Guest Post: Another Heartbreaking Story

Jonathan D. White

Sadly, I must inform all of you that the decision of the Virginia Parole Board I received here at the Augusta Correctional Center (ACC) August 11, 2022 was once again to "not grant" my release. No one here at ACC who has been interviewed for parole consideration has been granted parole in 2022. 

My Case Management Counselor, as disappointed as I am, has provided me with reconsideration and appeal forms to file.

I had been interviewed for parole consideration on April 21 by Ms. Tina Bowen, the parole examiner assigned to conduct parole interviews at this facility. Ms. Bowen assured me that there was no opposition to my release and I had an exceptional institutional record of adjustment, along with excellent treatment participation and both educational and vocational accomplishments. She praised my ability to remain infraction free for the past nearly forty-one years of my incarceration in the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) following my arrest on November 19, 1981 and while in the Suffolk City Jail through my trial and sentencing.

I have absolutely no prior criminal history record, so am serving time as a first time offender. Nevertheless, I have  been turned down year after year, in spite of my being a model prisoner and a positive role model and mentor to others here at ACC, and in spite of having earned a college degree while in prison. 

So my question to Chairman Dotson and the Parole Board is simply, “What standards of suitability are being applied in the consideration of my case, as compared to those few (only 43 in this calendar year in all of Virginia) who have been granted parole?"

Here is a part of the computer generated letter I received from the Board:

The Virginia Parole Board recently reviewed your case for potential release on both discretionary parole and geriatric conditional release.

The Board, in determining whether you should be released on parole or geriatric conditional release, considered a number of factors, including but not limited to, whether your release would be compatible with public safety and the mutual interest of society and you, whether your character, conduct, vocational training and other developmental activities during incarceration reflect the probability that you will lead a law-abiding life in the community and live up to all conditions of parole, if released; sentencing information, facts and circumstances of the offense(s) including mitigating and aggravating factors; prior criminal history and information regarding adjustment to previous probation or parole, if any; personal history; institutional adjustment such as your response to available programs; changes in attitude toward self and others; release plans; evaluations; impressions gained when interviewed by the parole examiner; and any other information provided by you, your attorney, family, victims or other persons.

In accordance with Code Section 53.1-155 and in consideration of the factors listed above and information available to us, the Virginia Parole Board's decision to "NOT GRANT" discretionary parole and geriatric conditional release on August 9, 2022 is based primarily on the following reasons:

* Serious nature and circumstances of your offense(s).

* History of violence.

* Release at this time would diminish seriousness of crime.

* The Board concludes that you should serve more of your sentence prior to release on parole.

* The Board considers you to be a risk to the community.

Meanwhile, I thank all of you for helping me to put forth the best presentation I could to the Virginia Parole Board. I am grateful to each of you who has supported my discretionary parole reentry planning and my geriatric conditional release consideration, and who have made your support and concerns known to the Virginia Parole Board on my behalf. I ask that you continue to lift my name up in prayer and continue to express your concerns to the Virginia Parole Board, Chairman Chadwick Dotson, and the still unconfirmed members of the board in a hopeful reconsideration of the decision to deny me parole at this time.

Keep me in your prayers continuously!

Blessings,

Jonathan

HARD TIME VIRGINIA Vol. 6, No. 1 (an occasional newsletter for Virginia prisoners)

2020 Parole Release Numbers Remain Disappointing                  

Only 467 geriatric and regular parole releases were granted in 2020, with the highest number (113) being in March and the lowest number (9) in May. These included many sentenced as juveniles who are now eligible for parole. Since the Parole Board has recently come under criticism for some prisoners it has released it seems to be denying more of the "old law" and even "first time" offenders who have violent crime convictions. Many are now in the geriatric age group, which diminishes their chances of a successful reentry.

2/5/21 Letter on Parole to the Daily News-Record

Editor, DNR: My heart goes out to all victims of horrible crimes, and I join them in opposing the release of violent criminals. But should not parole be considered for prisoners who for decades have shown genuine remorse, a willingness to make restitution in whatever ways possible, and who have demonstrated law-abiding, non-violent behaviors in the worst neighborhoods imaginable—prisons? If we don't believe such correction is possible we should simply rename the DOC the Department of Punishment, or just give those guilty of violent crimes an immediate death sentence rather than a prolonged life sentence. And, we should choose some other religion, since our scriptures are all about restoration and redemption, with people once guilty of capital offenses, like Moses, David and Paul, becoming the Bible's most prolific authors, proclaiming both God's justice and amazing grace. So, let’s not release unrepentant criminals, but offer second chances to transformed ones.                                                                                                                                    - Harvey Yoder, Rockingham, Virginia

Groups Demand More COVID Protection For Prisoners

Nearly 7,800 inmates in state prisons have come down with COVID-19. Fifty of them and two staff members have died, and advocates are demanding the governor release more people who are at high risk of death from the virus. And in the last six months of the year the Department of Corrections has spent more than $7 million in hospital bills alone. 

   The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia says some of the pain and expense could have been avoided if the state had followed through on promises to release people who pose no threat to public safety and were supposed to get out within a year.  Jenny Glass speaks for the ACLU.

   “People who are incarcerated in Virginia at 7.6 times more likely to get infected with COVID-19 and 3.1 times more likely to die from the virus," she explains.

   When her group sued the Department of Corrections, officials promised to speed up review of inmates eligible for early release and those who had requested pardons.

   “VADOC has been incredibly slow in reviewing and granting early release to people.  On a good week about 40 people may get approved, on a bad one that number is as low as six people," Glass says. "Governor Northam also had the power to grant clemency to people through a conditional pardon, but he has not released any data about his progress, because his administration has claimed executive privilege.”  information from Sandra Hausman, WVTF radio. Hear her entire piece here: 

https://www.wvtf.org/post/groups-demand-more-protection-prisoners#stream/0

A Virginia Prisoner’s Wish List For Prison And Parole Reforms

1. Past offenses should not remain the deciding issue in granting parole, as human beings evolve and can change (be corrected) over time while in a DOC facility. In the early 1990's Virginia had just over ten thousand people incarcerated. Now there are some thirty thousand behind bars in Virginia prisons, costing taxpayers over one billion dollars annually. It is much more cost effective to rehabilitate and release people than to keep them incarcerated. There are people who have been incarcerated in Virginia since the 1960's who have been model inmates and many have aged out of crime. There are approximately 1,500 parole eligible people who have served 25 or more consecutive years in prison and/or are age 50 and older. There are over five hundred people who are eligible for both Regular Parole and Geriatric Parole grants in Virginia's prisons. These people should be released if their merits, prison record and attitudes demonstrate they are no longer a threat to society and their COMPAS Test shows that they are a low risk for violent recidivism and or recidivism in general.

