Welcome to Richmond Sunlight

The 2023 Virginia General Assembly session will begin on January 11, and continue until mid-February. Here you can read the bills that are proposed.

Bill Topics

Newest Comments

Virginia Business Ready Sites Acquisition Fund and Program; created.
Bill Peabody writes: INstead of this VA should have lowered the corp tax rate. VA 6% vs. NC at 2.5% and heading to 0 Guess who's going to be #1 for biz again soon?
Orders for involuntary outpatient evaluations & services; evidence of defendant's mental condition.
Edmund W. Crekmore, Jr., Ph.D, LCP writes: Why not consider the statutory option of a civil stay of an MOT court order, per an amended SB1510? This might be on the recommendation of expert testimony given by the court ordered evaluator, referred by the criminal judge upon acquittal, to the civil side for disposition by a special justice or district judge for direct MOT or "step-down" MOT in the community. The option of a civil stay of an MOT order would exist in district court or in a specialty court by a district judge or a special justice in a licensed facility or alternative site on a voluntary basis for a presumed legally competent SMI/DD/ID/ Autism Spectrum respondent found not guilty due to lack of criminal intent (Mens Rea) at the time of the criminal offense (Actus Reus) but found to be in need of outpatient services in the community to avoid a foreseeable risk of future substantial deterioration. This option could be recommended in testimony at the criminal hearing by an expert evaluator (forensic clinical psychologist or board certified psychiatrist with a forensic specialty) as an option for the court prior to a verdict as not meeting ECO/TDO commitment criteria but who poses a foreseeable risk due to a past criminal act (Actus Reus).related to the individual's mental condition. Invoking a statutory stay of a civil MOT order would allow the individual and his or her chosen supporters under medical supervision and with oversight by a special justice or judge in specialty "problem solving" courts in the community to provide needed mental health services and CSB case management support similar to what is being done in CARE Courts in California. As in California CARE Courts, this provides an opportunity to use supported decision making or shared decision making as a case management model to facilitate a Virginia Advance Directive with Ulysses Clause with inpatient and outpatient crisis plans to intervene in the event of early prodromal signs and symptoms of substantial mental deterioration and loss of decisional capacity in the foreseeable future. Invoking a voluntary civil stay of an MOT order, as in CARE Courts, is similar to "preventative AOT" in a number of other states, such as New York, that allow this kind of civil judicial disposition. This "voluntary" community based treatment option might satisfactorily address Senator McClelland's and other Senate Judiciary Committee members' reservations about the "involuntary" nature of an MOT order for Autism Spectrum, SMI, and other special needs "at risk" populations under SB1510 yesterday. Such an approach might help to salvage SB1510/HB2434 (indefinitely passed by yesterday in the Senate) ,particularly if approved and recommended by an Interbranch Judicial Advisory Task Force, recommended by the National Judicial Task Force (10/2022), and sanctioned by the Judicial Council of the Executive Office of the Virginia Supreme Court working closely in concert with the Behavioral Health and Crime Commissions in a further study of diversion models, such as EDCOT and CARE Courts. Edmund W. Creekmore, Jr. Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist and independent Examiner for the Virginia Supreme Court
Petition for modification of sentence; eligibility, procedures.
Fred Woerhle writes: The article I cited from the Washington Post now says that 16 of the released inmates were rearrested -- previously, it said 28 of the 135 inmates released under DC's Second Look law had been rearrested. Keith Alexander, "Man who raped three women when he was 16 seeks early release from prison," Washington Post, February 1, 2023, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/02/01/joshua-haggins-rape-abduction-early-release/ . The Daily Caller article still says 28 of the released inmates were rearrested. It also looks like this bill was recently amended, to make it somewhat less dangerous: https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?231+amd+SB842AS
Petition for modification of sentence; eligibility, procedures.
Fred Woehrle writes: This bill would not only increase violent crime by undermining deterrence, it would also release some inmates who go on to commit more violent crimes. It is modeled on a DC law that has released inmates who went on to commit more crimes. That law, the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act, "has led to 135 defendants being released early, of whom 28 have been rearrested," according to the Daily Caller and the Washington Post. See James Lynch, "Man Who Raped 3 Women And Forced Victims To Dig Their Own Graves Seeks Early Prison Release Under DC Law," Daily Caller, February 1, 2023 (stating that "The law has led to 135 defendants being released early, of whom 28 have been rearrested") (available at https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/01/sexual-assault-three-women-early-release-washington-dc/), citing Keith Alexander, "Man who raped three women when he was 16 seeks early release from prison," Washington Post, February 1, 2023 (containing the same statistic), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/02/01/joshua-haggins-rape-abduction-early-release/ . This Second Look bill should be rejected, because it would undermine public safety.
United States Constitution; application for a convention of the states.
Richard Altice writes: If this bill passes, the Constitution is lost as this is the opportunity the wolves are waiting for. There will be a run away convention where our rights are removed. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution, just people are ignorant of it and how it works. READ the Constitution and then put it to work to remove all and who are in conflict with it.
Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry; removal of name and identifying information.
J B Crenshaw writes: A first-rate bill which would simplify and streamline. Establishes a straightforward method for requesting removal from the sex offender registry – after a person has met ALL the requirements. The Virginia State Police would process these removal requests in a standardized and uniform manner. Rather than burden circuit courts with many random individual petitions…a waste of time and money. A rare chance to vote for simplicity/standardization rather than complexity.