I oppose House Bill 318. I agree with an earlier comment opposing the bill, which said, "This bill seems unnecessarily risky. Would this bill inadvertently result in inmates serving life sentences for murder being released even though there is no consensus on the parole board that they are rehabilitated? Va. Code § 53.1-134.1 says 'four or more' members of the parole board need to vote to grant parole in order to parole an inmate. That makes sense today, because there are 5 parole board members. But this bill would expand the board to 10 parole board members. So only 4 members of the board would have to think that an inmate is rehabilitated, to release an inmate, even if other parole board members reasonably believe the inmate is a threat to the public. Va. Code § 53.1-134.1 should be amended to say 'eight or more' rather than 'four or more' members of the parole board need to vote to release an inmate serving a life sentence. This bill may also unduly restrict the parole board's ability to consider relevant factors, by saying that it can't deny parole based on 'the nature of the offense' -- even though there are some cases, like a pattern of behavior (serial killers, serial rapists), where the nature of the offense may show a continuing danger to the public. The bill also says the board can't deny parole based on factors outside the inmate's 'demonstrated ability to change.' But what if the inmate is a threat for reasons he can't change, or there is no way to demonstrate he is able to change, even if he possibly could change with enough effort or willingness to undergo treatment? Unfortunately, such a dangerous inmate may still need to be kept incarcerated until the end of his sentence, to keep him from harming innocent people. That language about 'the nature of the offense' and 'demonstrated ability to change' needs to be revised or qualified to protect against threats to innocent people."

Good morning, Chair and members of the Committee, My name is Sarah Moore, and I live in Appomattox County. I am the Vice President and Co‑Founder of Bridges Beyond Bars, an organization that supports families and returning citizens across the Commonwealth. I also speak as a wife, a mother, and someone who has spent years walking alongside families who are trying to navigate a system that often feels impenetrable and inconsistent. I am here today in strong support of HB318, because this bill addresses three critical gaps that directly affect public trust, public safety, and the futures of people who have worked tirelessly to change their lives. First, HB318 strengthens the Virginia Parole Board by expanding its membership and requiring a balance of professional expertise, prosecution, defense, mental health, reentry, and victim services. This is not just structural reform; it is a commitment to informed, trauma‑aware, and community‑centered decision‑making. When the Board reflects the full spectrum of experience, its decisions become more credible, more consistent, and more just. Second, HB318 requires the Board to provide individuals with their full investigative file at least 30 days before deliberation. For the families I work with, this is transformative. Too often, people go before the Board without ever seeing the information being used to determine their future. Transparency is not a luxury; it is a constitutional value. When people understand what is in their file, they can correct inaccuracies, prepare meaningfully, and engage in a process that respects their humanity. Third, and most importantly to me, HB318 ensures a meaningful opportunity for release for people who entered the system as children. The bill outlines clear factors the Board must consider, including adolescent development, trauma, demonstrated growth, and the realities of who a person has become after years of rehabilitation. This is not leniency. It is alignment with science, with Supreme Court precedent, and with our shared belief that children are capable of profound change. In my work with families across Virginia, including my own, as my husband entered the system as a child, I have seen how the lack of transparency and the absence of juvenile‑specific considerations affect real people who have spent years working to change their lives. His story is not unique; it is one of many. And it is precisely why this legislation matters. HB318 recognizes that who a person was at 15 or 16 is not who they are at 35 or 40, and that our policies must reflect that truth. HB318 is not about guaranteeing release. It is about guaranteeing fairness. It is about ensuring that decisions are made with full information, professional expertise, and an understanding of human development. It is about honoring the dignity of every person while still respecting the experiences of victims and survivors. For these reasons, and on behalf of the families and returning citizens we serve, I respectfully urge you to support HB318. Thank you for your time and your commitment to justice in our Commonwealth. Warm Regards, Sarah Moore Vice President & Co-founder Bridges Beyond Bars Uplifting Justice-Impacted Individuals & Strengthening Communities