2. Deserving inmates who could possibly die or be permanently disabled from contracting the COVID-19 virus should be released with a conditional pardon. 

3. Priority should be given to the release of deserving inmates who were sentenced prior to the implementation of the 1995 "No Parole" law, then those who have become eligible under the Fishback category and those who are eligible for geriatric release.

4. The Lawrenceville Correctional Center, a Geo Group privately operated prison, should be closed and sold or used as a reentry facility for parolees.

5. The Virginia Parole Board (VPB) should no longer use the inmate's crime as a reason to deny parole, not arbitrarily deny parole release to inmates who have served 25 or more consecutive years. And when it issues a "not grant" decision, it should tell each inmate how to enhance their chance for release.

6. We should eliminate the catch-22 situation with the Parole Board requiring eligible persons to have an approved home plan with a specific address, since many places won't promise or reserve a bed for a person until after they have received a grant from the VPB.

7. Provide WiFi in housing units so inmates can receive regular educational material from VADOC 24-7 even during a pandemic. New or used laptop computers should provided, or inmates or their families should be allowed to purchase them and have them shipped directly to the inmate. Also, they should be allowed to store information on their laptop's hard drive, which would make it easier for technicians to search for contraband and eliminate excessive paperwork.

Or VADOC could contract directly with Microsoft to make their Microsoft Surface laptops with Microsoft Office already installed for a reasonable and affordable price.

8. VADOC inmates should be provided an increase in pay and should be allowed to work 40 hour weeks. The majority of inmates are paid from 27¢ to 45¢ per hour, rates that have been in effect for over three decades, both before and after VADOC allowed for-profit companies to enter the VADOC and to profit off inmate labor.

********************

"Prison may be just a word to you, but for some people, it’s a whole sentence."

The Virginia Parole Board-- A Modest Proposal

According to the Virginia Parole Board's website, they
have carried out this mission only once so far in 2025.

Fact #1: In 1995 parole was replaced with Truth in Sentencing legislation that required at least 85% of a sentence being served before one could be released from prison. However, there are still nearly 3500 men and women in the Commonwealth who are parole eligible, including those who were incarcerated before the 1995 law was passed and those sentenced as juveniles. Half of the total are also eligible for geriatric release due to their age and time served.

Fact #2: The Virginia Parole Board, consisting of five members appointed by the governor, has a support staff of between 40-50 persons and an annual operating budget of over $2.8 million.

Fact #3: The Board's stated mission is “to protect public safety and contribute to a fair and effective justice system by ensuring that persons who remain a threat to society remain incarcerated and those who no longer present a risk are released to become productive citizens.”

Fact #4: Yet according to the 2025 numbers posted on the Board's official website, only one person, a geriatric case, has been granted release so far this year. One.

Is our Department of Corrections failing to correct the over 20,000 men and women its charge, at a cost of over $1.5 billion annually? Or is the Parole Board not carrying out its mission?

In any case, scores of parole eligible individuals are being denied release year after year, in spite of their 1) maintaining infraction-free records while incarcerated, 2) taking every vocational and self-improvement class possible, 3) serving as mentors and role models in their pods and work places and 4) even earning college degrees behind bars. Many lament that had they been sentenced by “truth in sentencing” guidelines, they would have already been released, without any parole board action.

For those eligible, parole examiners make a recommendation to the board based on both a meeting they have with an individual and an examination of their record, after which cases are voted on by at least three, or depending on the sentence, four, of the five board members in a video meeting. The stated reasons posted for their “not grant” verdicts appear to be computer-generated, as in the following actual example from the website:

Release at this time would diminish seriousness of crime; History of violence; Crimes committed - Kidnap/Abduct, Kidnap/Abduct; Extensive criminal record; Considering your offense and your institutional records, the Board concludes that you should serve more of your sentence before being paroled; The Board concludes that you should serve more of your sentence prior to release on parole; Serious nature and circumstances of your offense(s).

If there are other factors affecting Board decisions, such as resistance from victim families or from a Commonwealth’s Attorney office, that information is not made public.

The Valley Justice Coalition strongly favors Virginia rejoining the majority of states who see that it is in tax-payer’s best interest to have a fully functioning parole system. Mississippi, for example, one of 16 states that once abolished parole, reinstated it in 2021, realizing that the prospect of earning an early release is a powerful incentive for doing well.

We also favor legislation proposed by numerous groups, including by some parole eligible individuals I know, that would create specific criteria for determining whether to grant release. 

Here are 14 items one such group has put together that would create a “Scored Parole Eligibility Level” of either One (75-100 points), Two (60-74 points), or Three (0-59 points), based on the following criteria:

1. PRIOR OFFENSE HISTORY IN VDOC: None (2 points) 2-3 One (-1), Two (-3), Four or More (-4)

2. HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL VIOLENCE WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS: None (0), Assault not involving the use of a weapon (-5), Assault involving the use of a weapon (-10)

3. POSITIVE DRUG TEST IN THE PAST 60 MONTHS CONVICTION: None (0), One (-2), Two or more (-4)

4. POSITIVE ALCOHOL TEST IN THE PAST 60 MONTHS CONVICTION: None (0), Two or more (-2)

5. LENGTH OF TIME SERVED: 5 years (3), 10 years (4), 15 years (5), 20 years (8), 25 years (12), 30 years or more (14)

6. THE INMATE ADMITS TO THEIR ACTION IN THE CRIME FOR WHICH THEY ARE CONVICTED: No (0), Yes, (10)

7. THE INMATE COMPLETED THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF TIME TO QUALIFY FOR DISCRETIONARY PAROLE (Old law, Juvenile, Fishback, Three Strike) OR GERIATRIC PAROLE: 

