Reviewing the comments this evening, I see my mistake in posting a second comment meant for another bill. For clarity I am in full support of SB134. Thank you for your understanding.

Brain science tells us that youth do not mature until age 25 or older. This would allow youth 18 to 20 access to the rehabilitative services offered through JD&R court. It is preventative and supportive of keeping kids out of the adult system. This is what Juvenile Reform is all about, rehabilitation, education and Better Outcomes.

Vote NO This bill is shameful. Stealing humanity from those that need it the most. A quote from Norway " Treat people like dirt and they will be dirt. Treat them like human beings and they will act like human beings." We can not keep turning back reforms. Please vote NO to this Bill and continue to reform our Justice System.

Dear Subcommittee Members, As resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a concerned citizen for public safety, it is equally important that we have fair and responsible laws. SB137 will provide fair sentencing and oversight, therefore I support the bill as stated. Sincerely

Due what right and support this Bill

Good morning, I'm writing today asking that you support SB137. If the past 2 years of turmoil have taught us anything, the have shown that we have judges on the bench that allow personal bigotry, bias and prejudices to cloud their sentencing. Please require and enforce SB137 to prevent emotions from dictating prison time Thank you

I support SB 137. Vote “Yea” for SB 137!

I believe a defendant has the right to know how a Judge came to his or her decision. Did he or she make their decision by the "sentence guidelines" or "personal reasoning". Every person deserves a fair trail under the law. Guidelines are written for the Judge to follow and a defendant should know how the Judge based their decision. " "A fair trial is a trial which is "conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge" The Sixth Amendment requires that criminal defendants be given notice of the nature and cause of accusations against them.

I support SB137

I support SB137 - vote yes

I fully support SB137 due to it requires a written explanation to sentencing. This could reduce people receiving unfair sentences based on race and ethnicity. We need to be basing these decision on data. As a citizen you want to ensure that things are done with transparency, fairly, and equally.

I suppose SB137...thank you

Support fair sentencing.

Dear House Courts of Justice Committee, On behalf of the nonprofit Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged and Disenfranchised (RIHD) and it’s 4,500 membership, Virginia constituents support Senate Bill 137 Sentencing guideline, explanation; appeals. Our members believe SB137 will increase sentencing fairness and accountability by the Courts. . We ask the Committee to vote in favor “yea” for SB137 Sentencing guideline, explanation; appeals. Thank you in advance. Sincerely LillieBranch-Kennedy Executive Director Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged and Disenfranchised RIHD

I recommend a minor change to this bill as presented "The law enforcement officer shall, after obtaining identification, advise of the purpose of the stop within a reasonable time", instead if giving this information to the motorist as soon as contact is made. As written this places the officer in a tactical disadvantage, ie. the officer may be making the stop for a homicide or robbery suspect, to tell that information to the driver may place the officer in danger. After the information is exchanged between the officer and the driver and the officer has time to survey the situation then I think it is fine to explain the reason for the stop. If you have never been in this type of situation then you would not understand our concern passing this bill as written. Unless the language that is inserted in this bill is moved to the end of that paragraph so that the officer can require ID before having to explain why they were stopped, we cannot support it Respectfully submitted by Keith Hartman 1st Vice President VACP and Chief of Police in Buena Vista

REFERENCE SB 669 - The VACP cannot support this bill without these recommended edits. Our only issue is with B. 3. I would strike the word “receipt” and add “electronic” to the acknowledgement option. A written or electronic acknowledgment is all that is needed. We also have no idea what a “summary of someone’s rights” would look like in this situation and how agencies would outline this. This needs to be removed. Below is how we would edit that section: 3. The law-enforcement agency provides a written or electronic acknowledgment confirming the submission of the complaint to the individual filing such complaint; REFERENCE SB 246 - The VACP cannot support this bill without the below recommended edits. In theory, a mandate to have an officer tell someone why they were stopped is a good practice. Where this new language is inserted in the bill, however, is very problematic and will lead to both confrontations with citizens and significant safety issues for the officer. Because of how this now reads , it says that the officer shall advise someone why they were stopped BEFORE the person has to hand over ID. What if I stop a vehicle because it matches a description of a homicide or armed robbery that just occurred? Now I have to explain that to them before they hand over ID? That is both dangerous to the officer and could compromise an ongoing investigation . This proposed legislation eliminates the TACTICAL FLEXIBLITY an officers needs in the field to conduct safe and effective traffic stops. We can’t continue to have our tactical flexibility legislated away. It’s already an incredibly unsafe environment we operate in and traffic stops are one of the most dangerous tasks officers engage in. Unless the language that is inserted in this bill is moved to the end of that paragraph so that the officer can require ID before having to explain why they were stopped, we cannot support it. Below is an example of how that could work. "The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, and upon being advised of the purpose of the stop within a reasonable time, exhibit his registration card, driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the officer, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity. The law enforcement officer shall, after obtaining identification, advise of the purpose of the stop within a reasonable time." Chief Maggie DeBoard Herndon Police Department VACP Legislative Chair

