Welcome SD Marsy’s Law to the dakotawarcollege.com Advertiser’s row.

The South Dakotans promoting Marsy’s Law are our newest advertiser here at the SDWC, and will be with us through the election.

SouthDKBlogGraphicTake a moment to click on their ad, and check out their website, and please do so for all of our advertisers such as United States Senator John Thune, Americans for Prosperity SD Chapter, Congresswoman Kristi Noem, the fine barristers at Redstone Law Firm, as well as my own Dakota Campaign Store, one of the State’s largest suppliers of campaign materials.

And if you might be interested, we do have other advertising spots available. Drop a note to the webmaster for more information!

66 thoughts on “Welcome SD Marsy’s Law to the dakotawarcollege.com Advertiser’s row.

  1. Anonymous

    This proposal is simply BAD.

    Criminal actions are brought against defendants by the STATE and in the name of the STATE, not by or in the name of individuals who report being harmed by the defendant There are no VICTIMS unless there is a crime proven. This group proposes that EVERY criminal charge presumes guilt–and that’s just not the American way.

    The stated goals:

    1. The right to be treated with courtesy, fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice proceedings.

    It is insanity that one may file a criminal complaint without revealing his/her identity. It is a BEDROCK principle of American jurisprudence that an accused KNOW the identity of his accuser. Imagine the absolute mayhem created by anonymous criminal accusations!

    2. The right to receive information about their rights and the services available to crime victims.

    The US justice system is designed to charge and try a DEFENDANT. As such, a would-be “victim” has no “rights”. Furthermore, there are no “victims” if there is no guilt found–so how do we protect the “rights” of folks who may or may not be victims?

    3. The right to receive timely notification of proceedings and other major developments in their case.

    Court schedules are public records, and court hearings are open to the public. In many states, the schedules available on-line. Moreover, many if not most hearings have no bearing on the “victim” and would be a waste of any interested party’s time. It’s NOT the “victim’s case”.

    4. The right to receive timely notification of changes to the offender’s custodial status. The right to be present at court proceedings.

    The first is reasonable, and shoudl be made available to anyone who wishes to have it. The second is not a “right”, but is already available. Court proceedings are ALREADY open to the public, numbskulls.

    5. The right to provide input to the prosecutor before the plea agreement is finalized.

    No. So-called “victims” are too close and emotionally attached to an alleged crime to offer balanced or valuable input. The creation of any such right will only burden the court and further delay justice.

    6. The right to be heard at plea or sentencing proceedings or any process that may result in the offender’s release.

    This is ALREADY available!

    7. The right to restitution.

    Restitution is already available to aggrieved parties. Now, collecting restitution may be problematic since we don’t have debtor’s prisons anymore, but that’s a whole other discussion.

    In sum, this is simply nonsense, and mostly unnecessary.

    Can you imagine the havoc that would befall the system, and the punishment of innocent accused, if “rape culture” fanatics create a whole publicly funded and enforced support system within the court system for their agenda?

    Enough with “rights”. Enough with these crusades.

    MOVE ON.

    1. Victim

      Enough with the fear-monger int- It has been law in California for nearly 8 years and your claims are proven to be baseless and unfounded. Similar language has been in at least 15 state constitutions for years and it is similar to the federal crime victims’s rights act. Victims deserve these rights!

      1. Anonymous

        ” It has been law in California for nearly 8 years ”

        I guessed you missed the declaration that Marsy’s law was unconstitutional in March, 2014.

        UNINFORMED fear-mongering is the worst!

        1. Jason Glodt

          The California version included extensive sentencing and parole reform that resulted in longer sentences. Some of those provisions were ruled unconstitutional. South Dakota’s language does not include any sentence or parole reform. The provisions in South Dakota’s language are all existing law in other states and have withstood the test of time for constitutional challenges.

          1. Anonymous

            So when “Victim” cited California’s experience with Marcy’s law to support Marcy’s Law for SD, you neglected to correct her; but when I pointed out her inaccurate information, you decided to respond within minutes!