Discretionary (10), Geriatric (5)

8. THE INMATE HAS OBTAINED THEIR G.E.D. OR HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA, OR IS ENROLLED IN A G.E.D. CLASS: No (0), Yes (10)

9. THE INMATE HAS COMPLETED A VOCATIONAL, TRADE OR JOURNEYMANSHIP, OR IS CURRENTLY ENROLLED: No  (0), YES (10)

10. THE INMATE IS CURRENTLY ENROLLED OR HAS COMPLETED A MENTAL HEALTH/THERAPEUTIC PROGRAM, PROGRAMS: None (0), Yes (10)

11. THE  INMATE PARTICIPATED IN ALL WORK PROGRAMMING OR HAS APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE LAST 60 MONTHS: No (0), Yes (10)

12. THE INMATE ADHERED TO ANY THERAPY REQUIREMENTS IN THE PAST 60 MONTHS BY ENROLLING ON THE WAITING LIST: No (0), Yes (10)

13. A) THE INMATE COMPLETED THE VADOC COMPASS TEST, AND IF SCORED HIGH RISK FOR RECIDIVISM, AGREES TO ANKLE MONITORING AS A CONDITION FOR PAROLE: No (-5), Yes (5)

B) THE INMATE COMPLETED THE VADOC COMPASS TEST AND SCORED LOW FOR RECIDIVISM: Yes (10)

14.CURRENT AGE: Under 21 (0), 21-29 (1), 30-39 (2), 40-49 (3), 50 and older (4)

We urge members of the General Assembly to consider this or similar legislation that would help Virginia become a model state for best practices in criminal justice.

Update September 2025: Hats off to Delegate Tony Wilt, who is working at introducing a version of the above at the upcoming General Assembly.

Sample Letter To Virginia Legislators About Granting Geriatric and Regular Parole To Deserving Prisoners

Its mission is to "grant parole to those whose
release is compatible with public safety."

If you believe parole release should be granted to Virginia prisoners who have worked hard for years to earn it, I suggest you write your own letter or email to your legislators, but here's a sample letter by the Virginia chapter of Ignite Justice:

Dear Senator,

   This letter is in regards to the confirmation of the current parole board. Governor Youngkin vowed to slow parole rates for violent criminals which makes up nearly all of the parole docket. Looking at the current parole board’s body of work, it's clear they're committed to Youngkin's mission. In 2021 163 people were released on parole in Virginia compared to only 53 under this "interim" parole board in 2022. The coalition of prison justice reformers are arguing that prisoners who've waited 2 decades for justice from unfair trials are now being subjected to an unfair parole process.  

First, there's the question of what legal and ethical authority these nominees have, who've yet to be confirmed to grant or deny anyone parole. The law requires parole membership to come from 2 separate processes involving 2 separate branches of government. This so-called "interim" parole board has functioned as members for nearly a year without legislative confirmation and the coalition says that's unfair at best and unlawful at worst. 

Second, the coalition asserts that the parole board is biased because they were chosen specifically to reduce parole rates. 

Third, the coalition asserts that there's a structurally racist component to the make-up of the parole board. The last parole board was 80% African American and Youngkin replaced them with a parole board that's 80% white. The coalition argues that nearly 70% of the people going up for parole are African American and from areas in Virginia many of these people have never been. 

Lastly, the coalition asserts that the interim parole board is made of people who aren't from Virginia. Of the four interim members only Samuel Boone Jr is from Virginia. None of the others who are impacting the fate of citizens of this Commonwealth are from Virginia. 

For these reasons the coalition wants their confirmation hearings to be public and the following questions asked to the interim parole board members: 

1.  Why has the parole rate dropped so drastically under the interim PB from that of the previous PB?  

2.  Why are so many inmates being given more reasons for their parole denials by this interim PB than they were given under the previous PB? 

3.  Would you be okay with establishing objective standards for inmates to make parole? 

4.  How important is a PB members subjective opinion in deciding whether to grant parole? 

5.  Do you believe FISHBACK parole and Juvenile parole inmates who became eligible in 2020 should be reviewed differently considering their paroles are remedies for violations of their rights? 

6.  Are their criminal acts that have been committed that are so violent or gruesome in your mind there's no way you'd vote for the offender of the act to be paroled? 

7.  What biases do you consciously bring to the job and how do you mitigate those biases? 

8.  What are you looking for when reviewing someone's parole request? 

9.  Chairman Dotson has stated at several meetings that the PB is going to try and get a check list of requirements for inmates to make parole, what would be 3 requirements you'd present? 

10. Do you believe there should be more members on the PB? explain. 

 11. Would you like personally to meet the inmates requesting parole or do you prefer the  current system using interviewers not on the PB? explain.

We the people ask that these questions be asked of the parole board nominees during the confirmation hearing. We also ask that based on the previous results from last year that you vote to NOT confirm these nominees. 

Respectfully, a concerned Virginia Citizen

Guest Post: Is Our Virginia Parole Board Dysfunctional?

The following is a condensed version of something recently sent me by a Virginia inmate who has worked hard for decades to earn the parole he was assured he would get when he entered a plea instead of having his case tried in court. He wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.

The unsanctioned activities of the Virginia Parole Board are counterproductive to Virginia's Adult Reentry Initiative, a plan to reduce recidivism rates and help state and local governments cut prison costs and save taxpayer dollars.

Prison maintenance costs are increasing every year, and at the same time Virginia's correctional facilities are as crowded as ever while more and more sentenced prisoners are backed up in  local and regional jails awaiting transfers to state correctional institutions.

Virginia's Truth-in-Sentencing Law grandfathered parole release for all prisoners sentenced prior to July 1, 1995, which means there are still thousands of old-law inmates waiting to be released on parole. Some signed plea agreements with verbal promises from attorneys that they would make first or second parole after they had served a number of years and completed mandated treatment programs. Yet the justice system, through its parole board, is finding ingenious ways to back out of its part of the commitment.

