Written by Emma Sauer, L’26
In 1995, during the height of the nation’s “tough on crime” movement, Virginia effectively abolished parole by adopting a “truth-in-sentencing” law.[1] Under its new sentencing legislation, people were mandated to serve, at a minimum, eighty-five percent of their sentences.[2] It was intended for individuals sentenced prior to 1995 to be unaffected; however, the Virginia Parole Board’s parole rate quickly diminished to one of the lowest nationwide.[3] By 1998, early release rates for eligible candidates in Virginia plummeted from forty-six percent to a mere five percent.[4] This shift has left many of the pre-1995, parole-eligible prisoners to serve over twenty-five years in prison, contrary to what the citizens and judges who sentenced them intended or expected.[5]
In recent years, Virginia has attempted to adopt criminal justice reforms to expand eligibility for its aging adult population. [6] One of these reforms included the abolishment of life sentences without parole for juveniles.[7] As a result, individuals who were convicted for a crime they committed while a minor were eligible to apply for parole after serving twenty years.[8] The legislature also allowed for anyone convicted by jury between 1995 and 2000 to be eligible for parole due to the constitutional violations with the jury trial process during the time period.[9] In theory, these reforms have increased the possibility of early release for more individuals, yet the odds are still greatly stacked against incarcerated Virginians who are eligible to apply.[10]
Almost all potential progress made to restore the parole system in Virginia was halted when Governor Glenn Youngkin took office. Prior to Youngkin’s election, the Northam administration aimed to dismantle the 1995 ban as they believed it “led to crowded prisons, escalating medical costs for aging inmates and inequities in sentencing that disproportionately affect people of color.”[11] This sentiment was used against the Democratic Party in the 2021 by Republican candidate Youngkin as a way to paint the party as soft on crime.[12] Despite only granting six percent of the early release petitions at the time, Youngkin stated on social media platforms that the parole board’s singular mission was to “cut them loose.”[13] Youngton also claimed that Virginia would not be safe under the Democratic candidate.[14] Youngkin took office the following year and quickly replaced the parole board with his own appointees.[15] Some of Youngkin’s appointees have openly opposed releasing individuals on parole.[16]
In the few weeks following Youngkin’s initial board appointments, all of the 177 parole requests being considered were denied.[17] In turn, a political standoff with the Democrat-controlled state senate ensued, and all but one of Youngkin’s appointment nominees were blocked.[18] Chadwick Dotson, the only approved nominee, was selected to chair the parole board.[19] Since then, the board has consistently operated without having all five board member positions filled.[20]
Despite being a Youngkin nominee, Dotson issued a report to the governor that called for “drastic changes” to the board.[21] Some of his recommendations included more transparency by allowing the public access to hearing proceedings, as well as expanding the number of board members.[22] A few advocates for people seeking parole have criticized the adoption of some of these transparency practices, as they believe that if individual parole votes are made public, board members will be less likely to grant parole out of fear of backlash.[23] However, others see board transparency as a way to insulate the parole board from the influence of any individual politician and the only way to ensure an equitable system.[24]
Additionally, many advocates for parole eligibility expansion stated that Dotson seemed to make improvements to the board’s practices during his tenure.[25] While serving as chair, Dotson made visits to parole candidates and facilitated an environment where the board gathered on a weekly basis to debate cases where there was “reasonable chance” of granting release.[26] Lisa Spees, who has advocated on behalf of more than thirty parole candidates in Virginia, stated: “I think [Dotson] did give people a fair chance [by implementing] a lot of changes into the parole system that were much needed.”[27] Spees was also able to meet with a parole board member which “gave the individual a sense of being a part of that decision-making process.” [28] Despite his instrumental involvement in changes to the parole process, the board under his year and a half long leadership only granted about two percent of parole applications.[29]
It is feared that Dotson’s departure last year brought all momentum to a halt when Youngkin appointed Patricia West as his replacement.[30] West previously championed the elimination of parole while serving on Republican Governor George Allen’s commission. [31] During her time as Secretary of Public Safety, the Allen administration pushed for minors as young as 14 to be automatically tried in adult court when charged with some violent offenses.[32]
Guided by the principle that “parole is not a right, it’s a privilege extended only to those inmates who are eligible for consideration,” Youngton’s administration has implemented new policies that focus more on aspects outside of an applicant’s control like the crime itself or input from a prosecutor and victim’s families.[33] For example, a new policy was put in place this year which dictates how families and advocates for the parole applicants will only be allowed to attend meetings with the board every two years, while victims of people applying for parole will still be entitled to annual appointments.[34]
As chances for parole continue to decline nationwide, experts believe that Virginia stands out as it is denying almost all parole applications under the Youngkin administration.[35] Advocates against the eradication of the parole system argue that withholding conditional releases from deserving candidates “ultimately advances blind punishment and undermines incentives toward rehabilitation and positive change.”[36]
Isabela Dias, Chances for Parole Go from Bad to Worse Under Virginia’s New GOP Leadership, Bolts (May 10, 2022), https://boltsmag.org/glenn-youngkin-virginia-parole-board/.
[1] Isabela Dias, Under Glenn Youngkin, Parole in Virginia Has Nearly Vanished, Mother Jones (May 20, 2024), https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2024/05/under-glenn-youngkin-parole-in-virginia-has-nearly-vanished-prisons-second-chance-bolts/.
[2] Id.
[3] David Bruck, Bernadette Donovan, & Matthew Engle, Parole in Virginia, 2021: The Final Report of the Washington and Lee Law Parole Representation Project, BolVirginia Capital Case Clearinghouse Washington & Lee University School of Law (2021), chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/dailyprogress.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/92/f92aee94-6951-5491-ba0c-f35bea4801d4/60cd02488d790.pdf.pdf.
[4] Dias, supra note 1.
[5] Bruck, supra note 3.
[6] Dias, supra note 1.
[7] Isabela Dias, Chances for Parole Go from Bad to Worse Under Virginia’s New GOP Leadership, Bolts (May 10, 2022), https://boltsmag.org/glenn-youngkin-virginia-parole-board/.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Antonio Olivo, Virginia Abolished Parole 25 Years Ago. Now Efforts to Restore It Are Advancing, Wash. Post (Feb. 1, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginia-abolished-parole-25-years-ago-now-efforts-to-restore-it-are-advancing/2020/02/01/c36c85ae-4218-11ea-b5fc-eefa848cde99_story.html
[12] Dias, supra note 7.
[13] Dias, supra note 1.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Dias, supra note 7.
[18] Dias, supra note 1.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Dias, supra note 7.
[24] Id; Dias, supra note 1.
[25] Dias, supra note 1.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
[31] Id
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Id.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.