Triumphs in Criminal Bail Reform and Restorative Justice

by James C. Sherlock

George Soros wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Sunday July 31.

Title: “Why I Support Reform Prosecutors.” Subtitle: “Justice or safety? It’s a false choice. They reinforce each other.”

Mr. Soros proudly proclaims he has

supported the election (and more recently the re-election) of prosecutors who support reform.

And will continue to do so.

His right, but we need a little more information.

He has done that in Virginia since at least 2019.  From the Washington Free Beacon:

Soros and other liberal Democrats spent millions on prosecutor races ahead of the elections in a bid to overhaul the state’s criminal justice system, supporting candidates who vowed to introduce criminal justice reform and change the state’s policies on the death penalty. In addition to the $1.2 million in funds Soros spent on House of Delegates and Senate races in the commonwealth, he funneled an additional $2 million to four Democratic prosecutor candidates.

Among the four progressive Commonwealth’s Attorneys backed by Soros was Buta Biberaj (Loudoun). From that same story:

Biberaj received nearly $850,000 from the Justice and Public Safety PAC, a D.C.-based committee financed by Soros. The PAC was by far the largest donor to the campaign.

She won by 2.5 percentage points.

Then there was Fairfax County.

Steve Descano, the liberal candidate in Fairfax County, was the recipient of $600,000 from Soros’ PAC.

In a momentary lapse of judgement, Descano:

…needlessly released a man who went on a spree shooting homeless people up and down the East Coast. The alleged perpetrator, Gerald Brevard, had been apprehended for abduction and attempted rape, but Soros-backed prosecutor Steve Descano let him plead down to lesser charges and even dropped several slam-dunk charges that police later brought against him for a separate incident. As a direct result of Descano’s decisions, Brevard was free and out on the street when the homeless shootings occurred.

Steve Descano, smiling

Oops. Steve’s bad. Eggs (in this case people) and omelets.

In Albemarle County, the recipient was James Hingley, backed heavily by Sonjia Smith, the Virginia Democratic megadonor married to Michael Bills.

More in that article. Read it.

On the “Justice or safety? It’s a false choice. They reinforce each other” front, we have breaking news from the New York Post. Headline:

Ten career criminals racked up nearly 500 arrests (in NYC) since NY bail reform began.

The NYPD’s list of “notable” career criminals is topped by an unnamed “Recidivist No. 1” who’s been busted a total of 101 times, with 88 coming since bail reform was enacted.

NYC District Attorney Bragg is startled

Good work by the NYC District Attorney.

Some NYC judges are doing their part to help. Teamwork.

Virginia, during the Democratic interregnum in Richmond, joined the progressive party. New laws took effect July 1 of last year. None of them mention victims.

My personal favorite is the change made in 2020 Special Session I. It is a special bill written for and at the specific request of Descano, Biberaj and their fellow members of the Virginia Progressive Prosecutors for Justice.

Subsection A. below is entirely new. It empowers prosecutors to dismiss any charges they wish without any standards or consideration by a court or consultation with the victim.

§ 19.2-265.6. Dismissal of criminal charges on Commonwealth’s motion; effect of dismissal of criminal charges.

A. Upon motion of the Commonwealth to dismiss a charge, whether with or without prejudice, and with the consent of the defendant, a court shall grant the motion unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the motion was made as the result of (i) bribery or (ii) bias or prejudice toward a victim as defined in § 19.2-11.01 because of the race, religious conviction, gender, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, color, or national origin of the victim.

Since HB 5062 and SB 5033 in Special Session I were entirely partisan bills, the Democrats will have no valid complaint when they are changed by partisan votes in a Republican House and Senate.

Justice Forward Virginia extended its appreciation

…to all of the lawmakers who took up or fought for our priorities, including Governor Ralph Northam, Senator Jennifer McClellan, Senator Barbara Favola, Delegate Jeffrey Bourne, Delegate Cia Price, Delegate Don Scott, Delegate Ken Plum, Delegate Mike Mullin, Delegate Alfonso Lopez, Delegate Nancy Guy, Delegate Patrick Hope, Delegate Carrie Coyner, Senator Bill Stanley, Senator John Edwards, Delegate Sally Hudson, Senator Creigh Deeds, Delegate Vivian Watts, Senator Scott Surovell, Senator Joseph Morrissey, Delegate Charniele Herring, Delegate Angelia Williams Graves, Delegate Lashrecse Aird, Senator Jennifer Boysko, and Senator Louise Lucas, and Delegate Jennifer Caroll Foy.