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am writing to express my strong support for House Bill 318. Virginia’s parole system is in need of reform. The state’s parole approval rate is extremely low, leaving many individuals with little opportunity for second chances, even when they have demonstrated rehabilitation and personal growth. This system does not adequately recognize the potential for people to reintegrate successfully into society, and it can contribute to unnecessary incarceration and strain on the correctional system. HB 318 would increase transparency, fairness, and accountability in the parole process. By requiring clear criteria for parole decisions, published reporting on outcomes, and individualized explanations for denials, this bill ensures that decisions are based on rehabilitation, conduct, and readiness for reentry—not arbitrary or inconsistent factors. Importantly, HB 318 also addresses juvenile parole, mandating that the Parole Board meaningfully consider age, maturity, and evidence of rehabilitation. Young people who have committed offenses should have a fair opportunity to demonstrate growth and reintegrate safely, rather than being indefinitely denied based solely on the nature of their offense. This legislation represents a balanced, evidence-based approach that protects public safety while also providing individuals the opportunity to rebuild their lives. Supporting HB 318 is a step toward a more just, humane, and effective criminal justice system in Virginia. Please vote in favor of HB318.

None of this helps affordability or the regular consumer.

Start allowing people parole it's that simple we cannot have parole if no one is able to be parole out .

I have had many years of experience demonstrating the need for reform of our current parole system, including the steps outlined in Delegate Hope's bill. This has included appointment as a member of the Governor's Commission on Parole Review in 2015, work with Delegate Sickles and others on prior proposed legislative reforms, representation in parole hearings, and co-counsel to the class of parole-eligible inmates raising constitutional claims in Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2012). Our Commission's 2015 report specifically recommended (at pp. 37-39) similar amendments "to increase the Parole Board's expertise, independence, and diversity." We included references to the work of the American Law Institute and others to support this reform. My experience has also confirmed the need to have strong protections against removal of Parole Board members by the Governor, in order to ensure that they make these difficult decisions based on an independent evaluation of the factors relevant to parole (including serious consideration of how the inmate may have demonstrated the capacity for change after many years of incarceration). In my experience, the current obstacles to the ability of Board members to do this because of the ability of the Governor to fire them have been bipartisan in nature. Finally, my experience demonstrates the need for the reforms in this bill to ensure "a meaningful opportunity for release," to require the Board to articulate contemporaneous reasons for denying parole and steps necessary for rehabilitation, and to put a stop to the rubber stamping of parole denials year after year based on nothing other than the "serious nature and circumstances of the crime" -- which was generally committed now 35 years ago or more (i.e., before the abolition of parole for offenses committed after 1994). In the Burnette case, we documented how these offenders were sentenced during a period of time in which (as later-Justice Scalia once noted) sentencing judges had imposed very long sentences with the expectation that many would later receive parole. Yet the parole grant rate declined from 42% in 1989 to from 2.1% to 3.7% between 2002 and 2008. The tragic effect of this de facto elimination of any meaningful opportunity for parole has been continued incarceration of many offenders for longer than they would have served for the same offense under the ostensibly "tough on crime" sentencing guidelines applicable under the no-parole law after 1995. In our report for the Governor's Parole Review Commission (at pp. 48-50), we described this last problem in greater detail.

This bill seems unnecessarily risky. Would this bill inadvertently result in inmates serving life sentences for murder being released even though there is no consensus on the parole board that they are rehabilitated? Va. Code § 53.1-134.1 says "four or more" members of the parole board need to vote to grant parole in order to parole an inmate. That makes sense today, because there are 5 parole board members. But this bill would expand the board to 10 parole board members. So only 4 members of the board would have to think that an inmate is rehabilitated, to release an inmate, even if other parole board members reasonably believe the inmate is a threat to the public. Va. Code § 53.1-134.1 should be amended to say "eight or more" rather than "four or more" members of the parole board need to vote to release an inmate serving a life sentence. This bill may also unduly restrict the parole board's ability to consider relevant factors, by saying that it can't deny parole based on "the nature of the offense" -- even though there are some cases, like a pattern of behavior (serial killers, serial rapists), where the nature of the offense may show a continuing danger to the public. The bill also says the board can't deny parole based on factors outside the inmate's "demonstrated ability to change." But what if the inmate is a threat for reasons he can't change, or there is no way to demonstrate he is able to change, even if he possibly could change with enough effort or willingness to undergo treatment? Unfortunately, such a dangerous inmate may still need to be kept incarcerated until the end of his sentence, to keep him from harming innocent people. That language about "the nature of the offense" and "demonstrated ability to change" needs to be revised or qualified to protect against threats to innocent people.