Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

What Is It with Democrats and Criminals?

—

by

Bob Rayner
in , , ,

by Kerry Dougherty

Elections have consequences.

And when Virginia voted last November to give Democrats a slim majority in the General Assembly they also voted to give almost 8,000 violent criminals a shot at getting back on the streets.

This ill-conceived measure – SB427 – is the evil brainchild of Sen. Creigh Deeds, who believes that juries and judges should be second-guessed once an inmate has served at least 25 years of his – it’s almost always a male – sentence.

News flash: any inmate who’s served that many years in prison is a bad dude. A murderer, a rapist or some other sort of vile reptile. These are not petty criminals or marijuana users.

(Deeds’ initial bill wanted to spring felons after 15 years behind bars, but he amended it.)

This bill passed the State Senate on a party-line vote. It’s now in the House of Delegates where the soft-headed-soft-on-crime majority will no doubt vote to make Virginia less safe.

What are the crimes that make an inmate eligible to petition to have his sentence modified? Oh, it’s a regular rogue’s gallery of hairbags:

First degree murder, second degree murder, rape, forcible sodomy , object penetration, aggravated sexual battery, human trafficking, terrorism, lynching, treason, death by mob and – drum roll please – production or filming of child pornography.

Just what the Old Dominion needs, kiddie porn pigs on the loose.

There’s a subset of slightly less revolting crimes which can result in a rehearing after just 20 years in prison.

Best of all, with the more liberal rights restoration in Virginia, these murderers and perverts will be back on the voting rolls soon.

Guess which party they’ll vote for?

Fortunately, Gov. Glenn Youngkin is a Republican and would be expected to veto this insane measure.

Elections DO have consequences and the one we had in 2021 that put the GOP in the top three jobs will continue to keep Virginia safe. For a while, anyway.

Republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited. 

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

59 responses to “What Is It with Democrats and Criminals?”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Fix your link, Karen.

  2. Fred Woerhle Avatar
    Fred Woerhle

    The bill is more complicated than you suggest. It doesn’t require all inmates to wait 25 years to file a petition for release. For most offenses, it’s still 15 years, although rapists and second-degree murderers have to wait 20 years and first-degree murderers have to wait 25 years. Also, it has been amended to required the consent of the local prosecutor — which will be granted by progressive prosecutors, but not (usually) by moderate or conservative prosecutors. It also now has a victim’s veto provision, although that is meaningless in some homicide cases (if a school shooter kills a family’s kids, the kids can’t object, and their parents will be dead of old age when the school shooter petitions for release after 25 years). Overall, the bill seems risky and maybe expensive — inmates get taxpayer-funded lawyers — but probably fewer than 10% of inmates who petition for release will actually get out. Not the end of the world.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      You make good points. The ability to veto the offender’s petition by both the prosecutor and the victim or victim’s family make it even less likely that someone who is a danger to society will be released.

  3. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    As I commented the first time this issue was covered at BR, I think a person who has received a sentence of “life in prison without possibility of parole “should be disqualified from petitioning for release.

    I also think a person who has been convicted for three separate robberies (during which no one was seriously harmed or killed) should not be sentenced to life without parole.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Because parole is not an option for anyone convicted of a crime committed after Jan. 1, 1995, the term “life in prison without possibility of parole” is redundant. It is a term used frequently to make a point, but has no legal meaning.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        False, it does in fact have legal meaning.

        https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title53.1/chapter4/article3/#:~:text=Any%20person%20sentenced%20to%20life%20imprisonment%20for%20the%20first%20time,eligible%20for%20parole%20after%20serving

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          These statutes are applicable only for offenses committed before Jan. 1, 1995. For any offense committed after that date, the phrase has no legal meaning. By definition, a life sentence for a murder committed after Jan. 1, 1995, is life without the possibility of parole.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            So section B of 53.1-165.1 Limitation the application of parole statutes.

            Means nothing to you?