Parole eligible prisoners are often denied parole because the "war on crime" has become such a political issue, and for many in power it would seem like political suicide to have  large numbers of felons released back into society. In addition, many people get locked up because some police officers are overzealous, or because public defenders often fail to provide effective defenses, or because of mental illnesses. Authorities often see it as cheaper to lock people up than to treat them.

 VADOC programs aim to build up prisoners'self esteem, hopes and dreams by providing cognitive-behavioral treatment programs, education, and vocational and job training only to have the Parole Board tear it all down, with a grant rate of under 4%, one of the lowest in the nation.

These men and women are confused and disheartened. Do they save up money for release or spend money waiting to die in prison? Most have done all they can do, to no avail.

VADOC has completed a study on recidivism and found those convicted of violent crimes and sexually-based offenses had the  lowest recidivism rates. Those who committed such crimes in their youth eventually grow up to become the kind of mature, responsible individuals who can be safely returned to society where they can be monitored and supervised, and in many cases placed on Home Electronic Monitoring, which has proved to be highly successful and incomparably cheaper than keeping people locked up.

Some of the unlawful and unethical methods used by the VPB include dredging up old cases that are decades old, tracking down surviving victims and/or their families, and thus opening old wounds and asking intrusive questions about the continuing impact of old crimes. In addition to being traumatic to surviving victims and their families who are trying to move on with their lives, such methods represent forms of double jeopardy, since all the information related to the crime was already examined at trial and factored into the sentence decades or more ago.

Many cases of error and confusion have been associated with the work of the Parole Board:

1. Parole-eligible prisoners have received a one-year deferral only to find later that it was changed to a three-year deferral.

2. Some parole-eligible prisoners have received official denial letters with the name of the Board's chair imprinted on it even before they were able to speak to the parole interviewer.

3. There are all too frequent clerical errors in a prisoner's file, information they are not able to review ahead of time.

As a result of the way Virginia's expensive parole system is set up and operated, many parole eligible prisoners have come to the conclusion that no matter what evidence is offered at the hearing by the parole interviewer, that his or her impact on the Board's decisions is negligible.

Some examples of old-law prisoners who would present no risk to society if released on parole:

1. A nearly blind 82-year old who has served 38 years and is a model prisoner.

2. A model prisoner who has served over 40 years and who will be deported to his home country once he is paroled.

3. Countless men and women who have been model inmates, have earned single cells, and have a good work record, clean prison records, and excellent job references.

4. Hundreds of men and women who have met the criteria for Geriatric Parole release and have completed a treatment plan and become model prisoners.

Regrettably, Parole Board members tend to overestimate the likelihood that a released prisoner under supervised parole will re-offend. Ironically, they sometimes grant parole to prisoners who, judging by their institutional conduct, don't deserve it and who typically come right back to prison, thereby justifying the Board's extreme caution and miniscule parole rate.

May we suggest that the Governor of Virginia, jointly with the Virginia Secretary of Public Safety, form a task force to investigate and address the above concerns? The board should be transparent like all state agencies and submit to performance evaluations that would hold it accountable for its results and not cover up for its deficiencies.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Check this link for more posts on this subject, then make a phone call and/or send a letter expressing your concern to the following current members of the parole board and to the Governor, the Secretary of Public Safety and the Attorney General (along with a copy of this post if you wish):

Ms. Karen Brown, Chair
Algie T. Howell, Jr., Vice-Chair 
The Reverend Doctor A. Lincoln James
Mr. Sherman R. Lea
Mr. Minor F. Stone
     c/o Virginia Parole Board
     6900 Atmore Drive
     Richmond, VA 23225
     (804) 674-3081

Governor Terry McAuliffe
P.O. Box 1475,
Richmond, Va.  23218
804-786-2211

Mr. Brian Moran
Office of the Secretary of Public Safety
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond, VA 23218
Office: 804-786-5351
Fax Line: 804-225-3882

Mr. Mark R. Herring
Office of the Attorney General
900 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786-2071 

DN-R Justice Matters Column Promotes Reform

Delegate Tony Wilt's bill HB1030, requires the Virginia Parole Board to use objective criteria in determining eligibility for release. As noted above, it would not add any taxpayer expense, but would help free tons of tax dollars by releasing people who are no longer a threat to public safety.

Debra Turner, legislative advisor for the Valley Justice Coalition, wrote the following Justice Matters column published in today's Daily News-Record:

Delegate Tony Wilt Files A Groundbreaking Parole Bill

Remember how important the dreaded report card was when we were in school? Even now, as adults, we endure job performance evaluations in which we are evaluated based on preset criteria, and expect to receive either the benefits of, or the penalties for, our performance.

But what if no matter how well we performed, we never received the benefits, and were continually penalized for offenses committed 20 or 30 years ago?

Del. Tony Wilt and the Valley Justice Coalition believe that those who have committed crimes and are eligible for parole should be able to meet measurable criteria for release. The Virginia Parole Board’s mission is to “release (those) compatible with public safety.” Unfortunately, the Parole Board has failed to live up to its mission statement.

Many citizens are unaware that the State of Virginia eliminated parole in 1995. However, there are still several thousand individuals who are grandfathered under the old parole laws and continue to be eligible to earn parole. Of those potential parolees, only 26 were granted parole in 2025. That is a grant rate of less than 1%. How could such a performance rating system seem fair?

With insightful ideas from two detainees at the Lawrenceville Correctional Center, Delegate Wilt has filed House Bill 1030 with discretionary parole eligibility guidelines. This bill includes a checklist of 10 measurable criteria for parole release, such as being infraction free, length of time served, age at time of offense, and verified home and work plans. Those who are parole eligible gain or lose points based on their individual incarceration histories. Anyone who has a total score of 25 points or less receives no hearing and a negative consideration. Anyone who has a total score of 50+ points, is guaranteed a hearing and positive consideration. This would not guarantee release, but the Parole Board would need to provide an individualized written explanation for any failure to follow the recommendation indicated by the checklist score.

With the passage of HB1030, the Parole Board would finally be held accountable for a release rate of less than 1%. Their current explanations for a parole denial often include “release at this time would diminish the seriousness of the crime,” or “has an extensive criminal record.” These are subjective assessments rather than being based on the clear data that a checklist of criteria would generate.

