A new bill proposed by Democrats in the Virginia state legislature is raising concerns regarding the removal of minimum prison sentences for various violent felony crimes.
Within days of Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger being sworn in, members of her party introduced a flurry of amendments looking to end mandatory minimum sentences for various crimes within the state.
According to Jason Miyares, the former Republican attorney general, House Bill 863 includes proposals to effectively eliminate minimum sentencing for manslaughter, rape, possession and distribution of child pornography, assaulting a law enforcement officer and other repeat violent felonies.
Additionally, Democrats are also looking to remove the mandatory five-day minimum sentence for certain first-time DUI offenders.
“HB 863 is a common-sense proposal that eliminates the requirement for one-size-fits-all minimum sentences for certain crimes,” Delegate Rae Cousins, who sponsored the bill, said, according to ABC 7.
“This change would give the experienced judges in our communities more discretion to make decisions based on the unique facts of each case. As the General Assembly session continues, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation and promote fairer outcomes in our justice system.”
However, law enforcement experts are pushing back against the bill while expressing concerns about how the possibility of more lenient sentencing could impact victims of violent crimes.
“From a law enforcement standpoint, I think police generally want offenders to be held accountable, and frustration among law enforcement officers grows when individuals are released quickly and subsequently re-offend – and even more so if it involved a violent felony,” law enforcement expert Josh Ederheimer told Fox News Digital. I think that also tracks the thinking of many members of the public. I think there is more tolerance for flexibility for minor offenses.
Ederheimer, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Center for Public Safety and Justice and a retired law enforcement officer, went on to explain that police typically understand unique circumstances that can point to a defendant receiving a lesser sentence, but frustration still exists surrounding more serious crimes.
“For violent felonies, however, the biggest practical concern is that the defendant will re-offend, and that the public is not alerted or aware that the defendant has returned to the community. It’s an accountability concern that falls on the shoulders of judges and prosecutors.”
The proposed bill would allow courts to hand down sentences based on the individual facts of each case, rather than statutory mandates implemented by the state’s government. However, it does not impact maximum penalties in such cases.
Ederheimer further explained that the bill could have a negative impact on victims and their families regarding accountability for violent offenders.
“I think that the police and public alike have expectations that convicted criminals will be held accountable, and that full sentences should be served,” Ederheimer said. “Mandatory minimums assure victims – and the community – that a convicted person will serve their sentence.”
“It is the circumstance when convicted felons are released early that victims may feel a sense of betrayal or that justice was not served. That’s the dilemma.”
The bill is set to be reviewed by the House and Senate Justice Committees, where it will likely be amended.
However, Ederheimer added that mandatory minimum sentences may not actually encourage violent offenders not to commit crimes, further adding to the complex balance of maintaining justice and community safety.
“From a law enforcement perspective, I don’t think mandatory minimums serve as a deterrent,” Ederheimer told Fox News Digital. “I think that largely defendants are not focused on repercussions at the time of their offense.”