            “B. The provisions of this article shall apply to any person who was sentenced by a jury prior to June 9, 2000, for any felony offense committed on or after January 1, 1995, and who remained incarcerated for such offense on July 1, 2020, other than (i) a Class 1 felony or (ii) any of the following felony offenses where the victim was a minor: (a) rape in violation of § 18.2-61; (b) forcible sodomy in violation of § 18.2-67.1; (c) object sexual penetration in violation of § 18.2-67.2; (d) aggravated sexual battery in violation of § 18.2-67.3; (e) an attempt to commit a violation of clause (a), (b), (c), or (d); or (f) carnal knowledge in violation of § 18.2-63, 18.2-64.1, or 18.2-64.2.”

            Do you care to revise your statement now?

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            No. That paragraph implements the Fishbeck decision. It makes certain offenders sentenced by a jury before June 9, 2000, eligible for parole. One exception to the authorization are offenders convicted of a Class 1 felony. These are the ones who received a life sentence between 1995 and 2000. For offenses committed after Jan 1 1995, parole had been abolished and would not have been applicable to any offender, including Class 1 offenders and that remained true for Class 1 offenders (life sentences) after this provision was adopted. Parole was not an option for Class 1 felony offenders under the terms of this provision.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            is there a link that lays out the felony laws with regard to violent offenses?

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            ” That paragraph implements the Fishbeck decision. It makes certain offenders sentenced by a jury before June 9, 2000, eligible for parole.”

            So that says what about this comment you made earlier?

            “These statutes are applicable only for offenses committed before Jan. 1, 1995. For any offense committed after that date, the phrase has no legal meaning. By definition, a life sentence for a murder committed after Jan. 1, 1995, is life without the possibility of parole.”

            Oh wait you contradicted yourself, but as per usual refuse to admit as such.

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        It has meaning now, but you are correct that it will have no meaning if this legislation passes without disqualifying those who received that sentence. Failing to remove them from eligibility for early release under this law will allow them a chance to be released from prison before they die.

        Please understand that I am opposed to sentencing people to ‘life in prison without possibility of parole’ for “regular” Class 1 felonies. I think such a sentence should be reserved for those who in the past would have been sentenced to death.

        We should also retain a sentence of simple “life in prison”, which I envision would allow those receiving that sentence to apply for release after 25 years.

        I do not think this is unreasonable on my part. In fact, I think it is about as “middle of the road” as criminal sentencing, parole, and early release policies can be.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “I think such a sentence should be reserved for those who in the past would have been sentenced to death”

          If this were actually the law, this legislation would likely not be in consideration and we would likely not be having this discussion.

  4. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    I guess one forgot when a couple of years ago the Republicans were complaining about how much was being spent on prisons. And many of the perps were a bad dude but are now just an old dude.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Well, they want them incarcerated, never to get out, and someone else pays the costs. Not fair to
      take taxes from people to pay for it.

      Put them in dungeons and dump food and water in on them from time to time and drag out the ones who have been dispatched or take them to an island and drop them off and let them figure out how to survive or whatever.

      If Kerry REALLY wants to fret about real issues, fret about the number of young people who now
      are car jacking and worse ….just put them in prison for the rest of their lives, right?

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Define worse.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          relative or absolute?

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This article is long on fear-mongering and short on facts. (Not unusual for Kerry,)

    Kerry would have us think that this legislation will result in offenders being released after spending 25 years in prison and running amok in the general population, raping and murdering.

    First of all, the release of any such offender will be dependent on the orginal sentencing court agreeing to the suspension of his sentence after consideration of 13 factors set out in the legislation, including the age of the offender when the offense was committed, the record of the offender while in prison, whether the offender would present a danger to society if released, and evidence and comments submitted by victims or families of victims.