I've spoken to many people over the weeks regarding Second Look. Although I'm a tough on crime proponent, I do believe in Second Chances. If a person is locked up 10-15 years and have done the work something should be done to help them! We can't just lock people up forever. A 1.6 billion dollar budget for D.O.C. is ridiculous! I want this picked back up off the table and for Virginia to do right by these men and women. Who truly hs the right to judge??? Besides, the bill still gives the judge discretion and if a judge can sentence than a judge should've able to re-sentence. Pick up SB 378

Please vote NO on SB 378. As a commenter (Pack) notes in two detailed comments below, SB 378 is based on a false premise that has been debunked by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. SB 378 would increase the violent crime rate by shortening sentences and thus making it harder to deter crime. Studies show that longer prison sentences deter crime more effectively than short ones, which is why Virginia has a violent crime rate that is less than half as high as Maryland's (Maryland has shorter sentences, and releases more criminals early). Such studies are cited by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and other experts; Pack cites a couple such studies in a comment below.

I started volunteering in state jails in 2017 with people who are incarcerated and volunteer to actively trying to rehabilitate themselves and each other. For the hundreds of people I have met, who, again, volunteered to change, I know they more deserving of a second look than anyone else I have ever met. Their sentences were 5 years and less, and I know for a fact in just 1-5 years they are not the same person they were when originally arrested. If they are, then our justice system made hundreds of grave mistakes and a second look is more than justified. It breaks my heart thinking that we could be wasting the resilient spirit and human light of some truly remarkable individuals for 10-15 years or longer. 2017 was an interesting time to start volunteering because things have changed rapidly in the last 5 years. Sentences given to people I worked with were no longer applicable as standards changed on the outside. Week after week, I looked at faces of those were no longer the person who needed to be punished, and the world was no longer the same world that wanted to punish them. As a Catholic, I believe in repentance, forgiveness, and mercy. Second look gives us a chance to forgive and show mercy. I hope you all can believe as well. Pass sb378

Comments Document

Attached is my written testimony in support of SB 378. Respectfully, Chief John Dixon (Ret.)

Vote NO on SB 378, which is based on false assumptions. The U.S. Sentencing Commission says that many criminals do NOT "age out of crime by their late thirty's," as SB 378 supporter Ashley Gillispie claims below. On February 10, the U.S. Sentencing Commission released a report, “Recidivism of Federal Violent Offenders Released in 2010.” Over an 8-year period, violent offenders returned to crime at a 63.8% rate. The median time to rearrest was 16 months for violent offenders. Most violent offenders released from prison committed more crimes. Even among those offenders over age 60, 25.1% of violent offenders were rearrested. That means some violent offenders don't age out of crime even by their 60's. The U.S. Sentencing Commission's report is available at this link: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2022/20220210_Recidivism-Violence.pdf Albert Flick committed murder a second time at age 76, and Kenneth McDuff returned to serial killing a second time after being paroled a second time after three decades in prison, as I already pointed out in my comment below. They didn't "age out of crime by their late thirty's" as Gillispie claims (and as web sites supporting SB378 falsely claim -- they falsely claim people age out of crime after 10 years in prison, which is why SB 378 lets inmates be released after 10 years in prison regardless of what crime they committed.). As I explained in more detail in my comment below, SB 378 would increase Virginia's crime rate -- which is lower than in all neighboring states -- by weakening deterrents to committing crimes. Virginia has a violent crime rate less than half as high as Maryland's, because Virginia sends criminals to prison for longer, and releases fewer of them early. Longer sentences keep people safe.

Hello, my name is Ashley Gillispie. I would like to say I support SB378, and I ask that all members of the panel please support this bill. Please remember that there are currently returning citizens out here mentoring our youth, and doing other positive things within the communities of the commonwealth. People change, mature, and find redemption. It is proven through studies that the human brain is not fully developed until one is twenty five years of age. Another thing that has been studied and proven, is that people age out of crime by their late thirty’s. Just because someone is incarcerated, doesn’t mean they are a bad person. If God can give second chances, then so can man. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my statement.

