Now That We've Replaced Virginia's State Song, Could Adopt A More Appropriate State Seal?

Note the image of the goddess Virtue and the motto ("So be it ever to Tyrants") on the Virginia state seal. This photo was taken at a recent meeting two fellow members of the Valley Justice Coalition and I had with Director Joseph Walters and some of his Department of Corrections staff in Richmond. As I reflected on  the seal I was struck by the unintended impression it might give of the DOC oppressing and punishing the incarcerated rather than effectively correcting and rehabilitating them.

Nathaniel Fairfield, an expert in all things technological, used AI to create an alternative state seal for me that might be a more appropriate for the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, "Sic Semper Humilatio," translated literally as "Thus Ever Humbled,"  is not quite what I was looking for, so I thought I would ask AI (a tool I normally avoid like the plague) to create yet another possible seal. 

I instructed AI to have the two figures in this version be "persons of color" (non-white), but this is what I got, with  the words "Mercy and Justice" on the top and "Ita Semper Progentibus" at the bottom, or "Thus Ever For Those Who Need." 

In any case, I'm showing these only for the sake of getting your suggestions. I would definitely not want Virtue to be portrayed as a white person showing benevolence toward a descendant of slaves.

I welcome your comments and suggestions below.

The Amazing, Miraculous Passage Of HB1030

None of us dreamed this would pass both the House and Senate without a single opposing vote.

Early last year my friend Jonathan White at the Lawrenceville Correctional Center contacted some of us with the Valley Justice Coalition about a project he and his friend David Carmichael had been working on for well over a year. 

White and Carmichael, still eligible for parole, having been incarcerated before 1995, the year parole was abolished in Virginia, created a draft of a bill that would provide objective criteria the parole board would be required to use in evaluating eligibility for release. The two, like multitudes of others in Virginia’s prisons, had themselves been denied parole year after year based on such things as “the seriousness of the crime” and other factors they were powerless to do anything about.

So they came up with a list of factors with point values resulting in a numerical score that would help determine an individual’s eligibility for release. These included such things as length of time served, numbers of classes and groups participated in, years of being infraction-free while incarcerated, and having a satisfactory home plan for release. Anyone with a high (good) score but being denied parole would have to be provided with a written statement of explanation.

With copies of the proposed bill in hand, several of us met with Delegate Tony Wilt last fall to ask whether he would be willing to sponsor such legislation in the 2026 General Assembly, just as he had successfully done the previous year with a bill to provide for a Public Defender’s Office for our community. After some discussion he agreed to at least give it some careful consideration. His capable assistant, Chad Funkhouser, then did some further research on the possibility and came back with an affirmative response, resulting in what became House Bill 1030.

Meanwhile we were able to get the support of formerly incarcerated community leaders, notably Kenneth Hunter of the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, David Smith of S.A.L.T., Rob Poggenklass of Justice Forward Virginia, and Taj Mahon-Haft and Shawn Waneta of the Humanization Project. Waneta made some helpful suggestions for changes in some of the wording and got positive responses from some members of the parole board. Even then we remained unsure of what reception the bill would get from other lawmakers in Richmond.

To our amazement, the bill passed through two House committees and the full House of Delegates without a single dissenting vote,. It then passed the Senate Rehabilitation and Social Services  Committee in a 19-0 vote, with the help of some good testimony by some of the above supporters. From there the bill went to the Senate with some minor wording changes that were incorporated in the final version. It then passed unanimously in a block vote in the Senate on Tuesday. From there it goes to Governor Spanberger for her signature.

Some 20 incarcerated persons have already written Delegate Wilt expressing their appreciation for his effort. And scores of deserving incarcerated men and women across Virginia are set to benefit from an increased opportunity to be reunited with their loved ones and have a second chance at making a positive contribution to their families and communities. Likewise, citizens across Virginia will benefit from having rehabilitated men and women added to the work force and paying taxes rather than requiring ever more tax dollars to house them in prison. Then there are the aging and ailing persons who can potentially receive care from members of their family and others on the outside, men and women who are clearly no longer a danger to their communities.

We see HB1030 as truly a miracle for which we praise God and offer thanks to the many who prayed and worked hard for its passage.

Here is the substance of the bill:

• § 53.1-151.1. Suitability for release on parole; discretionary parole criteria guidelines.

A. The Parole Board or staff designated by the Board shall use the information collected through the investigation required by § 53.1-155 to determine discretionary parole criteria guidelines when evaluating a prisoner's suitability for release on parole. The Department of Corrections shall assist to the fullest extent possible with requests for records.

