Subcommittee hears victims'rights lien bill after family testimony about inmates profiting from crimes

A legislative subcommittee on Monday heard testimony and questions on bill 8.77, which would create a priority state lien on profits a convicted person or another person on the defendant's behalf receives from criminal conduct and allow distribution of proceeds to victims.

Senator Goldfinch, the bill sponsor, described the measure as a "Son of Sam-like" mechanism aimed at preventing defendants from profiting from their crimes. "This bill is a Son of Sam like bill, but not a Son of Sam bill. I wanna be clear about that," he said, adding the attorney general would hold a super lien to seize such proceeds "on behalf of the victims." He noted a controlling Supreme Court decision constrains how far such laws can go and said the current draft is written to avoid constitutional problems.

The committee heard detailed testimony from Tom Lucas, who identified himself as the father of a murder victim and described ongoing harassment and sales by the convicted man. Lucas said the inmate had been selling "lockets of his hair, fingernail clippings" and running podcasts and other sales from prison. "How's the money funneling to him? It doesn't make sense to me," Lucas said, urging the committee to close legal and operational gaps that allow such activity.

Laura Hudson, executive director of the South Carolina Crime Victims Council, told lawmakers the bill was "a good start" but urged technical changes, stronger criminal provisions for outside aides, and alignment with restitution law and the state's victims' constitutional amendment. "They are harassing and intimidating crime victims from inside the prison system," she said, urging consideration of aiding-and-abetting charges for third parties who help inmates profit.

Committee members questioned how broadly the bill's definition of "profits from a crime" would reach, asking whether it could attach to houses, accounts or other property acquired during the pendency of the case and whether it could be read as a form of civil asset forfeiture. Senator Goldfinch said that was not the legislative intent and offered to work with colleagues on precise drafting.

After discussion, a committee member moved to carry bill 8.77 over for further work; the motion was seconded and the chair announced the item would be carried over while staff and sponsors refine language.

What happens next: The committee carried the bill over so staff and the sponsor can address scope and drafting questions raised by members and witnesses.