    Violent offenders have a low redicivism rate. According to an analysis from the Virginia Department of Corrections (DOC), less than five percent of felons released from state prison facilities are reincarcerated for a violent offense. Of that less than five percent reincarcerated for a violent offense, less than one percent who were reincarcerated had a prior conviction of murder or manslaughter and 12 percent had a prior sex offense. https://vadoc.virginia.gov/media/1783/vadoc-recidivism-crime-type-over-time-report-2022.pdf

    It is important to keep in mind that many of those released will have spent less than the 20-25 years in prison specified in the proposed legislation. According to the latest report from DOC, the recidivism rate of released offenders over 50 years old was only 8.5 percent. That is reincarceration for any crime–violent, nonviolent, or drug. The havoc predicted by Kerry to result is a figment of her imagination.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      What is alarming hypocritical is that you make the following statement:

      “This article is long on fear-mongering and short on facts. (Not unusual for Kerry,)”

      Which if made on your articles about you, you complain to the moderator.

      Your other statements could be valid, but you remove that aspect when you attack the author. Do better.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Point taken.

      2. Drive-by Commentator Avatar
        Drive-by Commentator

        Maybe his comment is accurate?

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      So answer her question, Dick, “What is it with criminals and Democrats?”

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        We’ve missed you! The answer: Democrats believe in giving those who deserve it a second chance.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          and what is the difference between killing a person for their crimes and torturing them for the rest of their lives?

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Life and death.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            a life of torture?

        2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          So do Republicans. See Bob McDonnell and Don Scott.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Yes, McDonnell was the first governor to put a great deal of emphasis on re-entry–preparing offenders better to cope with release into society.

          2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            And look how Democrats rewarded him.

          3. Drive-by Commentator Avatar
            Drive-by Commentator

            Thank you for reminding us of this.

            It was McDonnell and AG Cuccinelli who, in the last days of the McDonnell administration, signed off on restoring voting rights to almost 4,000 formerly convicted felons.

            O’Donnell and Cooch informed the incoming governor, Terry McAuliffe, that there were well over 200,000 formerly convicted felons ( 20% of whom should have had their rights restored over 20 YEARS AGO ) and who urged McAuliffe to get busy restoring rights.

            To restore an individual’s rights, the Gov must INDIVIDUALLY sign a document. When Northam tried to restore about 100,000 at one time, VA Republicans sued, the State Supreme Court agreed, so Northam went back to signing one at a time.

            Governor Red Vest very quietly, under cover of darkness, stopped restoring rights and has YET TO PUBLISH his promised new requirements.

        3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          No, a fourth.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Many inmates were sentenced under the original three strikes law by simply committing three separate offenses in one “spree”. The incarceration/release requirement came later after these abuses were uncovered…. the damage having already been done.

        4. Marty Chapman Avatar
          Marty Chapman

          How many “second chances” and who is liable to the victims when a convicted offender is released and reoffends?

  6. Marty Chapman Avatar
    Marty Chapman

    There is a cycle to these things. George Allen was elected Governor on a promise to reform parole. This and programs like Project Exile which sent armed, repeat, violent offenders to Federal Prison made VA a safer place by the early 2000s. But cries of racist mass incarceration have led to a reversal of those gains. So, things will have to get worse and the cost of relearning this lesson will be paid in lives.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Because racist mass incarceration is better? Just askin’?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Because racist mass incarceration is better? Just askin’?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        well, if one believes it keeps the crime rate down, sure.

        Worked pretty good in Jim Crow…. right?

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        well, if one believes it keeps the crime rate down, sure.

        Worked pretty good in Jim Crow…. right?

        1. Marty Chapman Avatar
          Marty Chapman

          Larry, you seem to have a ‘Jim Crow” obsession. What reduces the violent crime rate is identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and incarcerating repeat violent offenders. Rehabilitation and job training have a place in this equation, but there is a small group of incorrigibles that just need to be warehoused.

        2. kls Avatar
          kls

          that would be ‘Democratic created and supported Jim Crow’

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Conservatives who happened to be named Democrats until they changed their name but kept their “conservative” Jim Crow principles?

