Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator Adams outlines RICO-style anti-gang bill; Senate carries S 76 over for more review
Summary
Senator Adams (Berkeley) said S 76 creates a RICO-like tool by lowering the threshold for gang affiliation and adding racketeering-style penalties to help prosecutors target organized retail theft and violent organized crime; senators asked detailed questions on mens rea and scope and the measure was carried over for further study.
Senator Adams of Berkeley introduced committee amendments to S 76, saying the bill is designed to give South Carolina law enforcement a RICO-style tool to pursue organized criminal groups involved in shoplifting, drug trafficking and other racketeering activities. "This will assist South Carolina law enforcement with criminal gang activity," Adams said, explaining the bill would reduce the threshold for establishing a gang from five members to three and would tie members to related offenses and anti-racketeering provisions.
Supporters said the change reflects modern enforcement needs. Adams told colleagues the bill would define a pattern of racketeering as two predicate acts within five years (excluding periods of incarceration) and would permit prosecutors to link individual acts to an overall organized enterprise.
Opponents and questioning senators pressed for clarity on key legal elements. The senator from Orangeburg asked whether a three-person group would automatically be a gang if they simply traveled together; Adams replied that liability would require evidence that members acted with a common intent to commit organized criminal acts and that ordinary social groups would not be swept in. Senators also pressed on mens rea and how aiding-and-abetting, conspiracy, and the evidence nexus would be proved. One question cited the federal RICO history of using enterprise charges to link members across offenses.
Senators asked about the range of offenses covered and whether penalties would be the same for shoplifting groups and for trafficking or violent crimes; Adams acknowledged that the bill treats racketeering predicates similarly and said he would provide specific penalty language and statutory cross-references after reviewing members' questions.
No final vote was taken. After extended colloquy and multiple requests for clarification from members, the sponsor moved to carry the bill over for further consideration so committee language and penalty schedules can be clarified and stakeholders consulted.
