Revise eligibility requirements for the crime victims' compensation program.
Senate Bill 96 revises the eligibility rules for South Dakota’s crime victims’ compensation program. The bill amends the statute governing when a claim may be denied, keeping the existing filing deadline and reporting requirements but clarifying and expanding the categories of victims who are exempt from the program’s fault-based disqualification rules. Under the bill, a victim’s conduct that contributed to the injury, participation in the crime, or failure to cooperate with law enforcement can still bar compensation, but those exclusions would not apply in several protected circumstances.
Specifically, the bill preserves exceptions for certain victims already recognized in law and adds or clarifies protections for minors and victims of sex offenses, human trafficking, domestic abuse, child abuse, and abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an elder or an adult with a disability. It also maintains the rule that compensation cannot be awarded if it would unjustly benefit an offender or accomplice. Overall, the measure narrows the circumstances in which victims can be denied compensation based on their own conduct or relationship to the offense, while leaving the broader structure of the compensation program intact.
SB 96 would amend § 23A-28B-25, the statute that sets denial criteria for crime victims’ compensation claims in South Dakota. The practical effect is to expand statutory protections for vulnerable victims and limit the department’s ability to deny claims on contributory-conduct grounds in cases involving minors and victims of specified offenses, including sexual violence, trafficking, domestic abuse, child abuse, and elder or disability abuse. The bill does not change the one-year filing deadline, the five-day crime-reporting requirement, or the prohibition on awards that would benefit offenders or accomplices.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a victim-protection measure with a generally supportive policy posture. Its language suggests an intent to make the compensation program more accessible to survivors of serious interpersonal and exploitation-related crimes. There is no evidence in the provided record of organized opposition, amendments, or divided voting, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from discussion history, but the bill’s purpose is clearly remedial and victim-centered.
The main policy tension in SB 96 is between broadening access to compensation for vulnerable victims and preserving safeguards that prevent awards in cases where the victim’s own conduct contributed to the harm. The bill narrows those safeguards for specific categories of victims, which could raise concerns about program costs, administrative discretion, or whether the exceptions are drawn too broadly. On the other hand, supporters would likely emphasize that victims of sexual violence, trafficking, domestic abuse, child abuse, and elder or disability abuse should not be penalized for circumstances often tied to coercion, dependency, or vulnerability. No specific committee objections or vote-based controversy are available in the provided record.