Virginia Budget Amendment Could Lead to Lawsuits Seeking Many Inmates’ Release

from Liberty Unyieldin

g

On February 22, Virginia’s progressive House of Delegates removed language from the state’s proposed budget that limited early releases of inmates who committed both violent and non-violent offenses. It removed that language in a 53-to-44 vote, then passed the House’s version of the state budget by a 75-to-24 vote.

If the final state budget also lacks this language, it will be argued that the affected inmates are entitled to be released earlier, including at least 500 of them this year, and thousands more in the years to come. In 2023, the Virginia Mercury reported that 8,000 offenders in Virginia prisons are there for a combination of violent and non-violent offenses, and thus would be affected by this sort of provision.

This provision would allow the affected inmates to benefit from a 2020 law passed by Democrats that released many non-violent inmates earlier by dramatically expanding time off inmates’ sentences for avoiding major prison infractions and participating in prison programs. This time off is known as “earned sentence credits.” Affected inmates who previously received 4.5 days off their sentence for every 30 days they largely complied with prison rules instead got 15 days off . Effectively, this shrank their period of incarceration by nearly a quarter from what they otherwise would have served. Prisons have been emptied as a result: Virginia recently announced plans to close four state prisons in 2024.

Large-scale emptying of the prisons can increase the crime rate. A 2014 study in the American Economic Journal found that early release of prison inmates increased Italy’s crime rate. It could also undermine deterrence by effectively shortening inmates’ sentences. A 2014 study of the London riots found that more severe sentences reduce crime.

One might think expanded sentence credits would save taxpayers money by releasing inmates early and thus reducing correctional costs. But it apparently costs millions of dollars just to calculate or recalculate inmates’ sentence credits. The budget provisions dealing with the existing sentence credits say that “Included in the appropriation for this item is $8,125,783 in the first year and $8,125,783 in the second year and 105 positions from the general fund for the Department to implement the earned-sentence-credit structure set forth in” the 2020 law.

Moreover, the cost savings of releasing inmates may be modest. With Virginia prisons already emptying — the state prison population is down a lot over the past 5 years — keeping the inmates in prison won’t require building new prisons. And a “mostly empty” prison can cost most of what it costs to operate a full prison, according to even decarceration advocates like Professor John Pfaff. Sometimes, releasing an inmate saves a state as little as $4,000 per year, due to the fact that the inmate’s release doesn’t cut “fixed costs,” and payrolls tend not to be cut “in proportion to inmate population,” notes Professor Pfaff.

Once released, an inmate will often continue costing the state money, because released inmates are usually poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, and because some return to a life of crime, which can impose hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional costs on the economy for each criminal. A 1998 study in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology estimated that there were “$165,000 in victim costs per year of a criminal’s career” for a typical “career criminal.”

The 2020 legislation, as originally proposed, expanded sentence credits for both violent and non-violent offenses, but after a victim’s rights group and some prosecutors complained, it was amended to apply only to non-violent offenses. Democrats only narrowly controlled the state Senate then by a 21-to-19 margin, and a few Democrats like John Bell were reluctant to release violent criminals early. So they excluded violent offenses to get the legislation through the narrowly-divided state Senate.

Although violent offenses were excluded, many violent offenders still anticipated benefiting from the legislation, because they were incarcerated for both violent and non-violent offenses, and the legislation gave them expanded sentence credits on the sentences they were serving for their non-violent offenses.

This bothered not just most Republicans but also a few moderate Democrats like Lynwood Lewis and John Bell. So in 2022, the state’s biennial budget was amended with the support of Virginia’s Republican governor to include a provision blocking inmates with sentences for both violent and non-violent offenses from getting expanded sentence credits for their sentences for non-violent offenses.

That provision kept “more than 500 inmates” from being released in 2022, according to the Virginia Mercury.

But although that provision became law, it was seemingly never added to the state code. The state code provision dealing with earned sentence credits, § 53.1-202.3, does not even mention the amendment, even though the amendment is legally valid and was later enforced by the Virginia Supreme Court in Anderson v. Clarke (2023).

Does the absence of the provision from the state code mean that it was only temporary, and only lasted as long as the biennial budget lasted? If so, then if the provision is not included in this year’s budget, inmates with both violent and non-violent offenses will suddenly become eligible for expanded sentence credits, and earlier release. (Under federal law, a failure to include a duly-enacted statute in the U.S. Code does not render it temporary or unenforceable, as the Supreme Court explained in 1993. But do state appropriations riders last only as long as the budget they are in? This blog has no expertise in such matters).

