Here we go again with trying to codify a hate crime law. H.3039, titled the Senator Clementa C. Pinckney Hate Crimes Act, would add Article 22 to Chapter 3, Title 16 of the SC Code.
So basically, if you commit a "violent crime" under Section 16-1-60 (murder, assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, arson, and more), and "the trier of fact determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed against a victim who was intentionally selected, in whole or in part, because of the person's belief or perception regarding the victim's race, color, religion, sex, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability, whether or not the perception is correct," the person is subject to additional penalties as provided in subsection (B).
Subsection (B) sets forth the penalty: "an additional fine of not more than ten thousand dollars and an additional term of imprisonment of up to five years.”
Subsection (C) is the courtroom-procedure part, where it lays out instructions for the court to permit “the prosecuting agency and the defense to present evidence relevant to the determination of whether the defendant intentionally selected the person against whom the offense is committed, in whole or in part, because of the person’s belief or perception regarding one or more of the factors provided in subsection (A), whether or not the perception is correct," and instructs the jury to return “a special verdict as to a violation of the provisions of this section."
Subsection (C) does two things in a courtroom:
First, it tells the judge to allow both sides (the prosecutor and the defense attorney) to bring in evidence about what the defendant was thinking. So the prosecutor can show the jury things like the defendant's social media posts, what he said to friends, and what groups he joined. (YIKES!) The defense attorney can bring in evidence to argue the opposite.
Second, it tells the judge to ask the jury two separate questions instead of one:
Question 1: Did the defendant commit the crime? (Yes or no)
Question 2: Did the defendant pick this victim because of their race, religion, sex, etc.? (Yes or no)
The jury has to answer both questions separately. That second answer is called a "special verdict."
Subsection (D) requires the enhancement to be charged "either separately or as a separate count in the indictment for the underlying offense," and the defendant must be "found guilty of the underlying offense" before the extra penalty kicks in.
This is basically a mind-reading exercise.
Why is this on the calendar one day before Sine Die?
Sine Die is Thursday, May 14. So why the hearing the day before? Maybe it’s just odd timing. Or maybe it’s a move to secure a recorded vote, build support for it, and tee things up for this bill to pass easily in 2027.
Same crime, two different sentences
Hello, our state already has laws that punish violent crime, and they are not lenient. H.3039 would create a two-tier system where two defendants who commit the identical violent act receive different sentences based on what they were thinking.
“Whether or not the perception is correct” should worry you
That phrase pops up three times in the bill, in subsections (A), (C), and (D).
And what does that even mean, “Whether or not the perception is correct.”?
Think through what that requires in a courtroom. Prosecutors would introduce social media posts, things you said to coworkers years ago, who you voted for, and what groups you’ve joined.
The only way to prove a “belief or perception” is to put your beliefs on trial.
There is another danger inherent in H.3039. Once your beliefs are treated as evidence, ordinary South Carolinians will start second-guessing what they say, what they post, what they sign, and even who they stand next to. This chilling effect will take hold the moment the law is signed. The practice of free speech will be a thing to fear.
Who is left off the protected list?
Subsection (A) covers victims picked for their race, color, religion, sex, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability. But look who’s left out: age, political views, job (no special shield for police, pastors, or teachers), veteran status, homeschoolers, or pro-life activists outside clinics.
A 75-year-old grandmother beaten for her Social Security check would receive the standard sentence. The same beating, if a jury believed the attacker targeted her because of one of the nine listed traits, would bring a different sentence for the same injuries. (Good luck explaining that to the grandmother who did not make the list.)
A new lever for every prosecutor in the state
Subsection (D) gives every prosecutor in South Carolina a new tool to pressure defendants into plea deals or, maybe, just maybe, go after people of influence who hold opposing political views.
ConservaTruth’s Position: OPPOSE
We oppose H.3039 because violent crime is already illegal. Shocking, we know.
H.3039 creates unequal sentences, invites speech-based evidence hunts, gives prosecutors more plea leverage, and protects selected victim categories instead of every victim equally.
Punish the act. Protect every victim. Skip the thought-policing upgrade.
H.3039 is scheduled for the House Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or professional advice. ConservaTruth assumes no liability for any actions taken based on this content. Read more.
Subscribe to ConservaTruth's Email Newsletter for curated insights on South Carolina's legislative activities and conservative viewpoints, delivered straight to your inbox! With vetted and easy-to-understand information, our newsletter empowers you to become an informed and engaged citizen, actively participating in safeguarding our cherished Constitutional values. Don’t miss out on crucial updates—join our community of informed conservatives today!
Comments