Every once in a while, someone comes up with a great idea. This is not one of them.
Levi Breyfogle of Rapid City is starting the process to get a constitutional measure on the ballot that has the goal to eliminate many crimes from actually being crimes. He’s sent a measure to the Legislative Research Council for review and set up a website to promote his new system of government.
If you could call it that. Government, that is.
No victim, no crime. Is a popular saying in circles that value freedom. What this amendment would do is exactly that. Require a victim for a crime to have been committed. If no one was damaged and is willing to press charges there can be no crime.
and…
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
That Article VI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota be amended by adding NEW SECTIONS to read as follows:§ 30. In order for a violation of the law to have been committed each of the following shall occur:
(1) A charge of a violation may only be filed by a individual victim whose person or property have been physically damaged by the defendant. If the victim is incapable of filing a charge of a violation, a family member may, but only if the victim does not object; and
(2) The damages must be physical, quantifiable, and have already occured.§ 31. Each known victim in any pending case on July 1, 2021, in the law enforcement, judicial, or correctional systems shall be notified and the victim may file a charge of a violation. If no victim files a charge of a violation, the case, sentence, or outstanding fine shall be dropped by October 1, 2021. If a charge if filed, the charge shall be initially reviewed within 30 days to verify the person filing the charge was a probable victim of a willful, direct, physical action of the defendant. No restitution shall be paid for time or fines already paid by any person currently or previously incarcerated or paying fines even if a charge of a violation is dropped pursuant to this section.
§ 32. No public funds of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, may be expended for the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation regulating any case that is in violation of this amendment. No personnel or property of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, may be utilized for the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that is in violation of this amendment.
and…
How will the government interfere with our day to day lives?
After passing this they really won’t be able to.and..
What would this do to the economy?
It would lower costs when you bought anything. It would allow anyone to do any kind of work they wanted to and were able. It would reduce the costs invloved with starting nearly any business greatly allowing for lower prices, higher wages, and more profits.
This measure doesn’t serve to increase liberty as much as it does to utterly eliminate the criminal code, save for the direct physical harm of another person.
So, according to the proposal, if I wanted to manufacture pipe bombs and sell them to 18-year-olds, it appears that according to the measure, I could legally do that, and the state would be barred from cooperating with the federal government to stop me.
Under this proposed constitutional amendment, I’m also reading it to potentially legalize prostitution, brothels, and selling crack.
That doesn’t exactly sound like a good idea. But maybe that’s just me. It sounds more like anarchy.
Unless you’re into pipe bombs, brothels, and crack. Then it might be your thing.
This is really stupid
Worse than Marsy’s Law and that is saying something
Read the actual Ammendment yourself. Do not take someone’s word as good enough.
The only thing worse than your theories of government is your spelling.
An extra “m”…. Mmy most sincere apologies 😂 What a joke.
I’m guessing somebody’s got an illicit underground greenhouse and too much time to think.
probably another new approach south Dakota assisted suicide associate
A SOLID NO! and I see on his website there is another proposed Amendment that is equally crazy similar in nature.
I wonder if he can make a music video though? 🙂
They seem to be along the same lines.
Reactions are typical so far… Listen to what you’re told, do no research or actual thought, and follow the leaders right off the cliff. Has anyone stopped to think why legislative and beaurocrats circles are panicking to the degree of their biased opinions being fed immediately to the public as to corral even the thought of the positives and what this may actually do for not just us, but our children’s freedom?
“what this may actually do for not just us, but our children’s freedom?”
It would turn us into Bogota at the height of narco-terrorism, or parts of Mexico now. Lawless lands where drugs are freely sold, and people get their heads chopped off.
Pedophiles, Child Pornography, All sorts of predators out there as those that prey on those who are mentally disabled , the elderly and all sorts out there. Sex trafficking, normalization of mind altering drug use, scammers. It makes you wonder what kind of economy and job creation they were thinking of? What state of mind and where it was thought up.
There are reasons we have laws and punishments that fit the crimes.
This amendment would do more for personal freedom than you can currently imagine. To begin, the people/state would save millions from not having to lock up and fine people for “crimes” where there is no victim.
As added benefits you wouldn’t need permission to start any kind of business. It would lower the costs of starting a small business to hundreds rather than tens of thousands. You could open a restaurant for the cost of a grill and some food.
Your narrowing this to the worst you can see happening is disappointing. Somehow it has become popular to think freedom is something to be afraid of and we need a huge government to survive. It is not and we don’t. Many people still believe in a small government. Small government does not equal anarchy.
In your examples someone selling a pipe bomb could be charged with conspiracy if he knew it would be used to commit any crime same as it is now. People can buy things that are explosive, so I’m not sure of the point, this wouldn’t change anything.
True, the police wouldn’t be able to set up stings for prostitutes or even strip clubs anymore. So they would miss out on that fun! Maybe they could spend less time at strip clubs and more time solving robberies, rapes, assaults, and murders.
Levi it would work in a perfect make believe world but that is not reality.
I’d note that no one here so far has given anything resembling a logical reason to oppose the amendment. I have a couple of questions for Levi though:
(1) Would a quantifiable loss of property resulting from malicious defamation qualify as “physical” damages?
(2) If someone didn’t have a family member willing to file a charge, could that person be legally murdered?
Thanks for providing real argument.
