Virginia Senate Approves Early-Release Bill for Many Inmates

by Hans Bader

The Virginia Senate has voted 24 to 15 to approve SB 842, the so-called “second look” bill. If it becomes law, inmates who have been in prison for 15 years or more could ask to be released, or ask for a reduction in their sentences. Originally, the bill applied to inmates of all types, but it was amended in the Senate Finance Committee to exclude first-degree murderers. Inmates released under second look legislation tend to be murderers (such as second-degree and first-degree murderers), although Oregon’s second look law excludes a fewaggravated” murders.

In 2022, the Democratic-controlled Virginia Senate passed an earlier version of the second look bill by a 25 to 15 vote, but it then died in a subcommittee of the Republican-controlled House of Delegates. That earlier bill was broader than this year’s bill in one way (it did not exclude even first-degree murderers such as serial killers) but narrower in another respect (it required inmates to meet specified “behavioral standards” in prison be released, which is not true of SB 842).

This bill faces an uncertain future in the House of Delegates. On the one hand, the bill is supported by many well-funded progressive interest groups with multi-million-dollar budgets, such as the ACLU, and supporters of the bill have massively out-lobbied opponents of the bill. On the other hand, it is opposed by the Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys, which most House Republicans pay attention to. And most Republicans already oppose the bill.

Polls show voters tend to support second chances for nonviolent inmates. But the inmates who have been in prison long enough to petition for release under a second look law tend to be violent criminals. When citizens learn that, or read the fine print of second look legislation, they grow more skeptical of giving all inmates a chance for release. Richmond Sunlight, which tracks Virginia’s General Assembly and the thousands of bills pending before it, polls site visitors about whether they support or oppose each bill. In 2022, 80% of 54 visitors who took a  poll about the second look bill opposed it (specifically, they opposed the 2022 bill SB 378, which has most of the same provisions as this year’s SB 842).

Support for SB 842 is based on fallacies about what it will do. Some support it because they mistakenly think inmates released under it will virtually never return to a life of crime, or because they view it as a way of giving clemency to the rare, exemplary inmate who poses no risk to society and thus deserves a pardon. A senator from southwest Virginia supports it because he views it as a non-political expansion of the pardon process used by governors of Virginia.

But it is nothing at all like a gubernatorial pardon process. SB 842 is modeled on second look legislation that released most inmates who sought to get out of prison, even when those inmates were anything but exemplary, and it was questionable whether they were fit to return to society. In Washington, D.C., 82% of inmates seeking release have been released under its recently-enacted second look law. As The Washington Post reported, “So far, D.C. judges have ordered the release of 135 people under the law….Twenty-nine requests were denied, according to the data. Of those released, the majority had been convicted of murder.” The Post was discussing this in a news story about a rapist who is seeking release even though he raped three women and forced the victims to dig their own graves.

Some of those released will return to a life of crime. DC’s second look law  already “has led to 135 defendants being released early, of whom 28 have been rearrested,” according to The Daily Caller.  That’s a 21% re-offense rate, even though most of those released inmates were released very recently (in 2022 or 2023), and re-offense rates rise over time as more and more inmates return to a life of crime. For example, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission looked at re-offense rates over a longer 8-year period, it found that violent offenders returned to crime at a 63.8% rate. Even among those over age 60, 25.1% of violent offenders were rearrested.

A progressive Virginia group falsely claims the Virginia second look bill would require inmates to have “participated in rehabilitative programs to be released,” but that is not true of the current version of the bill, whose text is found at this link.

Over 1,000 inmates could be released if Virginia’s second look bill passes. SB 842’s fiscal-impact statement says that “there were 4,865″ Virginia prison “inmates who meet the length of stay criteria set forth in this bill and would be eligible to file a petition” for release. Shawn Weneta, a lobbyist who helped draft Virginia’s second look legislation, predicted in 2022 that even under a low-ball estimate, the bill would empty “2 more Virginia prisons.” Virginia’s second look bill would release far more offenders than DC’s law, because DC has only 8% of Virginia’s population, and its second look law only applies to offenders who committed their crime before age 25, unlike the Virginia bill, which applies to offenders of all ages.