            “are all existing law in other states and have withstood the test of time for constitutional challenges.”

            So you say.

  2. Anonymous

    Love glodt. Dislike this law.

    Where is Jackley on this issue? I can’t imagine he supports it. He should issue a statement so sd voters know if it’s good or bad.

  3. grudznick

    I question this Marsys law all the more now if Mr. Glodt is advertising just for advertising. You should have him write a blogging to explain it all because it is very confusing for old people. Mr. Glodt was blogging to all get out over at Mr. H’s place but it was not about the real issues. I say have Mr. Glodt put a blogging here that explains it all because people really don’t understand. Why wouldn’t the libbies be all over this in favor of victims’ rights since it seems like most victims are libbies? I’m just sayin, but this Mr. Glodt needs to step up his game a bit if he’s advertising here on your blog without blogging.

    1. Jason Glodt

      I’m more than happy to answer any question you have. Fire away. Marsy’s Law is a Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights. Every section in Marsy’s Law exists either in current South Dakota state law, federal law or in other state’s laws. Marsy’s Law for South Dakota s modeled after the Federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act that was passed by Congress in 2004. It is also based on model language that was passed in California (2008) and Illinois (2014). It is also very similar to the victims’ rights constitutional amendment passed by Arizona in 1990 and many other states. Thirty-two states have passed constitutional amendments to give rights for crime victims.

      Here are some reasons why we need Marsy’s Law in SD…

      1. SD has some of the weakest crime victim laws in the nation.

      2. SD is one of only 18 states that have no constitutional rights for crime victims.

      3. SD statutes lack clear enforceability and remedies. In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court stated there can be no right without a remedy… therefore, in essence, SD’s existing crime victims’ rights statutes are not rights.

      4. The current SD Crime Victims’ Rights Act is very limited in scope. It only applies to victims of crimes of violence, simple assault between persons in a relationship, stalking or victims of a driving under the influence vehicle accident. There are many serious crimes for which the victims have no rights under current SD law, including vehicular homicide, simple assault, misdemeanor sexual assaults, intimidation, harassment, reckless driving, theft, identify theft, human trafficking, or hate crimes.

      5. SD law does not require crime victims to be notified that they have rights- such notification should be a basic threshold right.

      6. Constitutional rights elevate victims’ rights to the place they belong. Victims are the individuals most harmed by crime and yet too often they are an afterthought in our criminal justice system – even with statutory rights. Marsy’s Law would be a recognition that our criminal justice system should respect victims as much as it respects defendants.

      7. SD is one of only five states that does not have an automated notification system for crime victims. The state is in the process of implementing the Statewide Automated Victim Information Notification (SAVIN) system, but it won’t be available to all crime victims. Marsy’s Law will require that it be made available to all victims of all crimes instead of only those covered by the current SD Crime Victim’s Act.

      8. Marsy’s Law will give victims the right to prevent the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass them or their family.

      9. Marsy’s Law will give victims a constitutional right to restitution and make their restitution a priority.

      10. Marsy’s Law affords victims a right to protection from intimidation, harassment and abuse from their offender.

      1. Anonymous

        There are NO VICTIMS without a conviction.

        Got it?

        How often do “victims” who report crimes turn out to have filed false reports, Mr. Glodt?

        1. Christie

          Wow- this is a disturbing comment. If someone is raped or assaulted, they deserve to be notified when the accused offender is released on bond and they should also have the right to testify at the bond hearing. The criminal justice system takes time and we need to protect victims during the process. We need this law in SD.

          1. Anonymous

            “Wow- this is a disturbing comment.”

            Only for the unthinking.

            If someone is falsely accused of rape or assault, they deserve to be protected from the machine arrayed against them.

            “notified when the accused offender is released on bond and they should also have the right to testify at the bond hearing. ”

            They ALREADY do, genius.

            “We need this law in SD.”

            Wow, that is disturbing.