Please vote against SB378. It would let criminals who are serving life sentences petition for release from prison after as little as 10 years in prison. Even those guilty of the most horrific crimes, such as serial killers, or serial rapists who tried to kill a victim. Crime victims deserve better. Supporters of the bill claim on the Internet that people age out of crime after 10 years. But there are many examples of people being released after 10 years or more in prison, going on to commit truly awful crimes after their release. The New York Daily News ran a story on one example: "In August 1966, Kenneth McDuff was 19 and on parole when he decided, for fun, to murder three Texas teenagers, a girl and two boys. The crime became known as the 'Broomstick Murders,' so-called because of the weapon McDuff used to crush the girl’s throat after raping her.... three decades later, McDuff strode out of prison, paroled for a second time. This decision by Texas authorities may have taken the lives of a dozen or more people. No one knows for sure how many McDuff killed." The Daily News story is dated July 2, 2020, and is titled "JUSTICE STORY: Texas 'Broomstick Murder' killer walked out of prison, killed some more." Some criminals do not "age out" of crime. When he was 76, Albert Flick killed a woman, stabbing her over and over again while her kids watched. He had previously been in prison for 25 years for killing his wife by stabbing her over and over again in front of her daughter. USA Today described that tragedy in a July 20, 2019 article titled "Man, released from prison after being deemed too old to be a threat, convicted in another killing." Even if criminals do become less dangerous over time, it's still a mistake to release them after just 10 years if their crime was truly awful, like a serial murderer or serial rapist. Prison sentences are there to deter crimes, not just rehabilitate criminals, yet SB 378 does not even list the need to deter crimes as a factor in whether to grant or deny a petition for release. There are studies that show that longer prison sentences deter crimes more effectively than short ones, and that longer sentences reduce recidivism. (A few examples are "Re-Arrest Among 16-Year-Olds Arrested in the First Year of Raise the Age" (NYCCJA, Dec. 14, 2021) and National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #6484). Some criminals are model inmates, then go on to kill or rape again after being released. It is hard to tell whether someone has really been rehabilitated. Virginia has a lower crime rate than all neighboring states partly because it gives violent criminals long enough sentences, which deter crime. Cutting those sentences would be a mistake. Maryland has shorter prison sentences for criminals than Virginia does, and lets more inmates out early than Virginia does, and it has over twice the violent crime rate of Virginia, as a result. Even though police departments are just as good, on average, in Maryland as in Virginia, and Maryland is richer and has even more resources than Virginia. Sentence length is the difference that makes a difference, between the two states.

Broadly speaking, the general assembly should not be legislating the tactics and standard operating procedures for professions which require hundreds of hours of advanced training, skills proficiency assessments and certification testing. While I’m sure the intentions behind this bill are good, practices and procedures of professions requiring advanced training are best left to administrators and accrediting bodies who understand the job and who can be thoughtful and deliberative about the unintended consequences of legislating tactics. I do not support this bill.

REFERENCE SB 669 - The VACP cannot support this bill without these recommended edits. Our only issue is with B. 3. I would strike the word “receipt” and add “electronic” to the acknowledgement option. A written or electronic acknowledgment is all that is needed. We also have no idea what a “summary of someone’s rights” would look like in this situation and how agencies would outline this. This needs to be removed. Below is how we would edit that section: 3. The law-enforcement agency provides a written or electronic acknowledgment confirming the submission of the complaint to the individual filing such complaint; REFERENCE SB 246 - The VACP cannot support this bill without the below recommended edits. In theory, a mandate to have an officer tell someone why they were stopped is a good practice. Where this new language is inserted in the bill, however, is very problematic and will lead to both confrontations with citizens and significant safety issues for the officer. Because of how this now reads , it says that the officer shall advise someone why they were stopped BEFORE the person has to hand over ID. What if I stop a vehicle because it matches a description of a homicide or armed robbery that just occurred? Now I have to explain that to them before they hand over ID? That is both dangerous to the officer and could compromise an ongoing investigation . This proposed legislation eliminates the TACTICAL FLEXIBLITY an officers needs in the field to conduct safe and effective traffic stops. We can’t continue to have our tactical flexibility legislated away. It’s already an incredibly unsafe environment we operate in and traffic stops are one of the most dangerous tasks officers engage in. Unless the language that is inserted in this bill is moved to the end of that paragraph so that the officer can require ID before having to explain why they were stopped, we cannot support it. Below is an example of how that could work. "The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, and upon being advised of the purpose of the stop within a reasonable time, exhibit his registration card, driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the officer, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity. The law enforcement officer shall, after obtaining identification, advise of the purpose of the stop within a reasonable time." Chief Maggie DeBoard Herndon Police Department VACP Legislative Chair

Please Vote YES on SB746 ->If we are going to return to the criminalization of children's behavior in Virginia, the least we can do is protect them from deceptive questioning when in custody. <- --Children waive their Miranda rights at an astounding rate of 90% and make false confessions at exponentially higher rates than adults. --Adults have groomed children to answer questions for adults and they trust adults to be caretakers. --In 2014, researchers including the Harvard Medical School looked at the wording of 371 juvenile Miranda warnings from around the country. (There’s no set script for the warnings, and wording varies widely.) They found that 52 percent required at least an eighth-grade reading level. the stress of being arrested probably reduces comprehension by at least 20 percent. --Many children do not know what the right to remain silent means they think it means they shouldn’t speak except to answer questions. --A "right" is a sophisticated legal concept that children are not able to fully understand. --Even though we have told children they don’t have to answer our questions, they think when we say "you have the right to remain silent" we just told them to be silent unless they are answering our questions.