B. A completed discretionary parole criteria worksheet shall be provided to the prisoner in advance of the parole hearing. If an eligible prisoner believes that his worksheet score is inaccurate, the prisoner shall be permitted to contest the worksheet score and to provide records necessary to correct such score prior to the Board's vote on the decision to grant parole. If the Parole Board finds the prisoner's contest is well-founded, the worksheet score shall be updated accordingly. Suitability for release on parole shall be computed using the schedule of discretionary parole criteria set out below:

SCHEDULE OF DISCRETIONARY PAROLE CRITERIA

1. Compliant with case plan: No: 0; Yes: 10

2. Major infraction within past five years: None: 0; Per major infraction: -10

3. Minor infraction within past five years: None: 0; Per minor infraction: -2

4. Applied for or enrolled in educational, vocational, or therapeutic program: No: 0: Yes: 5

5. Completed educational and vocational programs: Associate’s degree or above: 5; High school degree or GED: 5; Journeyman trade skill: 5; Vocational trade: 3

6. Verified residential plan: No: 0; Yes: 15

7. Previous state responsible incarceration: None: 0; per previous state responsible incarceration: -5

8. Length of time served; Per 10 years: 5

9. Age of offender at time of offense: 26 years of age or older: 0; 21-25 years of age: 5; 18-20 years of age: 10; 18 years of age or younger: 15

10. Verified employment plan: No: 0; Yes: 15

TOTAL OF SCORES: Tier 1: 50 or more points; Tier 2: 25-49 points; Tier 3: 0-25 points

C. A maximum of 10 points may be earned by a prisoner for satisfying the criteria listed in subdivision B 5, related to verified educational and vocational programs.

D. A maximum of 15 points may be earned by a prisoner for satisfying the criteria listed in subdivision B 6, related to a verified residential plan. Satisfaction of such criteria listed in subdivision B 6 requires the prisoner to provide a letter of verification.

E. A prisoner shall earn five points for every 10 years served, and there shall be no limit to the amount of points a prisoner may earn for satisfying the criteria listed in subdivision B 8, related to length of time served.

F. A prisoner shall earn 15 points for satisfying the criteria listed in subdivision B 10, related to a verified employment plan. Satisfaction of such criteria listed in subdivision B 10 requires the prisoner to provide a letter of verification. Any prisoner who is (i) permanently disabled or (ii) 65 years of age or older and retired shall receive the full amount of points under subdivision B 10.

G. If a prisoner's score is within the Tier 1 range, such prisoner shall receive favorable consideration for parole. If a prisoner's score is within the Tier 2 range, such prisoner may be considered a suitable candidate for parole. If a prisoner's score is within the Tier 3 range, such prisoner is presumed to be unsuitable for parole at the time of the hearing.

    If the Parole Board deviates from the recommendation based on the discretionary parole criteria worksheet score for a prisoner scored at Tier 1 or Tier 3, the Board shall provide a written explanation for such deviation.

    Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Board from making its final determination on whether or not to grant discretionary parole based on the individual facts and circumstances of the prisoner.

DN-R Monthly Justice Matters Column

The Valley Justice Coalition publishes a monthly Justice Matters 
column, this latest one being by two JMU students. 

Students Learn By Doing

How much do you know about what happens in our local courts from day to day?

As part of our Communities and Courts class at James Madison University, a number of us are spending time each week observing the courtroom, speaking with judges, watching cases unfold, and collecting data for the Community-Court Connection (C3) project, which is promoted locally by James Madison University and the Valley Justice Coalition. The purpose is to help us and our community better understand how the local justice system functions.

What we take away from this experience is more than what we could learn in a classroom. Each week, we observe the General District Court or Circuit Court for an hour, witnessing everything from traffic violations to felony cases. We take notes on interactions among individuals in the courtroom to better understand how each person’s role contributes to the system’s overall functioning. We also collect data on the number of charges, the types of offenses, courtroom procedures, and the presence or absence of legal representation, among other details, before recording the information on our online dataset.

Court-watching programs have become increasingly common throughout the country. According to a training conducted by the American Bar Association Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice, the goal is to reveal injustices within the court to the public and increase transparency. Observing court proceedings shows how case outcomes can vary depending on the court actors involved, as judges differ in their approaches and demeanors: some are more lenient and forgiving, while others are more formal and strict. Data on case outcomes show that different court actors involved can make a significant difference.

The connection between course materials and our real-life observations has challenged our assumptions about the fairness of the legal system. We have noted that the presence of attorneys from the new Harrisonburg and Rockingham County’s Public Defenders Office has had a positive effect on outcomes. Abigail Thibeault, Chief Public Defender, informed us that Harrisonburg has had such an office for just over a year now, and that until then, low-income individuals had to rely on court-appointed attorneys, often with limited time and resources.

