion, I believe they recognize that how restitution orders are carried out is a problem for victims who think they might be taken care of, but end up victimized again . I don’t know if I dare say there might be light at the end of the tunnel, but I think things are actually moving in a positive direction.
If this keeps up, I might have to use this as an example of how the system CAN work.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
#1 PP may be a dull boy, but your post does nothing to help educate him or us. Care to be more specific and tell us why you think PP is so dull?
#1 calls it dull to want to reform laws to help victims – in this case a victim of sexual abuse?
Either he’s in junior high school, or his home address has “cellblock” in it.
This is a travesty of justice. If you can find a way to remedy this situation with legislation, I would be VERY interested in signing on to your bill.
I understand your frustration with this issue..so the answer is to change the law.
Unfortunately, laws cannot be made retroactive. That is called an ex post facto law, and it is unconstitutional.
whenever we make laws, we establish a border. For example, it is a violation of the law to operate a motor vehicle of your blood alcohol count is over 0.08%. Now, we have established a line. Let’s assume that someone consumes alcohol and a tragedy ensues. The driver’s blood alcohol count os 0.0798%. Legally, they had every right to be on the road. But the outcry of “this is a travesty of justice” would be heard loud and clear.
Should this individual have paid more restitution? Yes. Then it was the job of the court, and the state to set that parameter years ago.
You can’t have unlimited bites at the apple.
RLM, I’m not frustrated with the amount (as ordered by the judge) as much as how DOC manages the process – which is on going and constantly changes.
What I would like to change is how the system is handled as a while.
I think we’ll see progress, and even if I can’t change a thing for my dad, if the system is fixed, it may have been worth it.
You ARE a dull boy, dumbass