|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The case of accused teen rapist Bowen Turner – which exposed serious flaws in South Carolina’s judicial system – came before the Palmetto State’s second-highest court this week.
Our research director Jenn Wood provided the full treatment of these proceedings, as attorneys representing crime victims urged the court to guarantee their right to publicly address South Carolina courts before a violent offender’s plea deal is accepted – something Turner’s victims were not allowed to do.
Turner, thrice accused of raping teenage girls, was offered a plea deal by the office of S.C. second circuit solicitor Bill Weeks – a controversial agreement which reduced multiple felony charges to a misdemeanor assault charge.
Speaking with FITSNews after the hearing, Chloe Bess – one of the three women who accused Turner of rape – said that if she had been able to speak to address the court, the outcome may have been different.
“If I was given the opportunity, I would have hoped that they would have heard me out, and maybe some things would have been different,” she said. “When you’re getting charged with a felony and then it gets brought down to a misdemeanor, and I basically have no say in that. It just makes me feel walked on – and like nobody’s listening to me.”
***
Attorney Meliah Bowers Jefferson said South Carolina’s constitutionally enshrined victim’s bill of rights already guarantees violent crime victims the right to address judges prior to the acceptance of plea deals offered by the state – but that this constitutional right is being systemically ignored.
“Our constitution already provides those rights to victims,” she said. “What we’re saying is that right now, in courts all over South Carolina, those victims rights are being ignored. Justice requires for us to hear from a victim at a meaningful time, a time when it actually will matter what they have to say, and the before plea phase is where it actually could matter.”
Judge Stephanie McDonald expressed discontent with the plea deal offered to Turner, but added she was unsure her court was the appropriate place to remedy the issue – suggesting it may ultimately be the responsibility of state legislators to statutorily mandate a change to the plea process.
Jefferson said if the court passes on the issue “then the legislature needs to act to make sure that the voice and the will of the people of South Carolina is something that is actually heard.”
“The amendment for victims rights was overwhelmingly approved,” she said. “It is the public policy of the state, and legislators, in my opinion, would be derelict of their duty if they did not put forth rules that allow for true, practical enforcement of those rights.”
(Click to view)
***
In addition to determining whether the rights of Turner’s alleged victim were violated, the appellate court also considered whether Turner’s rights were violated when he was placed on the state’s sex offender registry.
Attorney Robert M. Dudek of the S.C. Commission on Indigent Defense (SCCID) claimed the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Turner to register as a sex offender. According to Dudek, the state failed to show cause existed for placing Turner on the registry as no psychological evaluation was conducted indicating he was a risk to reoffend.
Turner was placed on the registry upon the activation of his Youthful Offender Act (YOA) sentence, which he triggered when he was arrested on Mother’s Day of 2022 and charged public disorderly conduct, violation of probation, threatening a public employee and being a minor in possession of alcohol.
“Why is that not pretty dispositive in explaining the plea as it was presented?” McDonald pointedly asked Dudek.
“At the end of the day, he is a risk to reoffend,” Bess said. “I mean, he’s done this three times, so I really don’t know how they can’t see that. And then, you know, from my understanding, the conditions of the bond were pretty black and white, and so you violate that these are your consequences.”
Bess argued that Turner’s placement on the registry is one of the first true consequences he’s faced.
“You did what you did, actions have consequences,” she said. “And up until this point… his actions have had almost zero consequences. So, you know, I think it’s absolutely ridiculous, but, I mean, they can certainly try. They have the right to and so we’ll just see how that goes.”
Count on FITSNews to keep our audience updated on what the court decides to do, although we do not expect it to announce its decisions in these cases for several weeks.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
(Via: Travis Bell)
Dylan Nolan is the director of special projects at FITSNews. He graduated from the Darla Moore school of business in 2021 with an accounting degree. Got a tip or story idea for Dylan? Email him here. You can also engage him socially @DNolan2000.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
2 comments
The only way he should have been granted a deal is if it included castration.
Oh great idea. Let’s let the victims now control plea negotiations. But that works both ways right? When a victim wants the charges dropped they get to make that call?