      3. Marty Chapman Avatar
        Marty Chapman

        because failing to confine predatory career criminals is actually the worst form of racism.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          all or just violent ones?

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          How is that racist? And to whom?

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    It could be punish AND rehabilitate.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      the rehab idea left some time ago with conservatives… it’s now – keep them in a cage for as long as can be… and once out, get them back in.

      1. Marty Chapman Avatar
        Marty Chapman

        1970’s “rehab” and parole was a failure by any measure. The jury is still out on the new improved 21st century version. Clearly some, perhaps many, maybe even most offenders can become law abiding and productive citizens with post release support and supervision.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Concerned about new intakes into the system and “growing” them to become worst offenders when they get released. How can ” some, perhaps many, maybe even most offenders can become law abiding and productive citizens with post release support and supervision” .. so you leave them in prison with hard-core felons for years and expect them to become “productive citizens” with “release support and supervision”?
          Too late by then after they have been “re-programmed”, no?

          1. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Larry, the VA Dept of Corrections has a detailed classification process for new inmates. State prison facilities run the gamut between minimum security and “super max”. I am curious how you define “hard core” felon?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I know they do. I’m asking about the idea of putting a first time and/or less serious felon in the same
            prison as serial felons for some period of time then after released, “support” them after they have spent time with the hard core felons – that , instead of rehabilitation while in prison THEN parole and “support”?

            In other words, if we don’t do anything other than incarceration of new offenders – housed with serial violent offenders, do we expect then not to get “schooled” in more serious offenses once released?

          3. kls Avatar
            kls

            So you agree that criminals are willing and able to get better at their trade, rather than become a law abiding citizen….. hence the need to lock them up and throw away the key. thanks for the clarification about the lack of free will among felons.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            What I agree with is that if you put someone in prison not for their lifetime, i.e. they’re gonna get out, and you house them with serial felons and don’t try to rehabilitate them, then release them, if you’re expecting good results… you’re not such a smart person and anyone who supports such a thing is right there with them on that less than smart approach.

            Now if your philosophy is that because of the failure that we have that we ought to just sentence anyone who gets convicted to life , then I understand your philosophy and not really shocked except that you came right out and admitted it!

  8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “…juries and judges should be second-guessed once an inmate has served at least 25 years of his…”

    I believe the legislation in question simply puts the inmate back in front of the same court that sentenced them in the first place, this time providing some flexibility to the judge to use their best… judgement…

  9. Haig48 Avatar
    Haig48

    Creigh’s constituency consists of fatherless criminals and welfare enablers

  10. Drive-by Commentator Avatar
    Drive-by Commentator

    ” News flash: any inmate who’s served that many years in prison is a bad dude. ‘

    Tell that to:
    — Glynn Simmons, 71, who was released in July after prosecutors agreed that key evidence in his case was not turned over to his defense lawyers, was ruled innocent Tuesday. AFTER 48 YEARS IN PRISON.

    — Marvin Haynes has spent most of his life behind bars for a crime he never committed. Even the current local prosecutor said what happened to Haynes, who was 16 when he was charged with murder in 2004 and convicted the following year, was “a terrible injustice.” FREED AFTER 20 YEARS.

    — Maurice Hastings spent more than 38 years behind bars for a 1983 murder he did not commit was declared innocent by a judge in Los Angeles on Wednesday. Hastings was released from prison last year after long-untested DNA evidence pointed to a different suspect.

    — In Virginia there are over 180 “barrier laws” that prevent a person from holding many types of jobs, voting, serving on juries. Many of these are simple, victimless crimes that most of us don’t even know are crimes.
    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/12/02/banned-from-jobs-people-released-from-prison-fight-laws-that-keep-punishing-them?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9KK93LvbhAMVw0ZHAR27UA-0EAMYASAAEgLHTfD_BwE

    Face it: The cops are not always right and are often wrong.

    Read some FACTS. https://innocenceproject.org/

Leave a Reply

Read More