      2. Anonymous

        “5. SD law does not require crime victims to be notified that they have rights- such notification should be a basic threshold right.”

        Mr. Glodt–what “rights’ do victims in SD have for which they need to be notified?

        1. Jason Glodt

          The right outlined in Marsy’s Law… including to be notified when a hearing has been scheduled, the right to be heard at every stage of the criminal justice process, the right to be notified when an offender is released from custody and the right to obtain a pre-sentence report.

          Victims would be given a Marsy’s Card explaining their rights and information about who they can contact for assistance. Here is a link to the card they use in California. https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/victimservices/marsy_pocket_en_res.pdf?

          1. Anonymous

            You didn’t answer the question.

            You wrote this: “SD law does not require crime victims to be notified that they have rights”

            What rights do SD “victims” have NOW that they should be notified of?

      3. Anonymous

        “10. Marsy’s Law affords victims a right to protection from intimidation, harassment and abuse from their offender”

        It is a CRIME in SD to harass or intimidate or abuse victims/witnesses now, no matter who does it.

        So, what’s new?

      1. Dakota Conservative

        I do not care which side of the isle you are on, when you hold up California and Illinois as examples for something to be done, that throws a big red flag down on what is being pushed. Two VERY LIBERAL states. Kind of like 30 people bought something because the other guy had it, so that means, wow, we must need it also. I don’t think so.

  4. Anne Beal

    I don’t like any focus on victims in a criminal proceeding because it suggests that some victims are more important than others. If a victim is survived by a loving family the perpetrator will end up serving a longer sentence than if the victim was a homeless drifter.
    If a parole board bases their decisions according to how many grieving relatives show up at their hearings, well, I have a problem with that.

    1. Jason Glodt

      Hello Anne, Marsy’s Law would give basic rights to all crime victims… primarily the right to be notified of all proceedings and the right to be heard. It will give victims the right to be heard in a sentencing, but only the judge and jury have authority over sentencing and duration. Victims also deserve the right to be heard at parole hearings and parole board members should take their concerns into consideration. I agree that the parole board shouldn’t base their decision on how many relatives show up to testify, but those victims should have a right to be heard. There are many examples across the country where people have been paroled who later killed or harmed others. I believe the parole board should hear from as many concerned victims as possible before they release someone from jail so they are fully aware of the potential problems.

    1. Jason Glodt

      Your statement is not correct. Sections in California’s version THAT ARE NOT IN SOUTH DAKOTA’S LANGUAGE were declared unconstitutional. Nothing in South Dakota’s language has been declared unconstitutional by any jurisdiction and all provision are already existing law in either SD, an other state or federal law.

        1. Jason Glodt

          Because South Dakota’s existing statutes are not enforceable.

          In Marbury v. Madison, the United States Supreme Court declared: “The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.”

          One of the key legal principles on which Marbury relies is the notion that for every violation of a vested legal right, there must be a legal remedy. However, under current South Dakota law, victims’ rights are not enforceable because there are no legal remedies if they are violated.

          Marsy’s Law for South Dakota will change this. It will constitutionally guarantee victims’ rights, and in so doing, will also provide remedies to be applied by the court.

          1. Anonymous

            So…just make your case to legislators to tighten the laws and appropriate (not mandate) the expenditure requirements.

            Constitutional Amendment seems like overkill.

            1. Anonymous

              Amen.

              But once you slap a name,a cute face, and tragedy to legislation, it must be good and no one can (not should!) oppose it.

              Uh no.

              Here’s the principle: ANY proposed legislation named after a person (“designer law” ) is bad public policy PER SE.

              1. Kelly Lieberg

                Once again. Legislation via anecdote is a poor form of governance. Our “victim” culture will drown us all ! Another super example of why the thresholds for initiatives and amendments need to be increased to the municipal level. Praying upon ones compassions will not efdectually serve the whole.