No matter how extensive or serious, past crimes can never be changed. What matters, after many years of incarceration, are the positive changes that are demonstrated by the individual. What have they done, or not done, to show they are no longer a danger to public safety? Only by examining their carceral history through the completion of an objective checklist can the Parole Board justify their decision to grant or not to grant parole.

On Saturday, Jan. 17, Virginia inaugurated our 75th governor. As I listened to Governor Spanberger’s inaugural speech, one word was highlighted over and over. Affordability. Virginia is facing a period of fiscal challenge that will require bipartisan cooperation. For example, our economy has suffered tremendous loss of income after the elimination of 24,000 federal jobs. We will need to economize in every area possible to make up for this lost revenue.

Consider the currently 1200 eligible for geriatric parole, being sixty years old or older. Due to overly long sentences and an aging prison population, this number is expected to rise by more than 40% in the next few years. The independent watchdog group JLARC reports that 2% of Virginia’s prison population uses nearly 20% of the Department of Corrections healthcare funds. This aging population needs specialized health care that costs the taxpayer an average of $70,000 per person per year. The cost is enormous and will only continue to grow.

Ask yourself this question. Can Virginia continue to morally and financially support a system that warehouses individuals who could be safely returned to family and friends? The answer is a resounding NO.

The Valley Justice Coalition would like to thank Delegate Wilt for attempting to improve this system by filing HB1030 Discretionary Parole Eligibility Guidelines.

Monthly Justice Matters columns are provided by members of the Valley Justice Coalition, a local citizen voice for criminal justice reform in our community and in the Commonwealth since 2014.

Is Someone In Richmond Listening After All?

Photo by Tim Gruber, Kentucky State Reformatory

For years many of us have been urging the Virginia State Parole Board to free more older prisoners under the 1995 Geriatric Release Statute. This provides for an early release for persons age 60 or more who have served at least ten years of their sentence.

Studies have shown that the likelihood of inmates re-offending after they reach age 50 drops substantially, while the cost of caring for aging prisoners increases dramatically. However, of all of the inmates who applied for a release by reason of age last year, only 11 were approved out of an eligible pool of over 700 incarcerated individuals in Virginia prisons.

But there may be hope. I just had an inmate send me a copy of a letter by A. David Robinson, Chief Corrections Operations that is addressed to all Virginia State Prison Wardens and Superintendents with some encouraging news (emphases mine):

"Effective July 1, 2014, the Virginia Parole Board is required to interview and consider all eligible geriatric offenders for conditional release. Prior to that date, eligible geriatric offenders needed to apply for consideration, however, due to this change it is no longer necessary to apply. Each eligible offender will be scheduled by the Parole Board and reviewed annually. The Parole Examiners who currently interview discretionary eligible offenders will assume the new responsibility utilizing the same process and procedure."

There is no indication in the letter as to whether this change was ordered directly by the governor or just how or why it came about, but another good side to this is up until now an inmate could not apply for geriatric release and discretionary release during the same calendar year (discretionary release is for inmates who were incarcerated prior to parole being abolished in 1995). Now this no longer appears to be the case.

Whether this will result in more aging prisoners actually being freed remains to be seen, as every case is still at the discretion of the five-member Parole Board. Sadly, recent Boards, including the one just appointed by Governor McAuliffe, have granted parole to fewer than 4% of those eligible, which represents one of the lowest parole grant rates in the nation.

One of the men I correspond with in prison wrote, "A 72-year old man here was just granted geriatric release. He told me he had been in prison for 38 years and he is scared to death. He asked the warden whether he could stay here for reentry, but they transferred him to a new prison this morning. He is going to live with his sister when he gets out."

He went on to speak of his own situation, "I'm not old enough for geriatric release, but I've been behind bars for 21 years, have been a model prisoner and would be a model citizen if the Parole Board would give me that chance. The Governor does not understand that they are doing more harm by keeping us until we are no longer able to start our lives over again."

Check this link for more posts on this subject, then make a phone call and/or send a letter expressing your views to the following current members of the parole board and to the Governor, the Secretary of Public Safety and the Attorney General (along with a copy of this post if you wish):

Ms. Karen Brown, Chair
Algie T. Howell, Jr., Vice-Chair 
The Reverend Doctor A. Lincoln James
Mr. Sherman R. Lea

     c/o Virginia Parole Board
     6900 Atmore Drive
     Richmond, VA 23225
     (804) 674-3081

Governor Terry McAuliffe
P.O. Box 1475,
Richmond, Va.  23218
804-786-2211

Mr. Brian Moran
Office of the Secretary of Public Safety
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond, VA 23218
Office: 804-786-5351
Fax Line: 804-225-3882

Mr. Mark R. Herring
Office of the Attorney General
900 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786-2071  

HARD TIME VIRGINIA Vol. 5, No. 1 (an occasional newsletter by and for incarcerated Virginians)

It's mission is to "grant parole to those whose
release is compatible with public safety."

Second Chance Month Falls Short Of Its Promise

Governor Northam designated May, 2019, as "Second Chance Month," but according to the official numbers posted on the Parole Board website, there were only 8 regular releases granted in May and only 5 geriatric releases.    

     By way of comparison, in May of 2018 there were 27 regular releases and 6 geriatric releases.

     This is truly heartbreaking to the many individuals behind bars who have worked hard for decades to earn their second chance, only to be routinely denied on the basis of the "seriousness of the offense," something they are powerless to change.