Moreover, inmates will claim that the expanded sentence credits apply retroactively, to before 2022, for the entire period inmates have served while in prison, even during the period when the state budget explicitly banned them from earning expanded sentence credits.  The 2020 law had a retroactivity clause (which is not found in the Virginia Code, either), saying “that the provisions of § 53.1-202.3 of the Code of Virginia, as amended by this act [to expand earned sentence credits], shall apply retroactively to the entire sentence of any person who is confined in a state correctional facility and participating in the earned sentence credit system on July 1, 2022.’”

Item 404(R)(2) of the 2022 state budget prevented those provisions from expanding the earned sentence credits of offenders who committed both violent and non-violent offenses. But the House of Delegates has removed this language from the 2024 budget, language in Item 404(R)(2) that had said:

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 53.1-202.3, Code of Virginia, a maximum of 4.5 sentence credits may be earned for each 30 days served on a sentence that is concurrent with or consecutive to a sentence for a conviction of [a violent] offense enumerated in subsection A of § 53.1-202.3, Code of Virginia

[This exclusion covers most violent offenses, although not attempted murder, ironically].

It this exclusion was merely temporary and is removed by the 2024 budget, did the fact that it stripped violent offenders of the right to earn expanded sentence credits during its existence, qualify or limit the earlier, more general language in the 2020 law allowing violent offenders to “retroactively” earn sentence credits for their non-violent offenses? Or does the retroactivity provision of the 2020 law apply, giving violent offenders the ability to claim sentence credits for their non-violent offenses prior to 2024 and 2022?

The governor would not like an expansion of sentence credits, but it is not clear what the governor can do about that. Virginia governors have a line-item veto, but that enables them to remove a line from legislation, not put lines back in. So if the state Senate agrees to the House’s amendment removing these lines from the budget, the governor will presumably not be able to line-item-veto the amendment. And the House and Senate have passed their proposed budgets by margins that are more than veto-proof — 75 to 24 in the House, and 38 to 2 in the Senate.

If this amendment opens the door to many inmates being released, it could also lead to many costly lawsuits being filed against the state seeking inmates’ release, for two reasons. First, the state prison system has not historically been able to comply with sentencing changes as fast as this budget amendment would go into effect. For that reason, the 2020 law expanding earned sentence credits had a delayed implementation date of July 2022, to give the prison system two years to recalculate all inmates’ release dates in light of their individual disciplinary records and program-participation records. Nationally, it is not infrequent for state prison systems to miscalculate inmates’ release dates, leading to litigation. A quarter of all Louisiana inmates are held past their correct release dates, resulting in repeated lawsuits against prison officials.

Virginia’s 2024 budget will go into effect on July 1, 2024, so new release dates would have to be calculated for a large number of inmates this year, based on the varying prison records of each inmate, if this amendment changes inmates’ sentence credits. If the prison system is unable to do that in time, expect to see a lot of costly lawsuits by inmates seeking their immediate release.

The second reason this amendment may lead to lawsuits against the state is that there may be legal disputes about whether these expanded sentence credits apply to the portions of inmates’ sentences served prior to 2024, which will create court disputes over when an inmate is entitled to be released. On the one hand, the 2020 law says it “shall apply retroactively” to grant expanded sentence credits. But on the other hand, the 2022 budget amendment, which was certainly valid through 2024, and which was upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court, says that expanded sentence credits may not “be earned” on “a sentence that is concurrent with or consecutive to” a violent offense. Regardless, inmates will claim the 2020 retroactivity provision controls and that the 2022 limit on their ability to earn sentence credits is an expired nullity.

We are not experts on these legal issues, or Virginia law, and will not hazard a guess about them, except to note that lawsuits cost lots of money and time to litigate. The ACLU has already repeatedly sued Virginia prison officials over how they have interpreted Virginia’s sentence-credit statute, including interpretations deemed correct by the courts, and interpretations deemed erroneous by the courts.

Republished with permission from Liberty Unyielding.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

25 responses to “Virginia Budget Amendment Could Lead to Lawsuits Seeking Many Inmates’ Release”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    discussion about ” a combination of violent and non-violent offenses”

    we ought to be more clear with respect to what the “violent” offenses are – and are not. Are these “violent” offenses heavy duty felony offenses from serial offenders or lesser? If lesser, what kinds of “violent”?

    don’t need to be an “expert” in this: ” And the House and Senate have passed their proposed budgets by margins that are more than veto-proof — 75 to 24 in the House, and 38 to 2 in the Senate”

    Looks like the legislature has spoken and time to implement it’s will.

