|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A coalition of South Carolina solicitors is speaking out against a recently passed fentanyl homicide statute, warning it offers little real help in combating the deadly opioid crisis ravaging communities across the Palmetto State.
In a sharply worded statement released by the office of S.C. fourteenth circuit solicitor Duffie Stone – and signed by eleven other elected solicitors – the Palmetto State’s new “fentanyl-induced homicide” bill was blasted as ineffective, difficult to enforce and ultimately misleading for the victims’ families it was meant to empower.
“The recently passed fentanyl-induced homicide law … fails to provide prosecutors any real tools,” Stone wrote in the letter (.pdf). “It will be rarely used.”
In contrast to the “crucial first step” taken by lawmakers in 2023 with the passage of a fentanyl trafficking bill, the new legislation – S. 156 – “ensures the status quo,” prosecutors claimed.
“Under no circumstances will it be the game-changer some are touting it to be,” Stone wrote. “Unfortunately, it will give grieving parents false hope of holding drug pushers responsible for their kills.”
***
Passed by both chambers of the General Assembly – and currently awaiting the signature of governor Henry McMaster (a former attorney general and U.S. attorney) – the bill creates a new felony homicide offense for those who “knowingly provide” fentanyl that leads to someone’s death.
“Though the statute has other problems, the use of the word ‘knowingly’ will make it nearly impossible to prove,” Stone asserted in the letter.
According to him and his fellow prosecutors, criminals who claim they believed they were selling heroin or OxyContin will become “a standard defense.” Also, Stone and the solicitors referenced the glut of counterfeit pills pressed to mimic legitimate pharmaceuticals.
“Pills pressed with fake logos and false identifiers will provide an instant defense,” they wrote.
Instead of what they describe as an empty gesture, the solicitors are asking the S.C. General Assembly to pass legislation they believe would have real impact: a state-level Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law along with a comprehensive anti-gang statute.
“To stop the infiltration of fentanyl, we must stop the organizations that are distributing it,” Stone said. “There are manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors getting this substance into our communities. We can stop them with a state RICO and gang law.”
***
RELATED | SOUTH CAROLINA SEES ‘FENTANYL SURGE’
***
South Carolina remains one of the few states without its own RICO statute — a powerful prosecutorial tool that allows authorities to indict entire criminal enterprises, rather than taking down one defendant at a time.
“Without this tool, we must piecemeal prosecutions,” Stone said, “charging and prosecuting individuals for individual acts without being able to show the jury their over-arching criminal scheme.”
A gang enforcement bill – S. 76 – is currently pending before the legislature. Prosecutors say its passage could mark a turning point in the fight against organized drug distribution in South Carolina.
“Unlike the current fentanyl homicide law, its passage would be a game changer,” Stone wrote.
The letter was signed by solicitors from 11 of South Carolina’s sixteen circuits — including several from districts that have seen devastating impacts from fentanyl trafficking in recent years. Among its signatories: David Pascoe (first circuit); Bill Weeks (second circuit); Mike Burch (fourth circuit); Byron Gipson (fifth circuit); Randy Newman (sixth circuit); Barry Barnett (seventh circuit); David Stumbo (eighth circuit); Scarlett Wilson (ninth circuit); Rick Hubbard (eleventh circuit); Jimmy Richardson (fifteenth circuit); and Kevin Brackett (sixteenth circuit).
The solicitors’ statement reflected growing frustration within the prosecutorial community regarding its struggles to keep up with the scale and complexity of the fentanyl crisis. Overdose deaths in South Carolina — many linked to counterfeit pills and illicit drug trafficking networks — have surged in recent years, prompting calls for stronger enforcement tools at the state level.
Whether the S.C. General Assembly will advance the kind of legislation prosecutors say is necessary — such as a state RICO statute or gang enforcement bill — remains to be seen. But with fentanyl continuing to devastate communities across the Palmetto State, lawmakers face mounting pressure to move beyond symbolic gestures and deliver laws with real impact.
***
THE LETTER…
(S.C. Fourteenth Judicial Circuit)
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
Jenn Wood is FITSNews’ incomparable research director. She’s also the producer of the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts and leading expert on all things Murdaugh/ South Carolina justice. A former private investigator with a criminal justice degree, evildoers beware, Jenn Wood is far from your average journalist! A deep dive researcher with a passion for truth and a heart for victims, this mom of two is pretty much a superhero in FITSNews country. Did we mention she’s married to a rocket scientist? (Lucky guy!) Got a story idea or a tip for Jenn? Email her at jenn@fitsnews.com.
***
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.
6 comments
So we think tougher laws will be the answer? Is there any kind of War on Drugs that has been going on for nearly half a century that we could turn to as a data set for whether we can arrest and prosecute our way out of the drug problem?
The “War On Drugs” has been going on for well over fifty years. Like every “war” since WWII, we have been on the losing end. WOD has been nothing more than a flimsy excuse to abridge primarily our 4th and 2nd Amendment rights, and likely a few others.
Who cares niggers are the problem.
I am assuming you don’t understand the article because you cannot read. Or write. Or think. But this comment is beyond stupid. Just like you.
So what’s the solution?
Am I the only one who is finding the seemingly never-ending list of demands or requests by law enforcement and solicitors for designer laws, a bit disturbing? In recent years, and especially this year, police and solicitors seem to constantly be asking for new laws, designed to make their jobs easier and give them an almost certain slam-dunk in court for so many special situations “for the victims”, “for our safety” or maybe “gently barbed, for our pleasure”. Whether “strangulation” laws, “fentanyl” laws, “sexually oriented crime” laws, “DUI” laws, “CDV” laws, or whatever, the list never seems to end.
While no doubt, this would make their jobs easier, is this really what we want or desire? Back when such things were actually taught in school, we had a course called “Civics”, where we were told that our adversarial system of courts, while not perfect, is one of the fairest in the world. Like it or not, it was supposed to give the prosecution and defense equal footing from which to present their cases and convince a judge or jury.
These recent wish lists from police and prosecutors seem to be crafted to guarantee them convictions with minimal effort. Of course, they wrap these requests in the irresistible packaging of being “for the victims”, “for the women”, “for the children” or some other idea so that only a world-class awful person would dare think of voting against these items; much like the bills named after someone’s deceased kid because the bill lacks enough merit to pass on its own without the emotional spin imparted with a deceased child’s name. We all know that bills based on emotion, rather than logic, make the best bills; don’t we? (eye roll)
These bills should scare the crap out of anyone who cherishes freedom and liberty as our Founding Fathers intended it. It is easy to be lulled into the train of thought that “I am not some awful criminal so I have nothing to fear from these laws. These laws will make good people safer and put criminals away where they belong.” Not necessarily so! Invariably, good or innocent people will get tangled up in these webs that are ostensibly woven to catch the bad people. Overzealous cops or prosecutors around the country have demonstrated that for decades, probably longer. Making it harder for a defendant to win a case and easier for prosecution to never lose puts us all in danger. What will the police and prosecutors ask for, next year? Doing away with the exclusionary rule? How about expansion of when police can enter your home without a warrant?
In those Civics classes we took long ago, I seem to recall a saying to the effect of, “It is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.” (paraphrased)
Put another way, in the 1970’s Billy Preston song, “Will It Go Round In Circles”, a line in that song in a weird way, always kind of made sense to me. “I’ve got a story, ain’t got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while”.
I hope our Legislators grow a spine and start saying “no” to those whose favorite cliche’ for decades has been, “We don’t make the laws, we just enforce them.”