S. 233 amends South Carolina’s Sexually Violent Predator Act by revising the statutory definition of when a person is “likely to engage in acts of sexual violence.” The bill replaces older wording with language stating that the person has a propensity to commit sexual violence and is more probably than not going to do so to a degree that poses a menace to the health and safety of others.
In practical terms, the bill updates the legal standard used in civil commitment and related proceedings under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. By clarifying the definition, it may affect how courts, prosecutors, and evaluators determine whether an individual qualifies as a sexually violent predator and whether continued confinement or treatment is justified under state law. The act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Impact
The bill amends Section 44-48-30(9) of the South Carolina Code, changing a key definitional term in the Sexually Violent Predator Act. This affects the legal threshold for identifying individuals who may be subject to civil commitment or other restrictions under that act, and it may influence judicial findings, expert evaluations, and state detention/treatment decisions involving persons adjudicated under the statute.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests broad support for the bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage, and the Senate approved second reading unanimously by a 39-0 vote. No committee debate or recorded opposition is included in the provided materials, indicating the measure was treated as a technical or clarifying update rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or vote record. The main issue implicit in the bill is the legal standard for determining sexual dangerousness, which can matter in civil commitment cases because it affects who may be confined or retained under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Any disagreement would likely center on whether the revised wording makes the standard clearer, broader, or easier to apply, but no opposing arguments are shown here.