    Much of this is a disagreement about “credits” for folks who are actually getting out of prison and the argument is “not earlier than they should” or some such?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Individual line items can be vetoed in the budget. The vote on the total budget bill wouldn’t preclude a vote on a particular line item at the veto session in April. But in this case, I think the Governor would have to propose an amendment to restore the language removed, a higher bar (majority vote) than the vote to sustain a veto.

      Yeah, Larry, in Dem world there is good violence and bad violence, right?

    2. Violent is in the eyes of the beholder. A sex crime involving an underage child is often charged as violent even if it was seduction. The theory being a child cannot consent. Even say a week short of their sixteenth birthday. A violent crime last week even though this week not a crime at all. But on the question the article asks, what law applies when? We will only know when a judge tells us.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Well, they do have fairly precise classifications and all I’m trying to point out is that there is a difference between a hardened serial felon and a one-time in the heat of the moment – where they are not going to spend the rest of their lives in prison and will get out and rejoin society.

        So I do ask when someone says “violent” more specificity.

        I’m not going to sign off on sending anyone, any/all who has been violent (with little specificity) to prison for the rest of their lives and neither should anyone else IMO.

      2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Your example is “a sex crime against an underage child”. But the child was “just short of “their” 16th birthday. No mention of offender’s age or sex – or pronouns. Do you have any idea how often pedophiles re-offend?

        Nice choice of examples.

        1. That hypthetical example intended to show arbitrary line drawing of ‘violent offender’ category. There’s a real life example in Virginia jail now but not sympathetic: Boy Scout troop leader who seduced a Scout. At least 20 years age difference. Deemed a violent crime though without use of force. He’s in jail until the late 2030’s. Not eligible for parole under the old regime. Is he under this new one? Who knows. Should he be? Who knows. Should statistical propensity for redivicism of particular crimes (rather than particular criminals) determine the outcome? One time heat-of- passion killers would always be eligible for parole; while drug users/dealers, never.

          Something to ponder, what a prosecutor told me: “drug court works because the judge meets with the offender weekly, monitors them, and if they use drugs the consequence is certain, and instant. The opposite of how the criminal justice system works.”

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Individual line items can be vetoed in the budget. The vote on the total budget bill wouldn’t preclude a vote on a particular line item at the veto session in April. But in this case, I think the Governor would have to propose an amendment to restore the language removed, a higher bar (majority vote) than the vote to sustain a veto.

      Yeah, Larry, in Dem world there is good violence and bad violence, right?

      And to Bader:

      “Does the absence of the provision from the state code mean that it was only temporary, and only lasted as long as the biennial budget lasted?”

      Yes, the prohibition would expire with the expiration of the budget. Does it remain in HB 29? If they also took it out of HB 29, the provision will expire when the Gov signs the bill.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I’ll defer to you with regard to how the process works in the GA. ‘

        But in the “real world” , there is a wide variety of “violence” including in the law and there is a big difference between offenders who have killed and raped perhaps more than once and someone who did something one time in the heat of passion and WILL get out at some point and rejoin society – despite their past “history” of “violence”.

        So yes, we need to at the least understand the width and breadth as well as the context to be informed and be able to have an intelligent understanding of the issues and the choices.

        No, there is no “good” or “bad” violence in the minds of some but it’s very much an issue in the law and in the criminal justice system.

        Of course some political folks prefer than mere voters have simplistic and ignorant concepts when arguing what to do so they can make “easy” choices.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        J6 was bad violence. Next time you can kiss your money good-bye.

        Show me a strong capitalist economy with someone like Trump as an autocratic leader. Orban?

        Ukraine is engaged in ‘good’ violence.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          I have written that I find Donald Trump objectionable. But an autocrat? Give your rapt readers an example.

          Don’t forget billions of dollars of unauthorized student loan “forgiveness”. His executive orders opening the borders. And many more…. Oh, that’s right.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Biden vs Trump:

            NOT threatening to fire thousands of govt employees!

            NOT scheming on how to corrupt elections!

            NOT instigating violent takeover of the Capitol!

            NOT abandoning NATO and Europe!

            NOT replacing Cabinet heads with loyalists without Senate confirmation!

            NOT threatening to imprison his rivals and former appointees

            NOT promising to pardon himself of crimes and convictions if elected.

            and more….