Take a bow.

Justice Forward Virginia wants more:

The Legislature Should Consider the Following Reforms

  • Require an “ability-to-pay” assessment, to determine the ability of a defendant to pay a cash bond and allow the court to adjust or eliminate bond based on the defendant’s financial circumstances.
  • Mandate preparation and consideration of the VPRAI (Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument) by courts. 
  • Create a presumption that the VPRAI recommendation be followed unless rebutted by the Commonwealth.
  • Identify offenses for which persons may never be held without bond.
  • Implement safeguards to eliminate subjectivity and avoid disparate impacts on the poor and minorities.
  • Strengthen pretrial services.
  • Consider regulating or prohibiting compensated securities (i.e. bail bondsmen), and instead allow cash bonds to be paid through the clerk of court.

The usual suspects would have been working on those “reforms,” but Virginians elected Glenn Youngkin.

Checkmate – for now.

Progressives are well-funded and relentless. Being proven wrong will never change their minds.

Updated Aug 4, 2022 at 7:49


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

25 responses to “Triumphs in Criminal Bail Reform and Restorative Justice”

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Certainly the topic of this article. Just getting up?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Oh? There’s a topic? Who knew? Seemed just to be a complaint about something that doesn’t really affect you.

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    First of all, you, and we, do not know all the facts behind the plea agreement for Brevard. Perhaps, the Descanos and his staff did not feel they had a strong enough case to get a conviction on the more serious charges. It is not uncommon for police to “overcharge” those arrested .

    Second, all the criticism of the bail reform in New York is just that–bail reform in New York. How does it apply to Virginia and laws passed in the last couple of years? Only one of the new laws in the link you provided are applicable to this topic and that is a mild reform, at best.

    You imply that the list of new laws passed by the Democrats is harmful to society. What are your objections to them?

    The bail reforms proposed by Justice Forward Virginia seem reasonable. What specific objections do you have to them?

    1. Only one of the new laws in the link you provided are applicable to this topic and that is a mild reform, at best.

      Yes, but Justice Forward Virginia makes it abundantly clear that this year’s “pretrial reform” included only a portion of their ultimate goal, which is to do away with cash bail.

      From the link (emphasis mine):

      Pretrial reform – Ending presumptions against bail, SB 1266 [C. Deeds]: For the third year in a row, Justice Forward Virginia joined the Pretrial Justice Coalition in recommending reforms as groundwork for replacing our current system of cash bail.

    2. Only one of the new laws in the link you provided are applicable to this topic and that is a mild reform, at best.

      Yes, but Justice Forward Virginia makes it abundantly clear that this year’s “pretrial reform” included only a portion of their ultimate goal, which is to do away with cash bail.

      From the link (emphasis mine):

      Pretrial reform – Ending presumptions against bail, SB 1266 [C. Deeds]: For the third year in a row, Justice Forward Virginia joined the Pretrial Justice Coalition in recommending reforms as groundwork for replacing our current system of cash bail.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I would advocate abolishing cash bail. Evidence shows that cash bail is not any more effective at ensuring a defendant shows up for trial or does not commit another crime in the interim than releasing a defendant under the supervision of a local pretrial program. Requiring cash bail discriminates against poor folks who have little money.

        Someday, I plan to post a whole article on pretrial supervision and cash bail.

        1. Evidence shows that cash bail is not any more effective at ensuring…

          1) Will you please post a link to some of this evidence?

          2) What do you recommend we do to replace cash bail?

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            The issue of pretrial services and bonds is a complicated one. Virginia has 33 local pretrial services agencies serving 100 of the state’s 133 counties and cities. These entities funded with state and local funds. They use a risk assessment tool developed by the Dept. of Criminal Justice Services to make recommendations regarding release of defendants pending trial.

            Courts may release defendants to supervision of pretrial services agencies with or without requiring the defendant to provide some security. While under the jurisdiction of pretrial services agencies, defendants must comply with conditions set by the courts and the agencies.

            The Virginia State Crime Commission conducted a multi-year study of the pretrial services agency program.

            In one of Commission’s recent reports on the study, a staff analysis of a large trove of data revealed that the outcomes (failure to appear and new arrests) were about the same for those released on personal recognize/unsecured bond and those released on bond. The
            only exception was in the failure to appear category, in which the best results were had with those released on secured bond and pretrial supervision, but the difference was not much.The results discussed here are on pages 6 and 7 of the following report: http://vscc.virginia.gov/images/VSCC%20Pre-Trial%20Data%20Project%20Preliminary%20Findings.pdf

          2. Thank you. The data are quite interesting.

          3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            I have removed this and made it the subject of an upcoming article.

