Welcome to Richmond Sunlight

The 2020 Virginia General Assembly session began on January 8, and continued until March 12, and then started a special session on August 18. Here you can read the bills that were proposed and learn about the few that ultimately become law.

Bill Topics

Newest Comments

Prisoners; conditional release, sentence credits.
Jack writes: Sorry. I posted this under the wrong bill. But the sentencing credits apply to everything I wrote in my original post.
Prisoners; conditional release, sentence credits.
Jack writes: This bill shows growth in our society from "lock them up and throw away the key" to giving people a chance to prove they are worthy of parole. Violent or non-violent people in prison should prove they have followed the rules and have taken various courses along with attending AA or NA meetings (for addicts and alcoholics). People should not be given a "get out of jail" card just because they have done the amount of time to be eligible for parole. My son received the maximum sentence of 20 years which was way above the sentencing guideline. He completed every program offered in the jail along with 13 character witness statements describing his successes and good nature. The judge ignored all mitigating evidence which is the "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality. With the parole system he might have a better chance at proving himself and get back to his family where he belongs.
Parole statutes; application for juveniles and persons committed upon certain felony offenses.
Jack writes: Reinstate parole for people that deserve it. Who work prison programs and prove they are worthy.
Earned sentence credits; max. of 4.5 credits may be earned for each 30 days served on certain sent.
Concerned about the 9/18 Amendment to HB5148 writes: I cannot believe the SENATE changed this bill to a 2022 recommendation today! How INSENSITIVE! From such a "privileged" group. This is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE MESSAGE to VIRGINIANS and a pretty cowardly move
Assault and battery; penalty.
Waldo Jaquith writes: If you don't understand the difference between assault and battery, you should not be a law enforcement officer. It is "assault" for a civilian to touch a LEO gently with the tip of a single finger. Under existing law, there is a mandatory sentence of six months for this offense. This bill simply lets the judge decide how much of a sentence that somebody deserves if they have harmed a LEO in no way whatsoever. That's it. So, please, spare us your hyperventilating about "tearing apart an entire society."
Assault and battery; penalty.
justin rodriguez writes: As a LEO myself, let me make sure that I understand this correctly. If I am assaulted, and there's no "real injury"...WTH does that mean? I understand wanting to consider diminished faculties a a mitigating circumstance...that's perfectly reasonable. But if I'm assaulted, and not "really uinjured"...so what. Are you really to stupid to realize that any scumbag willing to assault a LEO is far more likely to assault a civilian? We, as a populace, are willing to wait until a LEO is "really injured" before we consider a stiff penalty for a scumbag? In two or three years, maybe we should consider reducing sentences for scumbags who "really injure" an officer. And a few years after that, we should reduce sentences for scumbags who maim or kill an officer. Are you kidding me. The public is fortunate enough to have patriots serving in uniform to protect the citizens and enforce the law, I don't know where this supposed need for law enforcement reform came from...but its all a crock. Our system is fine. Are there bad officers...sure...but very few. One bad officer out of 10,000 does not reflect a broken system. IF an officer violates procedures or law...you discipline, fire, or prosecute. You DON'T ear apart an entire society. You know who the real scumbags are...the state legislators. I wonder how a bill would fare in the legislature to preclude LEOs from providing security for, or responding to 911 calls from a state legislator. I mean. after all...if a LEO is assumed to be evil...shouldn't a legislator in need be precluded from utilizing the services of such corrupt, evil individuals-like me?