Advocates of second look laws aren’t concerned about the risk of releasing offenders who have served at least 15 years, because they erroneously assume such inmates have “aged out of criminal behavior over time,” with some falsely claiming that inmates can safely be released by their late 30s. For example, one group that testified for Virginia’s second look bill mistakenly claimed that keeping people in prison who were sent there “a decade ago” does “very little, if anything, to maintain safety.” But as the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s report shows, even inmates over age 60 reoffend more than a quarter of the time. There are real-world examples of offenders killing again even after decades in prison, although criminal-justice expert Michael Rushford says that longer sentences make inmates less likely to reoffend when they finally are released.

In The Washington Times, a supporter of Virginia’s second look legislation claimed that “longer sentences don’t deter crime,” so letting inmates out after 15 years won’t increase the crime rate. But there are studies finding that longer sentences do deter crime, including studies of two California laws. Incarcerating offenders substantially reduces the crime rate. When El Salvador dramatically increased its incarceration rate, its murder rate fell to a tiny fraction of what it had previously been.

Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law. He also once worked in the Education Department. Hans writes for CNSNews.com and has appeared on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.” Contact him at hfb138@yahoo.com.

This column first appeared in Liberty Unyielding and is republished with permission.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

31 responses to “Virginia Senate Approves Early-Release Bill for Many Inmates”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    I was curious. How many that are incarcerated would be eligible for “2nd Look”.

    And of that number , how many are murderers?

    How many have offended multiple times violent offenses?

    Seems like, there needs to be data if we are going to form comments and views – as opposed to fairly broad commentary from someone who often writes from a pro-law and order, prison point of view.

    1. The article has numerous links to documentation. You really should avail yourself of those if you have questions.

      From the Fiscal Impact Statement:

      Fiscal Implications: According to the Department of Corrections (DOC), as of December 31, 2022, there were 4,865 state-responsible (SR) inmates who meet the length of stay criteria set forth in this bill and would be eligible to file a petition for sentence modification.

      https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?231+oth+SB842F122+PDF

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        …. 23,552 average Virginia inmate population

        “And of that number , how many are murderers?

        How many have offended multiple times violent offenses?”

        1. It looks like 4,865 inmates meet the length of stay requirement (15 years) as of December 31, 2022. While they don’t break down the numbers I think that its safe to assume that the lion’s share of those people have been convicted of violent offenses or drug distribution charges. If they are in for drug distribution charges most likely they’ve offended multiple times.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            so is there a difference between those convicted of violent offenses and those convicted of drug distribution?

          2. It looks like the only distinctions the law makes is: it excludes people convicted of first degree murder, aggravated murder (formerly capital murder), and two convictions of second degree murder.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            so… what kind of crimes involving violent offenses are eligible for release? I get the impression from Bader that it can be serial axe murderers and such…

          4. Everything is eligible except for the three above exceptions

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            like serial rapists?

          6. It doesn’t appear to exclude them. The law doesn’t give them an automatic out, rather it creates a judicial proceeding for the judge to modify their sentence. I would assume the judge would probably take a that into consideration during that hearing.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            At some point, there does have to be a human in the chain to make the judgement calls but I’d not be opposed at all to changes that would make it exceptionally difficult for anyone who has been convicted of multiple offenses involving violence towards others.

            There needs to be a different system for folks who have committed crimes that are truly non-violent and those offenders should not be housed with those who are violent which just seems to be a bad idea for “growing” felons.

            What we ought NOT have is a system where offenders who are guilty of multiple offenses are grouped with non-violent groups up for consideration of release. IMO.

            Consideration of release of those with violent offenses should be a separate path with a heavily jaundiced eye for those who claim to have been “cured”. In my book, “violence” includes crimes (assaults) perpetrated on children.

          8. They categorize inmates based on the degree of violence of their offenses and that will determine where they are housed in the jail (max, medium, minimum, and trustee) and what penitentiary they are sent to. With regards to growing felons, I think the magic number is 7 years (which is half the required 15 years incarceration) after that point they are “institutionalized” (for lack of a better word) and the likelihood that they will be able to adapt to rapidly changing world decreases dramatically. The law attempts to incorporate the “jaundiced view” (as you put it) by having the judge that sentenced the inmate hear his petition. However, its flawed because the judge that sentenced them 15 years ago may not be around today.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            violent offenders with multiple convictions?