Inmate Sues Parole Board, Claims Violation Of Separation Of Power Clause 
On August 10, 2019, Steven Goodman, an inmate at Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt, Virginia, filed a lawsuit in the Greensville Circuit Court against the Virginia Parole Board. See Goodman v. Bennett, Case No. CL 19-264. In this lawsuit, Goodman claims that certain Parole Board rules violate the separation of power clause in Article III, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia. Goodman says:
     In July of 1997, the Parole Board replaced their prior rules with the Parole Board Policy Manual with the approval of Governor Allen. These changes went into effect in January of 1998. In Part I of this manual, the Parole Board sets forth fourteen (14) "Parole Guideline Factors."
     In Factor B, the Parole board replaced the statutory term "prisoners" with the word "individuals." These words are not synonymous. While all prisoners are individuals, all individuals are not prisoners. By changing this one word, the Parole Board empowered themselves to investigate crime-related factors (Factors D, E and F). The statute, however, limits the investigation of the statutory factors to that period of time in which the "prisoner is . . . in prison."
     As evidenced by the following, the General Assembly did not give, nor does the Parole Board have, the authority to investigate or consider any crime related factor when they review eligible prisoners for parole:
• No statute gives the Parole Board the power to investigate crime-related factors;
• If the General Assembly had wanted the Parole Board to investigate or consider crime-related factors when making their parole decision, they would have said so in a duly enacted law;
• The General Assembly did not do so because they already considered, used and disposed of crime-related factors when they established parole eligibility criteria;
• Crime-related factors have zero probative value as to the suitability determination the Parole Board is required to make: e.g., whether an individual will live a law-abiding life and will apply with all conditions of parole if released;
• If the General Assembly had empowered the Parole Board to investigate and consider crime-related factors, they would have encouraged and allowed arbitrary decision-making: e.g., one year the Parole Board uses crime-related factors too deny parole, but the next year they grant parole to that same individual though the crime-related factors did not change.
     Under the separation of powers clause, it is well settled that neither the courts nor administrative officials may amend a statute. The power to enact or amend statutes lies solely with the legislative branch of government. It is the duty of administrative officials to execute and enforce the law as it is written. Administrative officials cannot add to, change or ignore statutory language.

- press release by Steven Goodman, published at his request

September 3 Memorandum Limits Allowed Number Of Visitors To Ten

While the Department of Corrections claims to encourage contacts with an optimal number of good people in the outside world, it has just drastically cut the number of visitors a prisoner may have on their approved list, one that can be modified only twice a year. This is creating a lot of anguish on the part of prisoners who find regular visits a source of hope and support while they are incarcerated.

     The reason given is to limit contraband brought in from the outside, although it is not clear what this new policy will do to resolve that problem.

Number Of Prison Deaths On The Rise

According to report by Sandy Hausman of WVTF radio, Walt Isenhour, 63, died July 15 at Buckingham Correctional Center in what was ruled a heart attack, but one that may have been precipitated by extreme heat, which puts an extra strain on the heart. 

     Buckingham is one of 18 Virginia prisons without air conditioning, and many of its antiquated exhaust fans are no longer working, resulting in inside temperatures that often exceed 100 degrees. Isenhour had just been transferred from Sussex II, an air conditioned facility, and had not yet been able to purchase a fan for personal use. Of course, when temperatures reach 100, even that provides no real relief, but is like using a hair dryer in an attempt to cool off.

     In that same month, 39-year-old Margie Ryder died of pulmonary arterial hypertension at Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women, according to an August 14, 2019, report by Ned Oliver in the Virginia Mercury. Department of Corrections Officials insist her death was unpreventable, but  the Legal Aid Justice Center, representing her case and that of others at the Center, are attributing her death and that of numerous others to poor medical care, citing medical professionals at the UVA Medical Center who stated her condition was indeed treatable, and that she should have been able to live many years with proper treatment.

     According Shannon Ellis, an attorney in the case, “If the state has decided that they’re going to incarcerate this number of people, then it has to come to terms with the cost of that decision – including their medical care.” 

      And now that the percentage of Virginia inmates who are 55 or older has more than doubled over the past 10 years, medical costs will only increase, as will the number of needless deaths.

Shortage Of Guards Reaches A Critical Point

Richmond reporter Kerri O'Brien of WCIR Channel 8 News recently quoted numbers of corrections officers at a town hall in Emporia who expressed serious concerns about staff shortages, low pay and resulting security concerns. 

     Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran agreed the officers do deserve more pay, according to the Virginia Mercury. “We need to pay correctional officers more, and we need more correctional officers.” 

     Moran also agreed that what’s cutting into their pay was the rising cost of healthcare, some $200,000 to provide for the needs of an aging prison population. Ultimately, he says, more pay for the officers comes down to budget and the General Assembly would need to approve any raises in its next session. 

     Unfortunately, this may not happen without serious changes in the mindset and/or the membership of the Virginia Senate and House of Representatives.

Virginia Prisoners Deserve A Raise 
Prisoners in Virginia have not received a pay raise since the late 70's, and their pay is only between 0.27 and 0.45 per hour for a 30 hour week. 
     Meanwhile, the following changes have been made within the Virginia Department of Corrections:

1. Prisoners are served poorer meals with smaller portions.

2. Prisoners are now charged medical copays for their healthcare services and medications.

3. Prisoners have 10% of their incoming funds automatically taken for court cost, fines and/or child support.

4. Prisoners have 5% of their funds from the outside automatically taken from their account and placed in a savings account (until they receive $1,000).

5. Prices for commissary items have escalated.

6. Prisoners are not allowed to purchase personal items from catalog companies with more reasonable prices than those charged by their only vendor - Keefe Commissary Network Sales.

7. Prisoners are no longer provided a free bar of soap weekly, but are required to purchase such hygiene items from Keefe Commissary. For the cheapest soap sold, the average prisoner has to work 4 hours to purchase one bar.

8. Prisoners are no longer provided a free stamped envelope and paper weekly for regular mail and ten free stamped envelope and paper weekly for legal letters.

9. Prisoners who work can no longer get 40 hours a week, but are restricted to 15 to 30 hours.

10. Prisoners are no longer given a grocery bag filled with assorted candies, writing supplies, hygiene items or anything else for Christmas. 

- information provided by an anonymous prisoner

HARD TIMES is edited and published by Harvey Yoder of Harrisonburg, Virginia.

HARD TIME VIRGINIA, Vol. III, No. 2 (an occasional newsletter by and for inmates)

"The Board's mission is to grant parole
to those offenders whose release is
compatible with public safety."

2018 Parole Rates Remain Low

Here are the release numbers so far this year:

January: 19 (of these, none were women, four were geriatric)

February: 13 (no women, one geriatric)

March: 34 (two women, five geriatric)

April: 39 (two women, nine geriatric)

May: 36 (no women, six geriatric)

With a growing percentage of inmates eligible for geriatric release and a long list of persons in prison with excellent behavior and work records, one hopes these numbers will increase.