          2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Threatening to fire thousands of federal employees. 2 million civil servants. Thousands is a good start.

            Threatening to imprison his rivals. Never happen. Oh. That’s right.

            Scheming to corrupt elections. See Department of Justice and the press.

            Refusing to promise not to pardon family members. See Biden, Joe.

            Replacing cabinet heads without Senate permission- recess appointments
            . See virtually every modern American President with a hostile Senate.

            Don’t defend either one of those two guys. It’s a bad look.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yep. Trump is just “talking bad” and really very similar to Biden. Sounds like just another
            Trump supporter who lives in their own bubble of “facts”.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            You’ll still vote for him though, using the ol’ “But I like his policies.” The were Germans… never mind, waste of electrons.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            “He talks bad but he has good policies, especially his burn-it-all-down” stuff”

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Just on Day One…

  2. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    But the “right” to kill babies has been preserved!
    Now let’s let the criminals out to kill people out of the womb who weren’t killed in the womb.

    We have a stup!d electorate. And horrible, evil, immoral “leaders.”

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This article just throws numbers around irresponsibly. First, it tells us that 8,000 imates would be affected. Its source for this number? An article in the Virginia Mercury. It then tells us that 500 inmates would be affected. Its source for that number? The same Virginia Mercury article. So, which is it , 8,000 or 500?

    The answer is neither one. Only the Department of Corrections could give a definitive answer.

    This is a complicated issue. Currntly, inmates sentenced for a combination of a violent crime and one or more nonviolent crimes would not be eligible for enhanced earned sentenced credits. The earlier estimate was that 8,000 fit that criteria. The change propsed by the House would have made those inmates eligible for the enhanced sentence credits for the sentenced for the nonviolent crime, not the violent crime. For offenders convicted of violent and nonviolent crimes, judges can stipulate the sentences run concurrently or consecutively. In many cases, they are set to run concurrently.

    The proposed change would have no effect on how long with concurrent violent and nonviolent sentences stays in prison. He would have to serve out the longer sentence for the violent crime regardless of how much the sentence for the nonviolent crime were reduced. However, if the sentences are to be served consecutively, the offender would indeed be released earlier that he would have been otherwise.

    The article does not provide a breakdown as to how many of the elibile offenders have concurrent sentences compared to how many have consecutive sentences. Then there is the matter of how much would be taken off an offender’s total length of stay if the sentences were concurrent. If an offender had an effective length of stay (including the 4.5 days of earned sentence credits) of 25 years for a violent crime and an effective length of state of 7 years for a nonviolent crime and that lenght of stay were reduced by 3 years due to the proposed change, would the Commonwealth’s public safety be jeopardized by the offender staying in 29 years rather than 32?

    The studies from Italy and England that are citied are irrelevant. It is hard enough comparing criminal justice systems among states, let alone with foreign countries that have significantly different societies and criminal justice systems.

    There are other errors. Just to cite one example. The authors are worried that all these inmates released early will be a cost to society because they would then be eligible for Medicaid. These individuals were eligible for Medicaid while they were in prison. https://budget.lis.virginia.gov/item/2024/1/HB30/Introduced/1/389/

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: medicaid. Yes, you KNOW at that point that facts are not facts and the narrative is less than precise and not something to rely on for establishing a view.

    2. Fred Woerhle Avatar
      Fred Woerhle

      I think the 500 figure in the blog post above is for inmate releases that would occur in 2024 alone, whereas the 8000 figure is for all current inmates whose release would be accelerated, regardless of the year they would be released (2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, etc.). The 8000 figure may be a bit high even for a multiyear period, though. But the two figures are for different things, so they don’t contradict each other.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        You are right about the 500, although the authors of the article do not make it clear. As I understand the 8,000, I think you are right that is the number of offenders confined at that time who could be affected over the length of stay into the future. That 8.000 refers to the number of inmates who had a “combo” sentence for violent and nonviolent crimes. However, it is not identified how many of that group had concurrent sentences. For them, their overall stay in prison would not be affected.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          What is it about Democrats and criminals? A core part of the base?

  4. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    Regardless of the issues the author raised, I’m not sure that language should have been included in the budget rather than its own legislation. Seems Youngkin especially uses the budget to bury issues, circumventing regular processes and the transparency, debate, and advocacy that come with it.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      “Youngkin especially”? New in town, sailor?

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Whoa, this long predates Youngkin. It is a bad habit I’ve watched grow for decades. The two approved budgets are filled with Democratic examples, too.

Leave a Reply