Lawmakers aim to deter crime against elderly

» 2 Comments | Post a Comment

Days after the murder of a 69-year-old Florence woman and a year after the slaying of a 75-year-old Florence woman, efforts continue to pass a bill that would require mandatory sentencing for those convicted of killing anyone 65 and older.

The bill, dubbed Jerry’s Law, is named for Geraldine “Jerry” Scott, who was found dead of blunt trauma to the head and strangulation in her Maple Park home June 1, 2007.

Scott’s family members and members of the Maple Park Association met with Rep. Kris Crawford of Lake City, who introduced the bill into the House of Representatives this year.

Jerry’s Law didn’t become state law because of opposition from defense attorney members of the S.C. General Assembly, Crawford said.

Supporters of the bill also ran out of time because the bill didn’t get introduced into the second year of a two-year term, he said.

“I will be re-introducing that bill in January,” he said. “While we have to start over in the process, most of the folks have heard about it, so I don’t think that it will have a difficult time.”

The bill had an affirmative vote in a House subcommittee and things looked promising, he said.

Jerry’s Law is modeled after Jessica’s Law, which requires mandatory sentencing for anyone who commits a crime against a child.

Crawford said laws of this nature really seem to deter crime and aim to prevent homicides of people such as 69-year-old Willie Mae Hayes, who was attacked in her home by intruders.

“It has been my experience that a great number of criminals do know what the law says about things,” said Crawford, who is a Florence County sheriff’s reserve deputy. “If there is extra consideration given to the protection of the elderly then, yeah, they might shy away from attacking the older person.”

David Gerrard Johnson, 22, of 419 W. Sumter St. and Rashawn Jerome Bailey, 19, of 114 Liberty St. and a 14-year-old boy each are charged with first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, armed robbery and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime in connection with Hayes death.

Even if Jerry’s Law was on the state lawbooks at the time of the three suspects’ arrests, it probably wouldn’t have come into play, Crawford said.

“Jerry’s Law is a death penalty enhancement,” he said. “We already have on the books a death penalty enhancement for murder while committing a robbery. The prosecuting authority can seek the death penalty for the suspects and so Jerry’s Law isn’t particularly needed in this case.”

Advertisement

 
View More: willie mae hayes,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by phtanner on August 28, 2008 at 4:22 pm

I would be interested in knowing why a magistrate set a bond on a convicted felon at $20,000, if he, in fact, had a prior criminal record for a crime of violence.

I agree with “Concerned.“ Selective laws that target a specific segment of the population, while arguably needed, don’t solve the problem.

I would prefer that the Legislature protect its citizens with laws and pretrial procedures that pursue the spirit of the equality envisioned by the State and Federal Constitutions.

It would seem more sensible to me that the Legislature would mandate that every magistrate have a prior criminal history record available on every individual charged with committing any crime before setting bond.

Even more importantly, magistrates should not possess the discretion to set a monetary amount of bond. Rather, the Legislature should define the boundaries of monetary amounts of a bond for specific types of criminals.

For instance, a convicted individual, who had committed a violent burglary, would have a bond of $ 100,000.00 or higher, as set by state law.

It takes more than selective legislation to solve the problems presented by South Carolina’s criminal element. It takes a Legislature with the guts to change the old way of doing business.

Flag Comment Posted by Concerned on August 28, 2008 at 8:07 am

I think laws should protect everyone, not just the young and elderly.  If this is meant to deter crime for these people, why not everyone?  What about a young mother, or father, or college student? If I am 64, would my murderer get less of a sentence because I fell through the net, or would they get a break?  Give us a break, lawmakers, and quit letting these people out of jail.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement