Pillar K · Community
Criminal Justice and Public Safety
“Tough on violent crime. Smart on the rest.”
Back the blue. Back the Bill of Rights. Hard on violent crime, child exploitation, and trafficking. Smart sentencing reform so non-violent offenders come home stronger, not worse.
Where I stand
- Stand with AG Jackley on violent crime, child exploitation, and human trafficking.
- Sentencing reform for non-violent offenders. South Dakota is spending ~$737M on two new prisons with high recidivism.
- Expand drug courts, mental-health diversion, and reentry programs.
- Defend the Fourth Amendment against warrantless surveillance.
Pushback, answered
The hard questions, answered straight.
These are the real objections this position gets, with the same answers Zac gives in person. No talking points. No dodges.
“Sentencing reform means you are soft on crime.”
Read the first commitment again. On violent crime, child exploitation, and human trafficking I stand with Attorney General Jackley, and there is nothing soft in that posture. Smart on the rest is not mercy at safety's expense, it is the reverse. Nearly everyone we send to prison comes home eventually, and the only question is what shape he is in. Right now we spend like a state that expects results, roughly 737 million dollars, and we get a revolving door. Defending a failed system because it sounds tough is expensive theater with your family's safety as the prop.
“Drug courts and diversion just let addicts off easy.”
A drug court is not a free pass. It is supervision, testing, accountability, and a judge who knows your name and your file. In some ways it is harder than sitting in a cell, because it demands the one thing a cell never asks for, which is change. Mental health diversion follows the same logic: a person in crisis belongs in front of the system built for the actual problem. Reentry is the most kitchen-table idea on the list. The man who comes home to work and structure is safer for your neighborhood than the man who comes home to nothing.
“We cannot afford new programs.”
We already chose the expensive option, which is what the 737 million dollar figure is telling us. South Dakota is not choosing between a cheap status quo and costly reform. We are paying the biggest bill in the building and then paying it again every time the cycle repeats. High recidivism means repeat business, and in corrections repeat business is the taxpayer's loss. Funding what breaks the cycle is the fiscally conservative move. Fail less, spend less.
“You cannot back the blue and demand warrants.”
A warrant is not a handcuff on police, it is the Bill of Rights doing its job. Our officers do dangerous and necessary work and I will back them every day of the week. Backing the blue has never meant government gets to watch you without a judge's signature. Conservatives do not trust government with our money, so I cannot see why we would trust it with warrantless eyes on our lives. Good police work has cleared that bar since the founding and it can keep clearing it.
“This district needs safety now, not reform talk.”
I agree about the urgency, and that is exactly why the split matters. Every dollar and every hour spent cycling non-violent offenders through a loop that does not work is a dollar and an hour not spent on the violent crime that actually frightens families downtown and in North Rapid. This is not reform instead of safety. It is reform so that safety gets the focus.