The following explanations are offered to for not granting parole:

More Time to Serve

The Board may determine an offender should satisfy a greater portion of the sentence imposed based on the crimes) committed.

Conviction of a New Crime while Incarcerated

An offender whose criminal behavior continues while incarcerated demonstrates a lack of respect for laws and a risk to the community.

Crimes Committed

The Board considers the nature and number of crimes committed by the offender.

Extensive Criminal Record

If an offender has multiple convictions, this signals a lengthy pattern of criminal behavior and inability to abide by the laws of the Commonwealth.

History of Substance Abuse

A history of drug or alcohol abuse bears upon an offender’s ability to make rational and law-abiding decisions.

History of Violence

Multiple and historical violent crimes against citizens suggests the probability that an offender will re-offend with similar violent crimes if released on  parole. A violent act associated with the current incarceration may be considered a part of the offender’s history.

Further Participation in Institutional Work and/or Educational Programs

This refers to offenders who are beginning to demonstrate positive changes, but the Board is still reluctant to release them. The Board is acknowledging the change and encouraging continued improvement but is looking for further participation and completion of programs.

Poor Institutional Adjustment

This applies to offenders who are not demonstrating an attitude or motivation toward a positive adjustment. The offender continues to receive unfavorable reports and may not be involved in programs, etc.

Prior Failure under Community Supervision

This refers to an offender’s proven inability to function in the community and to abide by the rules of supervision. It may include new criminal convictions or technical violations.

Record of major institutional infractions - not ready to conform to society

This refers to an offender’s inability to follow prison rules.

Risk to the Community

Considering the nature of the crime(s), prior failures on supervision, and institutional adjustment, releasing an offender on parole is not in the best interest of the community.

Serious disregard for property rights of others

This refers to criminal behavior that impacts the property of others.

Serious Nature and Circumstances of the Crime

This reflects the harm committed or caused to others, the magnitude of the crime, and its impact on the victim and community.

Longer Period of Stable Adjustment

The Board is recognizing an offender is beginning to demonstrate positive changes but would like to see the offender continue this adjustment over a longer period.

An Inmate's Appeal Letter 

After having been turned down for the fourth time for geriatric release and numerous times for a well-deserved parole based on his behavior record, a Virginia inmate wrote the following appeal to the Parole Board:

Dear Ms. Bennett, chair,

In accordance with 53.i-40.01 of the Code of Virginia my petition for Geriatric Conditional Release was denied because the Parole Bioard stated that "After a careful study and evaluation of all available information pertaining to my case..." 

With all due respect I must question the statement. Assuming that the Department of Corrections exists primarily for the purpose of correcting, not warehousing, offendersI would consider myself as a sign of success rather one one of DOC's failures to accomplish its mission to correct. 

In the past 21 years I've proven that I am a changed man who is full of remorsefulness, as your records should show, and that furthermore the three reasons given now and in past denials have had to do with my past actions of 40-plus years ago and not my present institutional record. If my current status does not meet the criteria of DOC's rehabilitation programs then I find myself questioning whether the system is either flawed, broken or entirely dysfunctional".

Report Questions Fairness And Purpose Of Prison Commissaries

In its first-of-its-kind data analysis, the Prison Policy Initiative explores the economics of prison commissaries in three states, Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington.

The ongoing - and growing - exploitation of incarcerated people and their families has been a central theme in our work at the Prison Policy Initiative. In our new report, attorney Stephen Raher explores another overlooked but central part of prison life: the commissary. The fairness of prison commissaries is an essential bread-and-butter issue for incarcerated people, who have only the store's limited options to choose from when the prison fails to provide them with what they need.

In his report, The Company Store: A Deeper Look at Prison Commissaries, Raher analyzes commissary sales data to address questions like:

What do people spend the most money on in prison commissaries?

How "fair" are prices, compared to "free-world" prices and relative to prison wages?

How does the emerging digital market compare to traditional commissary sales, like food and toiletries?

The three states sampled - Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington - were the few from which we could easily obtain detailed statewide commissary sales data. Fortunately, this sample includes examples of both state-run and privately operated commissary systems, as well as a range of prison population sizes. While we would warn against generalizing broadly based on this small sample, the report highlights a number of issues that merit further study and serious consideration by policymakers.

The purpose and fairness of prison commissary systems come into question in light of the report's findings:

Incarcerated people spent an average of $947 per person annually through commissaries - well over the typical amount they can earn at a prison job. In these three states, an incarcerated worker holding a job supporting the prison, such as food service or custodial work, would usually earn $180 to $660 per year.

Incarcerated people buy most items to meet basic needs, like food, hygiene, and over-the-counter medicines, rather than "luxuries." 75% of the average person's annual commissary spending in the three sampled states was used to purchase food and beverages, indicating a widespread need to supplement the food provided by the prisons.

The findings also point to the incentives of the prison retail market for private commissary vendors:

While private vendors generally charge prices comparable to those found in outside prisons, monopoly contracts and the ability to transfer goods straight from the warehouse to the customer mean vendors' operating costs are often lower than in the "free world."

The most obvious price-gouging is found in new digital services marketed to prisons, such as email and music streaming. Prison and jail telecommunications providers are aggressively pushing these new products and services, where they can charge prices far higher than similar businesses do outside of the prison setting.

Even in state-run commissary systems, private companies are poised to profit. In Illinois, the Keefe Group (one of the largest commissary companies) was not contracted to run the commissary, but still made up the dominant share (30%) of the state's purchases for commissary goods.

Commissaries present yet another opportunity for prisons to shift the costs of incarceration to incarcerated people and their families. Meanwhile, telecommunications contractors with prison contracts are maximizing their revenues by offering more digital services at exorbitant rates. Instead of leveraging incarcerated people to subsidize the prison system by monetizing their every need, the report concludes, states could more effectively cut costs by drastically reducing prison populations.

June 17, 2018, Washington Post Letter to the Editor

Gay Gardner of the Coalition Against Solitary Confinement submitted the following letter to the Post in response the Virginia Secretary of Public Safety's piece "Virginia's Corrections System is a Model for Other States":

Although Virginia’s prisons are far from the worst in the nation and improvements have been made, they fall far short of Brian Moran’s “wholesale culture change.”