          2. Anonymous

            In Marbury v. Madison, the United States Supreme Court declared: “The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men”

            Marbury dealt with FEDERAL law. How is that relevant to your proposal for SD law?

            Surely you’re not grasping at straws to bolster your “Marcy;s Law is as American as apple pie” view?

          3. Anonymous

            ” It will constitutionally guarantee victims’ rights, and in so doing, will also provide remedies to be applied by the court.”

            Another example: a defendant or convict escapes and the DOC fails to notify the victim in a timely manner. The convict is later captured without harm to anyone.

            What remedy does Marcy’s law create for victims that the court might enforce?

            An action against the DOC for monetary damages? What damage has the victim experienced?

            What utter & complete NONSENSE.

      1. Anonymous

        Let me try again:

        According to links on YOUR Marcy’s Law website ,the CA version as PASSED in 2008 is listed there on the website ( I can’t give the link so as to avoid too many links for the DWC gods)

        This 2008 amendment AS PASSED in CA was declared unconstitutional in 2014.

        Which is the SAME EXACT proposal (and language) for SD as listed here:

        http://marsyslaw.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/sd-marsy-law.pdf

        What the he!! am I missing?

        1. Jason Glodt

          This is incorrect, the South Dakota version of Marsy’s Law is not the exact same language of the California version. The SD version does not include sentencing reform, but the other provisions are very similar.

          1. Anonymous

            Okay, then show me the language in the CA version that was passed in 2008 (as linked on YOUR website) that was struck down in 2014.

  5. Anonymous

    ” so doing, will also provide remedies to be applied by the court.”

    What “remedies” will Marcy’s law create for courts to enforce?

    For example, let’s say that a “victim” was not notified of a bond hearing. What remedy for that situation does Marcy’s law create for the court to enforce?

    1. Jason Glodt

      If a victim is not notified of a hearing, the victims would have legal standing to have the hearing re-done so they have a right to be heard.

      1. Anonymous

        That ain’t gonna fly!

        A defendant has a constitutional RIGHT to have bond set at a bond hearing.

        The absence of a “victim” does not and will not supersede that constitutional right.

        1. Jason Glodt

          You are correct for bond hearings, in those cases victims would be guaranteed notice and the right to be heard. Marsy’s Law can’t supersede the rights of an accused. A good example of a hearing that would be redone is a plea hearing if the victim is not notified or given the right to be heard.

          1. Anonymous

            So, what remedy is available to the court to enforce a “victim’s right” to be present at a bond hearing under this proposal?

            You claimed that any vested right without remedy is no right–so, what’s the legal remedy that you’re proposing when a victim is not present for or notified of a bond hearing?

            As I described, re-doing the bond hearing is ABSURD–what’s the legal remedy then?

      2. Anonymous

        Re-do the bond hearing?

        So, you’d have law enforcement go out and pick up the defendant who is out on bond, put him in jail for 1-2-3 nights, drag him back into court on Monday, and have a rehearing on the bond with the “victim” present?

        You CANNOT be serious!

        1. Jason Glodt

          See response above… You are correct for bond hearings, in those cases victims would be guaranteed notice and the right to be heard. Marsy’s Law can’t supersede the rights of an accused. A good example of a hearing that would be redone is a plea hearing if the victim is not notified or given the right to be heard.

          1. Anonymous

            “A good example of a hearing that would be redone is a plea hearing if the victim is not notified or given the right to be heard.”

            So your proposal would allow the re-opening of a plea agreement when? A week later? Two months later? Two years later? Whenever it would be convenient to the “victim” since it’s a RIGHT of the victim to be heard?

            NO COURT is going to countenance re-opening a plea agreement once accepted by the court, nor would any defense attorney, not would most states’ attorneys.

            This is wholly unworkable.

            You’re promising unicorns.

  6. Oldguy

    It would be interesting who these anonymous posters are. Jason at less backs up what he says by putting his name to it. I really wonder if Marsy Law is even need.