          4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            The criteria of “arrested” was used instead of “committed” because it could not be said that someone “committed” a crime until there was a conviction. A trial would have occurred outside the time frame used for the study.

            As for the remainder of your comments, “FTA” means simply failure to appear in court on the trial date. It does not imply the commission of another crime, therefore these would not be recidivists.

            The purpose of the data is to demonstrate that there is not a significant difference in outcomes for those who had to post a secured bond (money or property) and for those who were released without a secured bond.

          5. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            I have removed my comment and made it the subject of an upcoming article.

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          I too would like to see that evidence, Dick.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            See reply above.

          2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            See mine.

    3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      My personal favorite is this change made in 2020 SPECIAL SESSION I. It is a special bill written for and at the request of Descano, Biberaj and their fellow members of the Virginia Progressive Prosecutors for Justice.

      Subsection A below is entirely new. It empowers prosecutors to dismiss any charges they wish without any standards or consideration by a court or consultation with the victim.

      “§ 19.2-265.6. Dismissal of criminal charges on Commonwealth’s motion; effect of dismissal of criminal charges.”

      “A. Upon motion of the Commonwealth to dismiss a charge, whether with or without prejudice, and with the consent of the defendant, a court shall grant the motion unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the motion was made as the result of (i) bribery or (ii) bias or prejudice toward a victim as defined in § 19.2-11.01 because of the race, religious conviction, gender, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, color, or national origin of the victim.”

      You good with that?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I am not comfortable with it. It is part of a pattern over may years of Commonwealth’s attorneys taking over more of the control of judicial procedure, usually at the expense of judges. The CAs had a distinct advantage in this game–they could lobby the legislature and judges were bound by judicial ethics not to comment on any pending legislation.

        In this case, the judges did it to themselves. Prosecutors had routinely moved to dismiss cases and judges seldom questioned those motions before granting them. This bill was in reaction to the Arlington circuit court judges reacting to a liberal prosecutor and requiring her to submit detailed briefs with each motion to dismiss. This may have been within the judges’ authority (the Va. Supreme Court sidestepped the issue), but it definitely was an unreasonable exercise.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          I agree. But I am more than uncomfortable with it.

          The change in § 19.2-265.6 was in response to a direct and specific request to the General Assembly from the Virginia Progressive Prosecutors for Justice (VPPFJ)

          It enables them to act on their criminal justice reform principles of which they are quite proud without having to change the laws or justify their choices before the courts.

          It puts police in the untenable position of making cases that prosecutors refuse to charge.

          Why do we need lawmakers or courts?

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Virginia Progressive Prosecutors for Justice (VPPFJ) also seeks “automated, automatic, and free expungement of criminal records for formerly system-involved community members”. http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2021/jan/07/opinion-letter-editor-virginia-progressive-prosecu/

          Seems to me that will obviate criminal background checks for gun purchases. Pretty big step, don’t you think?

      2. 1) What defendant would not consent to a dismissal?

        2) This kind of horseshit could ultimately lead to victims taking things into their own hands – vigilante justice.

        Also: (ii) bias or prejudice toward a victim as defined in § 19.2-11.01 because of…

        § 19.2-11.01 does not contain a definition of “victim”. Vague grammar being a specialty amongst those who write our laws, I also looked for a definition of “bias”. The word “bias” does not appear at all in § 19.2-11.01.

        How does the fact that the definition they cite does not exist affect the law?

    4. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      When ya got a bully pulpit, BULLY!!!! Soros and his efforts have become ordinary targets of some. The same some who ignore his struggles against Hungary’s Victor Orban.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        You are the first perceptive enough to discover this article is about Orban.

      2. The same some who ignore his struggles against Hungary’s Victor Orban.

        What struggles? Mr. Soros has been a U.S. citizen since before Victor Orban was born. If he is ‘struggling’ with Orban then he is doing so entirely by choice.

  2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    No private individual should be allowed to hire or otherwise use an armed bodyguard or face a mandatory 10-year term in a federal penitentiary. Maybe, if the ultra-wealthy woke spent their lives unprotected by firearms and, in some cases, a potential target for robbery or home burglary, they might take a different look at our criminal justice system.

Leave a Reply