(1) It probably would. Since it is a constitutional amendment the details would ultimately be decided by the courts.
(2) That is a great point and one I didn’t see. It needs to be changed from family.
Another possible problem I noticed is how it doesn’t currently specify theft. Do you know in SD is theft considered damage?
“victim whose person or property have been physically damaged ~or stolen~ by the defendant.”
HB1006 slows the initiated measure process down during the legislative session which isn’t great. However getting to meet with the LRC and discussing how they see the amendment’s effects and if it matches what the intended purpose is could be very helpful. If I choose to go forward with this after rewriting I will be happy to meet with them and hopefully further clarify the intent.
It seems that each year more and more laws are added and I never saw a way to make people more free until I realized the constitution is the rights of the people. Maybe this or any form of it isn’t the way, but I want people to be more free. I don’t see any other way. Becoming a politician and arguing or killing a law or regulation when 5 more pass doesn’t seem like it will ever make us more free as a people.
I am just a citizen of this state who has lived here nearly my whole life. I have no law degree or title. I also don’t have the organization, money, or time to collect the 50,000 signatures needed to make this happen. Mostly I want to let others know that it is possible to make a huge difference.
All of your inputs are appreciated and if anyone sees anything else that could be changed to make it more palatable please let me know. I may not respond to comments on here but you can reach me via email at [email protected]
Thanks for responding to my questions. To answer yours, no, I don’t know the details of South Dakota’s laws regarding theft.
Advancing the cause of liberty is a noble goal. Best wishes.
“Somehow it has become popular to think freedom is something to be afraid of and we need a huge government to survive. It is not and we don’t. Many people still believe in a small government. Small government does not equal anarchy.”
If children started school at six months old and their teachers gave them walking lessons, within a single generation people would come to believe that humans couldn’t learn to walk without going to school.
Pipe bombs, brothels, and crack. I rest my case.
Use a lick of common sense for a minute, would you?
Show me a law that has stopped everyone from doing any one thing. There is none. The human will is programmed to want to do as it sees fit, regardless of what some words on a page says. Law is not the answer to anything pertaining to actual freedom as defined by Merriam Webster.
If you could drive 200 mph, and it didn’t matter, would you? Probably Not! I highly doubt you would have the skill to do so, even if desired. The fact of it is, you would go at whatever speed you feel comfortable. Just because a “rule” wouldn’t say you could do x,y,or z does not mean you will.
By your logic, everyone would push everything to the limits…. This is nothing short of ludicrous. Our own instincts and knowledge stop us short of harm. So tell me exactly do you believe in- Socially “accepted” tyranny by compounding law, or do you Really believe in Actual freedom?
Oregon would be a better state for you to attempt this. South Dakota is not interested.
You…. Are Not The Voice Of South Dakota. I live here as well, and find your ignorance on the subject quite off putting. Educate yourself, and quit acting as tho you are all this state has to offer.
Among others this is a sex predators dream.
All the predator has to do is say “if you file a charge, I will rape your mom and sisters.” Charges dropped.
This is Anonymous 9:20. Troy’s point resembles a logical reason to oppose the amendment.
When I read “nobody” yet we were saying the same thing, I figured I had been unclear. Your question makes it clearer.
BTW, lets not confuse this bill with “small government” as it shrinks no programs or spending or reduce any taxes. It changes who can file criminal charges from “the people” to the victim.
So who files on behalf of the little girl molested by dad with mom’s consent?
This is a prima facia case why we need higher standards for what Constitutional Amendments can get on the ballot and raising the threshold for passage.
The passage of poorly written (but good intent) Marsy’s Law is bad enough. This would be chaos probably requiring the federal courts to take us over to restore order.
As would passage of Amendment W, as it creates clear conflicts with the existing state constitution.
Troy, Troy, Troy…. Are you by chance a happy statist? Adding this Ammendment does not do away with the actual punishable crimes such as Rape, Murder, & Theft.Why would you show such ignorance publicly?
“crimes” where there is no victim” Ahh! The classic Libertarian cop out from responsibility argument which can be a very selfish outlook. There usually are victims though.
A bit heavy for a state this red. Maybe start with just trying to get pot legalized before jumping into Libertarian paradise. We South Dakotans like our laws and we like when people follow them. Drugs and prostitution aren’t victimless crimes either. It infects the mind. Some laws we put in place to maintain the moral fabric of society. We’d like to maintain that moral fabric unlike most blue states.
Most mainstream libertarians would probably ask whether the harm caused by drugs and prostitution outweighs the harm caused by hunting people down and locking them in cages.
**Acting as though your moral base is superior to someone else’s
Usually this is all about the ability to use drugs including pot since it is a drug without any consequences. There are victims. Even the Netherlands are starting to clamp down with a number of drug and societal issues they have been having.
And we need people like you to tell us how we should behave? Acting as though your moral base in comparison to someone else’s, is called Socialism. You may like your laws, but you definitely do not speak for the majority of the people that I have come in contact with, and had conversations with on this very subject.
Fact is- If you actually stop to take the time to talk to people about these things, you would find an astonishing percentage of the population that believes just as Levi does. Difference here, he found a way to make the desire publicly known. Furthermore, he is doing something to actually further the founding principles of this land, which is more than I can say for Any politician.
You would have more success with Heidelberger, Mentele and their connections. They are more into this.