    1. Jason Glodt

      Thanks Oldguy. Marsy’s Law is needed to give enforceable rights to crime victims. South Dakota has some of the weakest crime victim rights in the nation. 32 other states have granted victims state constitutional rights. It is time to give South Dakota crime victims the rights they deserve.

      1. Dakota Conservative

        I repeat, anything that is being pushed that holds up California or Illinois as a shining example of how things should be done is a big red flag, no matter what the issue is.

        1. Anonymous

          Certainly deserves greater scrutiny!

          As does the decision to accept money from this group.

          Not too long ago, the webguru ranted about the unconstitutionality (sic) of drug testing welfare recipients, and went on & on in chicken little fashion about collecting a urine sample from dying & demented grandma in the nursing home. It was debatable that drug testing was an efficient use of gov’t resources, but the over-the-top nonsense about testing grandma and little Susie Autistic and overbearing big gov’t laments lent nothing to that debate.

          Today of course, supporting unconstitutional proposals is an economic opportunity! I’m all for making some money here & there, but where’s the similar chicken-little- sky-is-falling-big-bad-government rhetoric about this Marsy’s law proposal?

          1. Dakota Conservative

            Just something to think on, how many lawyers are pushing this law. Is it for the “true victims” or is it for the benefit of lawyers? Where is the money coming from that supports this law. While I have compassion for “victims” I do not think that more laws and regulations are the fix all answer to all that is going on. Adjust a law “a little” that is already there, do not create a whole new one that can create more problems than it fixes.

        2. Jason Glodt

          Marsy’s Law model language has passed in 2 states, however, 31 other states have also passed constitutional rights for crime victims in varying degrees. Arizona has had language very similar to the language in Marsy’s Law in their constitution since 1990. Most states have strengthened rights for crime victims, however, South Dakota has not yet done so.

          1. Anonymous

            What rights should a drug dealer have after being shot by a rival in a deal gone bad?

            He’s a victim under Marsy’s law, right?

    2. Anonymous

      It would be interesting to know who Oldguy is. Jason at less backs up what he says by putting his name to it.

      Nearly all of the anonymous posts are mine. Just call me anonymous.

      I’m not paid by anyone or any party.

      1. Springer

        Why not at least give yourself a “handle” when posting? I am so tired of all the anonymous posters. I don’t care if I know why you are; it would just be nice to know if it’s the same person posting all the comments or some different opinions. I don’t necessarily want anyone to know my name, but I do want the readers to know it’s me.

        1. Anonymous

          “I don’t necessarily want anyone to know my name, but I do want the readers to know it’s me.”

          I respect that, and I think most do. Unfortunately, the “paranoid prick” Troy Jones has little respect for your reasons. And that’s just not very Christian.

    3. Charlie Hoffman

      Amen!! Old guy I was thinking the exact thing. At least J. Glodt has the HUEVOS to fight the good fight with HIS name on the line.

      All the other Yahoos are Blog Snipers.

  7. Troy Jones

    Springer, I don’t even need to know your reason. I respect that you use a consistent handle and appreciate your contributions to the discussion. As a favor to you, on occasion, I’ll continue to point out which anonymous is Andrew. Sometimes it isn’t needed since he has his own distinct style and focus. I’m sure you understand.

    1. Springer

      It would still be nice to be able to distinguish one poster from another. I don’t know Andrew from Adam and don’t care to; it would just be nice to know if one person is doing all the negative or positive posts or if it is a variety of people. A “handle” doesn’t give away anyone’s name; it just makes it easier to follow the conversation here.

  8. grudznick

    I think young Mr. Glodt has convinced me. I was leaning as it was based on who all is against this new law for Marsy but I think he has convinced me.

    1. Anonymous

      Where did he go?

      He was so eager to answer questions at first, but when the tough questions were posed, he went away!

      He claimed that the language in California’s Marsy’s law, that was later found to be unconstitutional, is not part of the SD proposal…

      but he cannot tell us what that [unconstitutional] language is even when California’s law AS PASSED is on his website!