I am writing to you as a concerned citizen and advocate regarding the supervision and treatment of individuals monitored through P&P, . I respect for the difficult work performed by the DOC, while also conveying serious concerns that I believe warrant review, accountability, and reform. My advocacy centers on individuals classified as SVP's or RSO's who are attempting to comply with supervision, complete mandated treatment, and reintegrate into society after long-term incarceration. Many of these individuals have served extensive prison sentences, some involving prolonged isolation, and are navigating reentry while managing significant psychological trauma. I have witnessed a pattern of practices that appear inconsistent, excessively punitive, and counterproductive to reducing recidivism. Mandatory sex offender treatment classes are required statewide; however, in District 15,PO's are present during these sessions, often observing in ways that feel adversarial rather than supportive. Participants have expressed that statements made during treatment—meant to promote honesty, accountability, and healing—are later used as grounds for interrogation, sanctions, ECOs, or reincarceration. This environment discourages meaningful participation in treatment and erodes trust The use of polygraphs—combined with threats of incarceration or expulsion from treatment—has created extreme fear and distress among participants. One tragic outcome of this environment was the suicide of an individual who was told that failing another polygraph would result in incarceration or removal from treatment, leading directly to revocation. This loss underscores the profound mental health consequences of supervision practices that rely primarily on fear rather than rehabilitation. There are also troubling inconsistencies regarding transparency and access to records. Individuals are told they may request polygraph results through the FOIA, yet those requests are routinely denied under the claim that the documents belong to the DOC Similarly, treatment providers offer monthly progress reports, but when individuals later request those same documents while incarcerated for alleged violations, they are told they are not entitled to them. As a result, when individuals appear before a judge, they are unable to present documentation of progress, accountability, or compliance—only allegations of failure. While the laws of Virginia are meant to be applied uniformly, P&P practices vary drastically. certain districts routinely imposes restrictions not seen in other districts, When individuals cannot earn sufficient income to pay rent, supervision fees, fines, and treatment costs, they are returned to incarceration—not for new crimes, but for systemic barriers imposed upon them. Rehabilitation cannot occur when individuals are forced to relive their crimes daily, denied their rights, and punished harshly for minor missteps after serving decades in prison. Sanctions should be proportional. A single mistake should not automatically result in revocation of probation, parole, or earned good time. Perfection should not be the standard—progress should be. To reduce recidivism and enhance public safety, individuals must be allowed to live as close to a normal, law-abiding life as possible. Their growth is visible in treatment, yet ignored when it matters most. A system that recognizes only failure and not progress is not one that promotes rehabilitation or public safety.
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen and advocate regarding the supervision and treatment of individuals monitored through P&P, . I respect for the difficult work performed by the DOC, while also conveying serious concerns that I believe warrant review, accountability, and reform. My advocacy centers on individuals classified as SVP's or RSO's who are attempting to comply with supervision, complete mandated treatment, and reintegrate into society after long-term incarceration. Many of these individuals have served extensive prison sentences, some involving prolonged isolation, and are navigating reentry while managing significant psychological trauma. I have witnessed a pattern of practices that appear inconsistent, excessively punitive, and counterproductive to reducing recidivism. Mandatory sex offender treatment classes are required statewide; however, in District 15,PO's are present during these sessions, often observing in ways that feel adversarial rather than supportive. Participants have expressed that statements made during treatment—meant to promote honesty, accountability, and healing—are later used as grounds for interrogation, sanctions, ECOs, or reincarceration. This environment discourages meaningful participation in treatment and erodes trust The use of polygraphs—combined with threats of incarceration or expulsion from treatment—has created extreme fear and distress among participants. One tragic outcome of this environment was the suicide of an individual who was told that failing another polygraph would result in incarceration or removal from treatment, leading directly to revocation. This loss underscores the profound mental health consequences of supervision practices that rely primarily on fear rather than rehabilitation. There are also troubling inconsistencies regarding transparency and access to records. Individuals are told they may request polygraph results through the FOIA, yet those requests are routinely denied under the claim that the documents belong to the DOC Similarly, treatment providers offer monthly progress reports, but when individuals later request those same documents while incarcerated for alleged violations, they are told they are not entitled to them. As a result, when individuals appear before a judge, they are unable to present documentation of progress, accountability, or compliance—only allegations of failure. While the laws of Virginia are meant to be applied uniformly, P&P practices vary drastically. certain districts routinely imposes restrictions not seen in other districts, When individuals cannot earn sufficient income to pay rent, supervision fees, fines, and treatment costs, they are returned to incarceration—not for new crimes, but for systemic barriers imposed upon them. Rehabilitation cannot occur when individuals are forced to relive their crimes daily, denied their rights, and punished harshly for minor missteps after serving decades in prison. Sanctions should be proportional. A single mistake should not automatically result in revocation of probation, parole, or earned good time. Perfection should not be the standard—progress should be. To reduce recidivism and enhance public safety, individuals must be allowed to live as close to a normal, law-abiding life as possible. Their growth is visible in treatment, yet ignored when it matters most. A system that recognizes only failure and not progress is not one that promotes rehabilitation or public safety.