  2. I’m not going to express an opinion on this bill, but I did want to take the time to frame a couple of issues and share a few impressions for anyone foolish enough to read. There are three primary reasons advanced for incarcerating an individual, to either, reform, deter, or to punish. The reform argument is weak, as the state doesn’t spend a whole lot of money on programs one could point to further that argument. One exception may be substance abuse, which is one of the highest indicators of recidivism, but if we were able to cure substance abuse we wouldn’t have the need for two-thirds of our jails/prisons. I haven’t looked at the numbers in a couple of years, but I think the magic number was seven years before one became “institutionalized” (for lack of a better word). I suspect that number may go down rather than increase as our society becomes more advanced, effectively leaving the incarcerated individual further and further behind for when they are finally released. Deterrence is a mixed bag. This article cites empirical studies on sentencing enhancements (primarily the famed Prop 8) that tend to be focused around laws typically referred to as three strike laws. These laws deal with habitual offenders who have committed the same or similar crimes on multiple different occasions and have been punished on multiple different occasions. I would suggest that the comparison between the “three strikes your out laws” and someone serving a 15 year sentence may be an apples to oranges comparison unless one were aware of the inmates prior criminal record and if they had been convicted of one of the underlying crimes twice before. The effectiveness of a three strike policy may depend on the specific crime it is targeting . For example, Virginia gave up on habitual offenders for driving on a suspended license, for example which was once a felony with a mandatory sentence of one year. Another example would be back in common law England where larceny was punished by death and yet the pick pockets would still come to work the crowds at the public execution of their unfortunate colleague who got caught. Typically we don’t use the word punish, instead we use the phrase “the individual is too dangerous to be released back into society”. That is up for society to decide. I’ll finish with this since the article utilizes economic papers to justify long sentences, I’ll try to frame the issue in financial terms. It cost Virginia $36,616 per year (2020 numbers) to house an inmate. Because Virginia has abolished parole for all crimes committed after 1994 inmates will serve most of their sentence. This may be a backdoor approach to reintroduce parole back into Virginia.

  3. AlH - Deckplates Avatar
    AlH – Deckplates

    Incarceration is designed to punish those who have committed crimes. The discussion of length of prison term, and the veracity of the system is another albeit related discussion.

    What I have not seen is a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) which has analyzed the monetary & social possible benefit and the possible costs & detriment. These would include continued cost of prison vs. early release to include analyzing ALL costs of the crimes by early released prisoners and the costs to victims, cost of apprehension, cost of prosecution, etc. I am not taking sides here, but as Sgt Joe Friday would say, “I just want to get the facts, ma’am”

    At the end of the day let the voters see the CBA and decide what weights are important. This not just one issue, as it Transends society, the value we place on being safe where we live, and the way we expect our citizens to conduct themselves + the whole issue of severity of penalization.

    1. The average cost to house an inmate was $39,087.85 per year ($107.09 per day) in 2021.
      https://rga.lis.virginia.gov/Published/2022/RD692

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I’ve seen varying numbers but all of them above 30K per.

        I have no problem what-so-ever keeping people who have been convicted of violent behaviors behind bars.

        I’m not sure at all about keeping non-violent people behind bars if they are not violent. I’m not advocating just turning them lose to do whatever they wish. I support strict parole for all released and if they re-offend, back in prison.

        but keeping them in prison for long terms especially if the “drug distribution” was part of a traffic stop or similar , vice , a serious distributor is just vindictive and punitive with an actual cost to taxpayers and others.

        I’m not sure we’d even be at this point if our legal system truly only put violent people behind bars and deal with the rest through non-prison means.