While we have been told that overall crime rates have been declining, our local courts remain incredibly busy, especially with traffic and misdemeanor offenses. The data we collected for our class support this. Between September 23 and 28, for example, 17 students collectively observed 133 cases, despite each attending court for only an hour a week.

Our observations further confirmed that social constructs, such as economic inequality, shape legal outcomes. Individuals who lack the funds for an attorney often face longer delays, more uncertainty, and fewer options. According to our class data, around 374 individuals from our observation hours appeared in court without legal counsel. This means they either couldn’t afford representation or, as in many traffic or misdemeanor cases, representation didn’t seem necessary. But when representation is needed, the lack of representation can significantly affect case outcomes negatively for those charged.

Through observing the courts and gaining a deeper understanding of the justice system, we develop professional skills that will support our future careers. We strengthen our time management by fitting weekly court visits into our busy schedules and identifying which sessions are most productive. We have improved our communication skills by watching how judges, attorneys, police, and defendants interact professionally. We have also gained insight into ethical decision-making by seeing legal professionals balance courtroom rules with their own judgment. Such skills will directly shape our career paths in the justice field and our roles as engaged community members.

Our observations have highlighted many strengths within our local courts, such as organized, timely proceedings and the reliability of court interpreters. Court staff were knowledgeable and prepared, creating an efficient courtroom environment. However, securing legal representation for low-income individuals remains a barrier for many, so additional resources to reduce these inequalities will help ensure equity in the system.

Community volunteers are also being invited to take part in this ongoing project, which offers insight into how our local legal system works, broader perspectives about issues of legal injustice, and the importance of being an educated and engaged citizen.

Justice Matters columns are provided by the VJC, a local citizen voice for criminal justice reform in our community and in the Commonwealth since 2014. This one was written by JMU students Sydney Herrmann and Caroline Wright.

Going Bananas Over Injustice

Inflation hasn't seemed to affect the price of this exotic (non-native) fruit at our nearby Food Lion.

"Listen! Hear the cries of the wages of your field hands. These are the wages you stole from those who harvested your fields. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of heavenly forces. You have lived a self-satisfying life on this earth, a life of luxury. You have stuffed your hearts in preparation for the day of slaughter." 

James 5:4-5 (CEB)

Have you ever wondered why we pay less for imported bananas than any other item in the produce section of our supermarkets? Or why we have to pay up to four times as much for apples or peaches, among the native products available to us (though even those are also often imported from distant countries)? 

One obvious reason is that wages and other operating costs are far lower elsewhere than those in the US. If we grew and marketed bananas here, the price would be far higher, even in cases where migrant workers are employed.

Sam Funkhouser, Princeton seminary graduate and member of an Old German Baptist group in Edinburg, in a keynote address at a November 15, 2025, workshop I attended, asked the question, "How many of the goods and products we take for granted could we afford if all who worked to make them possible were paid the wages we would expect for ourselves?"

Including the harvesting and shipping of bananas.

An informative article in the Wikipedia on "banana republics" describes some Central American and other countries as follows:

A banana republic is a country with an economy of state capitalism, where the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class. Typically, a banana republic has a society of extremely stratified social classes, usually a large impoverished working class and a ruling class plutocracy, composed of the business, political, and military elites.The ruling class controls the primary sector of the economy by exploiting labor. Such exploitation is enabled by collusion between the state and favored economic monopolies, in which the profit, derived from the private exploitation of public lands, is private property. At the same time, the debts incurred thereby are the financial responsibility of the public treasury. Therefore, the term banana republic is a pejorative descriptor for a servile oligarchy that abets and supports, for kickbacks, the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation.... By the 1930s, the United Fruit Company owned 1,400,000 hectares (3.5 million acres) of land in Central America and the Caribbean. 

Honduras and Guatemala are cited in the article as two examples of countries in which US corporations like the United Fruit Company (now Chiquitas), and the Standard Fruit Company (now Dole) gained and have maintained major economic and political control over their host nations, often with the clandestine help of CIA and other US agencies that helped overturn governments they saw as getting in their way.

Even in Costa Rica, one of the more democratic Central American nations, Dole and other powerful corporations have managed to gain possession of huge amounts of land to make it one of the largest producers of pineapples in the world. Members of my oldest brother's family who live in the Pital region in the northeast part of the country have witnessed firsthand the takeover of hundreds of acres of good agricultural land for pineapple production. This was obtained by Del Monte from subsistence farmers who were promised good employment and a better life if they sold their property to the company. The result has been heavy truck traffic causing harm to local roads, the exploitation of local workers and a marked increase in drug use in the community. 

To the extent that we all benefit we are also all complicit.