Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor
Requires active electronic monitoring for anyone convicted or pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct with a minor, lasting until registry obligations end (with a possible 10-year p
Requires active electronic monitoring for anyone convicted or pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct with a minor, lasting until registry obligations end (with a possible 10-year p
Status: Referred to Committee on Judiciary (introduced Feb 12, 2025)
Primary sponsor: James Skoufis; cosponsors: Robert Jackson, Lea Webb, Jake Ashby
Related/companion: A5668; prior-session: S6055, S4544
Note on source material: the bill file provided contains multiple, partly unrelated text fragments (including Massachusetts appropriations language and a South Carolina statutory amendment). The substantive criminal provision described below is drawn from the South Carolina–style text contained in the file and is summarized as written.
Purpose
- To require active electronic monitoring for persons convicted, adjudicated delinquent, or pleading guilty/nolo contendere for criminal sexual conduct with a minor (first, second, or third degree) and for certain related supervision or violations. The goal is to enhance supervision of persons who commit sexual offenses against minors.
Key provisions
- Mandatory active electronic monitoring:
- Courts must order that a person convicted/adjudicated/pleading to criminal sexual conduct with a minor (1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree) be monitored by the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (or analogous agency) with an active electronic monitoring device upon release from incarceration or when placed under supervision.
- Monitoring following supervision violations:
- Individuals required to register as sex offenders for these offenses who violate probation, parole, community supervision, or program terms must be ordered to electronic monitoring.
- Monitoring following violations of the sex-offender registration article:
- Courts must order active electronic monitoring for registrants who violate provisions of the registration law.
- Duration and petition process:
- Monitoring lasts for the duration of the individual’s obligation to remain on the sex-offender registry, unless the person is committed to state custody.
- Ten years after monitoring begins, an individual may petition the chief administrative judge of the relevant general sessions court to be released from electronic monitoring. The solicitor, probation/parole agency, and victims must be notified and may participate; the court must hold a hearing and may order release only upon clear and convincing evidence that monitoring is no longer needed.
- If denied, the petitioner may refile every five years.
- Effectiveness:
- The South Carolina text states the act takes effect upon the Governor’s approval.
Who would be affected
- Individuals convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a minor (1st–3rd degree) who are required to register as sex offenders.
- Departments of probation, parole and pardon services (administration of monitoring devices).
- Courts (for ordering and adjudicating petitions to end monitoring).
- Victims and prosecutors (notified of petitions/hearings).
- State budgets — costs for devices, monitoring infrastructure, staff, and court/hearing processes.
Procedural/timeline notes
- The SC-text version specifies immediate effect upon gubernatorial approval.
- The provided legislative action log shows multiple actions (committee referrals, Senate passage, delivery to assembly) across different jurisdictions; it appears to combine records from more than one state/session. Check the official legislative docket in the relevant state (South Carolina or the named state chamber) for the authoritative status and text.
Observations / potential issues
- The text sets long-duration monitoring tied to registry duration, which could have substantial fiscal and privacy implications.
- The petition process is time-limited (first available at 10 years) but includes a high evidentiary standard (clear and convincing evidence).
- The provided source includes a confusing or possibly contradictory final sentence concerning petition eligibility; stakeholders should review the enacted text for clarity and consult legislative counsel.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.