Moran should visit prisoners I know who have suffered abuse, including prolonged solitary confinement. They include—

• men studying the Bible at Nottoway Correctional Center who were thought to be discussing filing grievances about mail restrictions, for which they were charged with “inciting a riot,” sent to Red Onion, and placed in solitary confinement;  

• a man who has endured 16 years in isolation and was required to repeat the “step-down” program five times for reasons that were never discussed with him;

men with credible allegations of retaliation for filing complaints, ranging from withholding food to assault;

• men with documented mental illness who long for treatment but have received, at most, psychotropic drugs; and men placed in undocumented solitary confinement lasting weeks or months following disciplinary charges who were not allowed to speak, call witnesses, or have surveillance video reviewed at their disciplinary “hearings.”

These men would be surprised to know that “restrictive housing” is not used as punishment, that they received a fair hearing, and that all prisoners’ mental health care needs are being met.

HARDTIME VIRGINIA, Vol. 8., No. 2 Parole edition, Spring 2023

2023 Parole Release Numbers Are the Lowest Ever 

I recently submitted the following letter to the Harrisonburg Daily News-Record:

Of the over 2000 who are parole eligible in Virginia's prisons, the Parole Board released only one person in April, and a total of only 14 since January. This means either the Department of Corrections, with its annual budget of $1.5 billion, is utterly failing to "correct" individuals, or the Parole Board is failing its responsibility to release those who have demonstrated a changed life.

At Buckingham Correctional Center, no one has been released for two years, and of the 95 cases reviewed at Augusta Correctional Center this year, not one was paroled.  

One officer recently wrote, "We are gravely hurt that the Parole Board is not accepting our recommendations. You men deserve better than this, and many of you have aged in prison and deserve to be released." Another noted, "I work here and see you men every day. I know the ones who intend on living right once released. But if they continue to keep you in prison it destroys your chances to be successful upon release."

Also, many "old law" inmates are eligible for geriatric release due to their having aged out of crime, as well as their often requiring ever more costly medical care. Yet only four such releases are among the 14 cited. Are individuals in wheelchairs and people in need of nursing care really a threat to public safety? 

As taxpayers and concerned citizens, we simply ask that the parole board fulfill its mission "to grant release to those whose release is compatible with public safety."

Green Rock Prisoner Files Suit Regarding Parole Board's Consideration of "Seriousness of the Crime"

Steven W. Goodman at Green Rock Correctional Center has filed a lawsuit against the Parole Board for considering "the seriousness of the crime" and other factors related to a person's criminal record as a basis for denying release, stating that Va. Code 53.1-136(3)(a) limits the scope of investigation to only two pre-conditions for release, eligibility and suitability. 

He also cites the following section of Va. Code 43.1-1555 (A): "No person shall be released on parole by the Board until a thorough investigation has been made into the prisoner's history, physical and mental condition and character and his conduct, employment and attitude while in prison (emphasis mine). The Board shall also determine that his release on parole will not be incompatible with the interests of society or of the prisoner."

95 Up For Parole at Augusta Correctional Center This Year, Not One Released

Here's a part of a letter from one of those turned down:

Of course I got turned down again for my geriatric parole. I do everything they ask to be done, plus take programs they don't ask. My institutional record is clean, with no charges since being locked up. Plus I saved two officers' lives. Everyone tells me I'm rehabilitated and should be given a second chance, so I can go home and take care of my dad. 
I'm almost 65 years old. there is no way I'm going to do anything wrong.They keep saying I have a violent history, but my past was not violent except for one time, plus the Parole Board is supposed to just look at your institutional record, not your past before you were locked up.

My health is also not the best. I have arthritis, eye problems, high blood pressure, knee problems and more.
I just hope they tell me what they expect of me, what they want me to do, and just give me a second chance as they say they will do. - Timothy Rankin

Here are excerpts of letters of recommendation by two of Mr. Rankin's officers at ACC;

"Mr. Rankin has always been polite, with a positive attitude, and is willing to help anyone with a task...He is currently working with Buildings and Grounds as is trusted to use Class A and B tools (drills, cutter, screw drivers, etc.). The DOC is meant to rehabilitate inmates and Mr. Rankin is a great example of what rehabilitation looks like. I am confident that Mr. Rankin will be a contributing member of society and would be welcomed into my neighborhood. He has family waiting from him who will be a great support system for him."

"During my career in corrections Mr. Rankin gives me faith that there is in fact rehabilitation inside our Virginia prison system. He would be welcomed into my neighborhood any day."

Excerpts From Other Letters by Deserving Prisoners Denied Multiple Times

I am so disappointed in the outcome. It took the Board exactly 71 days to make this decision. Now I have only four more interviews left before I mandatory my complete sentence. I wanted so much to get out of prison while I still have some life left, and while I still have some family members living. - L.E. Patterson, Deerfield Correctional Center, denied 21 times 

I recently found out that I was denied parole once again, the ninth time.At age 70, and with a perfect prison record, you'd think they would consider it. And today (2/17/23) I found out that the Second Look Act was tabled also. I guess Governor Youngkin was just giving lip service about how he was for second chances. Not one man has made parole from BKCC for over two years. - Stephano Colosi, Buckingham Correctional Center

What Parole Chair Dotson Told a Group of Men at BKCC May 13, 2022

• Inmates are not just numbers, but human beings.

• Governor Youngkin believes second chances deeply, and told me to be serious about second chances.

• We want to improve outcomes for inmates and their families.

• The Board should listen to all who speak on your behalf. 

• More face-to-face interviews are needed.

* Inmates need to show more remorse, and how their choices affected the inmate's and victim's families. 

• The brains of those who commit crime(s) under the age of 25 are not yet fully developed.

• The Board needs to provide you with a fair and transparent parole process.

• The Parole Board is not serving inmates well. We don't have a fairs system. 

• Not having a home plan is not a good enough reason not to grant parole.

• No crime should exempt someone from parole. 

- notes taken by Charles E. Zellers, Sr., Buckingham Correctional Center