SC - Everyone not treated the same

The following was sent to us via the "Tell Us Your Story" form and posted with the users permission.

By Steven:
I was arrested in 2009 for touching a teenager while extremely intoxicated. No excuse but still it happened. It was never something that I intended to do or planned but still the same it happened. I plead to Lewd act and was given 6 years in prison and 5 years probation. I served 3 years in prison and took the 6 month course for sex offenders in prison. Upon release, I still had to take a year long course at $25 a week, Pay probation $20 a week and was put on a monitor which is another $40 a week. Total I had to pay $85 a week and just getting out of prison had no job. Thanks to family I was able to keep up the payments and after a year am still unable to get work due to the charge. I have finished the class and now only have to pay $60 a week. Of course if you do not pay they will violate you but no one will hire me. Now I have been told that the monitor that I am wearing will continue the rest of my life due to new South Carolina laws (or as long as I am on the registry). I don't mind the registry but the monitoring seems to me to go to far. The biggest thing is that several of the guys that were in my year long class had the same charge or worse charges, but they are not on monitoring .Most did not even get prison time. It all depends on how much money you have and what attorney you had and the sentence can be night and day! The law states that anyone with CSC1 or Lewd act must me on electronic monitoring but yet not all judges put them on it. I am fortunate in that I have family helping me, but not everyone does. And what happens when my probation is over? If I move out of state will I still have to have the monitor? I am 60 years old and this was the first time I have ever been accused of something like this. Sometimes I think that it would have been better if I had murdered someone, they don't have to register. It just sucks. But I am going to try and take it to court as my probation term nears its end. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

SC - Ruling in favor of registered sex offender raises questions

Original Article (Video available)

04/23/2014

By Greg Suskin

Marjorie Carroll believes that once someone is on the sex offender register, that person should be listed there for life.

“They're not going to change," Carroll said. "You have to protect the children."
- You need to stop believing everything you read. Not all ex-offenders have harmed children and anybody can change, if they want to.

However, a South Carolina sex offender won a major court battle Wednesday that will remove his name and picture from the life-long public registry. The state Supreme Court ruled in favor of _____ of Florence, who argued the registry wasn't equitable.

The decision raises questions for many about the online sex offender registry, who should be listed there, and for how long.

There are 235 names and pictures on the registry in Rock Hill alone. On Wednesday, Channel 9 spoke to a Rock Hill man, who's on that list and didn't want to be identified.

"Everyone wants to be forgiven," he said. "No one wants to be reminded of their past all your life."

He spent 10 years in prison for having sex with a minor. He told Channel 9 he's not that person anymore, and shouldn't be listed as a sex offender now.

"I believe God is a God of second chances, and I believe everybody else should have a second chance," he said.

Currently, anyone on the registry is there for life, unless their conviction is overturned, or if they are pardoned.

Many offenders are listed, even though they are not considered sexual predators. Some are there for having sex with minors, when they were teens themselves. Other cases involve people charged with indecent exposure.

16th circuit solicitor Kevin Brackett said for some of those cases, a change could make sense.

"I don't know that there shouldn't be some mechanism for people that have been sort of caught in the web of the registry, that are not truly sexual predators," Brackett said.

However, he also said the registry is an important tool for public safety.

"Clearly I think the public interest is very strong in alerting the public to individuals who are repeat or sexually violent predators," he said.

Shirley James of York said she feels like some of the people listed on the registry don't belong there.

"That happened to a friend of mine, even though the case wasn't right, and it ruined his life," she said.

A spokesman for the South Carolina Attorney General's office said they are reviewing the Supreme Court's ruling, and have 10 days to appeal it.

SC - Women awarded $350,000 in jail sexual assault (Belvin Lee Sherrill) lawsuit

Belvin Lee Sherrill

Original Article

02/25/2014

By Scott Harper

A pool of potential jurors were at the Georgetown County Courthouse Monday for a lawsuit filed against Sheriff Lane Cribb by two women who were sexually assaulted by a guard at the County Detention Center while they were incarcerated in 2009.

But, before the jury pool was narrowed to the ones who would hear the case, a settlement was reached.

One of the women was awarded $100,000 in the agreement while the other will receive $50,000.

There was a third woman who was 19-years-old at the time and was in the cell. She was also assaulted by the guard, Belvin Lee Sherrill. She filed a separate lawsuit in Federal Court and was awarded $200,000. The women are not being named by the Georgetown Times because they are victims of sexual assault.

Sherrill was arrested and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He is now out of prison and is living in North Carolina.

Sherrill did not show up for what was scheduled to be a trial this week, said defense attorney Robin Jackson.

After the settlement was reached, Cribb said he was glad for the women and for his office that the matter can be put to rest.

“This was a horrible thing that happened to these women,” Cribb said after the settlement was announced.

According to court documents, while Sherrill was in full uniform he entered the cell, exposed himself and ordered the women to “perform fellatio on him.” The suit says Sherrill later returned to the cell and ordered one of the women to perform the act a second time.

While the acts were taking place, the suit states, the three women in the cell were “repeatedly pushing the panic button” but it “apparently was not working.” The women say at no time did any other employee “intervene or take any actions to protect” the women from harm.

The following day, Sherrill slid a letter under the cell door apologizing for the incident, the suit states.

Bell said Monday during the investigation letters were found that Sherrill had written to other female inmates.

Cribb said he takes the safety and protection of the inmates very seriously.

“That is why we have such a vigorous application process in place. Applicants for detention officers at that time were required to have a criminal background check, a financial check, a polygraph and a psychological exam. In addition they were interviewed by several members of command staff,” Cribb said. “Sherrill gave no indications of any problems during the application process, or during his employment, until he committed this act. As soon as it was discovered, Sherrill was terminated, prosecuted and is now a registered sex offender. I did not put up with such acts from my staff then, and I will not put up with it now.”

As for the buzzer that did not work in the women’s cell, Jackson said it was a computer problem that was fixed and continues to work.

Bell, when putting the settlement information on the court record, said there was no truth to statements made by Sherrill in his answer to the lawsuit. As reported previously. Sherrill claimed one of the women “did flash her breasts” at him as he was walking by the cell.

He also claims both women tried to coerce him into bringing them cigarettes and when he refused to do so they made the allegations against him.

“The Sheriff had nothing to do with (Sherrill’s) answer,” Jackson added. “The sheriff was upset when he heard someone took advantage of inmates.”

Circuit Court Judge Edward Cottingham agreed, calling Sherrill’s claims “ridiculous.”