There are two issues — one micro, one macro — at the heart of the report released by the Office of Attorney General Jason Miyares into the conduct of the Virginia Parole Board. Both will need to be resolved through robust public discussion and thoughtful legislative action.
The granular issue involves the board itself, which the AG’s office argues made numerous legal errors and procedural missteps in granting release to 137 inmates between March and April 2020 as the COVID pandemic took firm hold in the commonwealth.
The larger, and arguably more important, public issue is about the purpose of incarceration itself, and whether Virginia believes in rehabilitation and second chances or if its commitment to punishment is unequivocal.
People are also reading…
On the first matter, the AG’s report is the latest chapter in a years-long saga about how the board, a five-member body appointed by the governor, made decisions about early inmate releases in 2020 and the steps taken as part of that process.
Virginia abolished parole in 1995 so the authority of that board is now very limited in scope. It can only consider offenders who committed crimes before 1995 and who have served decades behind bars. Generally it is focused on the infirm and geriatric.
The board ramped up its work as COVID swept across Virginia, when high-density facilities became a breeding ground for the virus. In its haste to speed release of inmates, the AG’s report alleges that members — notably then-Chair Adrianne Bennett — ran roughshod over the laws that ensure victims and their families are given a voice in the decision-making process and commonwealth’s attorneys are kept in the loop.
Miyares said that were it not for the statute of limitations, Bennett would have faced misdemeanor charges for falsifying records. Bennett, now a District Court judge in Virginia Beach, said through her lawyer that she was “grossly targeted” by the report and “no attempt to vilify her changes” her record of public service.
There will be more — much more — about this, including the possibility of Bennett’s impeachment from the bench and details about the handling of a State Inspector General’s investigation into the board.
But in scrutinizing the board’s actions and examining release decisions, the AG’s report puts a spotlight on the larger issue of parole in Virginia and the commonwealth’s system of incarceration in general.
The AG’s report notes that among the 137 released inmates were 35 murderers, 11 rapists and 22 people convicted of armed robbery. The severity of those crimes is shocking, but these individuals were eligible for consideration due to the date of their crimes and the time already served. Of the 137 released in that period, only a few have faced subsequent charges and few of those alleged crimes involved victims.
Miyares and Gov. Glenn Youngkin in separate statements called these parolees “violent criminals” and it’s unquestionably true that many of these individuals were serving time for heinous, brutal offenses. But all of their crimes occurred at least 28 years ago, and most since long before that.
So the question for Virginia is whether rehabilitation is possible in the commonwealth’s correction system. Can someone who committed a terrible act — one that hurt others — serve enough time, sufficiently demonstrate good behavior and proven personal improvement to earn a second chance?
While it can be exceedingly difficult to compare one crime to another, there are some offenses so violent, so nefarious, that those responsible should be kept locked away for good.
But is it still useful to enforce a blanket policy that walls off anyone from the possibility of parole, as Virginia has done, and then question whether the paltry few who receive such grace are worthy of it? Does that make us safer?
As Virginia considers this report and charts its next steps, that should be part of a larger discussion about how best to usher back into society those lawbreakers who accept their punishment, demonstrate genuine remorse and warrant the opportunity of another chance.