        1. I’d push back a little on your last two paragraphs regarding drug distribution. A retired Circuit Court judge, from Newport News said this during one of my cases and I have wrestled with the notion ever since. He said something to the extent that “One of the worst crimes one can commit is the distribution of drugs. It is peddling in poison that not only robs their customer of their sanity and frequently their life altogether, but also puts the public at risk for the future crimes their customers are prone to commit.” He’s not wrong. I can’t think of many crimes where the commission of a crime by one person greatly increases the probability that another person will commit crimes in the future. At first blush I wanted to dismiss this notion because sure, Possessing and using drugs is a crime, and if they’re stoned they might commit other crimes (some violent some nonviolent), but then many will commit property crimes to get the requisite funds to purchase more drugs. I looked back at the wake of all the concessions I had just made and realized that I had just named a majority of the crimes that are committed in Virginia. For example, I have done hundreds (maybe thousands) of burglary cases, I may have done a handful that didn’t involve substance abuse (and in those instances the perpetrators were juveniles). Drug addicts frequently break into peoples houses to steal stuff so they can buy more drugs from their drug dealer. A notion that minimalizes the impact drug dealers have on our communities overlooks the role that they play in the criminal process as a whole. I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that if we could magically eradicate substance abuse, crime rates would drop precipitously.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            It’s no better or worse than a LOT of products and services that can harm those that partake of them. Using that standard, for instance, one could claim that Va’s ABC stores will drive
            alcohols to crime to get what they want/need. Ditto for supposed legal pain killers, or Virginia sponsored gambling, etc. It’s a double standard where we have demonized various behaviors arbitrarily.

            What happens if we decriminalize drugs like other countries have and provide medical service to those that become addicted (for probably a lot less than 30K per).

          2. Your point on alcohol is a fair one. However, its been my experience that people addicted to alcohol or gambling don’t break into strangers houses or rob convenience stores to get the money they need to buy their alcohol or play the slot machines.

      2. AlH - Deckplates Avatar
        AlH – Deckplates

        Thanks. Actually, that is one variable or list of the items who should be calculated and accessed in value for the impact of any early release. The list is most probably several items. Nevertheless, the social impact of the early release, to the victims and to society in general, is important too.

        These bills making these kinds of changes are not obviating those costs and social impacts.

  4. #4 – keep law abiding citizens safe on the street.

    1. I think that would fall under either reform or they are too dangerous to release, but if you feel it needs its own category I’m fine with that.

  5. Let’s ‘sunset’ it like the problematic Clinton ‘Assault Weapons’ ban. Let it expire after five years and require a case-by-case examination of each and every criminal release…. then we’ll see who is right and can take action accordingly… metrics are needed to determine success or failure.

    And maybe make those making the decision personally financially responsible for the affects of those released.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Totally in favor of strict parole for released. Get straight or go back.

  6. Robert Jackson Avatar
    Robert Jackson

    We need to treat first offenders, except those engaged in brutal violence, differently and with an aim toward learning and change. People make mistakes and too often give into emotions. But repeat offenders, especially violent ones, need to be separated from society. They need to serve their sentences.

    Why don’t the super-compassionate, be they legislators, activists, foundations or whomever, agree to take in and sponsor ex-criminals. Why do foundations and nonprofits get to lobby for legislation tax free? Take away their tax-free status when they lobby or try to influence public opinion but not if they sponsor and pay for services provided to ex-convicts.

  7. DC’s …second look law only applies to offenders who committed their crime before age 25, unlike the Virginia bill, which applies to offenders of all ages.

    That’s a good idea.

    If they add that provision, exclude 2nd-degree murder and rape (and repeat offenders), and set fairly rigorous behavioral standards for qualifying, I would cautiously support a “second look” law for Virginia.

    1. Measures of this sort are totally dependent on the judge or panel of judges who make the ruling. My faith in judicial appointments is not at an all time high.

      Have you watched this?

      https://www.foxnews.com/video/6319283989112

      1. You make a valid point.

        Interesting video, by the way. Sad.

        ADDENDUM:

        A person who does not know what is contained within Article V of the United States Constitution should not be appointed to a federal court.

        1. One of the long lasting impacts of who becomes President. Federal judges are lifetime appointments.

  8. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Guess I will have to call my delegate to to work on canceling this bill of stupidity.

Leave a Reply