By Matt Underwood It’s quite striking to learn that more than half of the individuals granted early release from prison by former South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, bypasssing the usual parole board review, have since faced new charges. Specifically, out of the 19 individuals who received this special early release, a significant 12 have been re-charged with new offenses. This statistic alone raises some serious questions about the effectiveness and implications of such executive decisions.
This early release practice, where Governor Noem made decisions without the customary recommendation from the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles, is a notable departure from standard procedure. In fact, this was a move not seen from a South Dakota governor in about two decades. Typically, these clemency orders, which can either free an inmate entirely or shorten their sentence to make them eligible for parole, go through a formal review process by the board. However, in these 19 cases, Governor Noem opted to grant these releases without that endorsement, a decision that has now drawn considerable attention.
Looking closer at the outcomes, it’s not just that these individuals were re-charged; the nature of these new charges is also telling. Out of the 12 who were re-charged, nine have since pleaded guilty to one or more of the new offenses. The majority of these new charges, when they occurred, largely involved drug-related offenses. Seven of these felony charges were specifically for drug-related crimes. This pattern suggests a recurring issue that extends beyond just the initial crime for which they were incarcerated.
In contrast, when these commutations *were* reviewed by the Board of Pardons and Paroles, the outcomes appear to be different. Of the eight individuals whose clemency orders were screened by the board, five have since been released. And among those five, only one has subsequently been charged with a new crime. This comparison highlights a potential difference in outcomes when the established review process is followed versus when it is bypassed.
The fact that a substantial number of these early releases, particularly those that sidestepped the parole board, resulted in re-arrests, especially for drug offenses, is a complex issue with various interpretations. Some might view this as a direct indictment of the decision-making process, suggesting that those released without the board’s scrutiny were perhaps not ready for reintegration into society. The re-emergence of drug-related charges, in particular, could be seen as a failure to address underlying issues.
However, it’s also important to consider the broader context of South Dakota’s drug policies, as some have pointed out. The state’s approach to drug offenses, particularly in how certain drug-related actions are classified as felonies, has been described as particularly stringent and has been subject to changes over time. It’s been noted that in South Dakota, issues like possession by ingestion can lead to felony charges, a classification that has fluctuated between felony and misdemeanor status. This context suggests that the criminal justice system itself might play a role in recidivism rates for those struggling with addiction.
The argument can be made that the criminalization of addiction and the limited support systems available for individuals battling substance abuse contribute significantly to repeat offenses. When individuals with addiction issues are released without robust support structures, and face a system that continues to heavily criminalize their condition, the likelihood of them falling back into drug use and consequently facing new charges increases. This perspective frames the issue not just as a failure of individual judgment in granting clemency, but as an indictment of broader drug policies and the societal approach to addiction.
Ultimately, the statistics present a compelling case for a closer examination of early release policies, especially when they deviate from established review protocols. The re-charging of a significant majority of inmates released without parole board review, predominantly on drug offenses, necessitates a thorough understanding of the factors contributing to recidivism, including individual circumstances, the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs, and the impact of state-level drug policies on those re-entering the community. The focus on “law and order” often associated with certain political ideologies becomes a point of discussion when statistics suggest that policies implemented under such banners may inadvertently contribute to further criminal activity.