Posting #137 – Virginia Crime Commission September 16 Meeting and Power Points

By:  RSOL of Virginia
Date:  09/17/2009

September 16, 2009 Virginia Crime Commission Agenda:

I.             Call to Order / Approval of June 25, 2009 Minutes
Senators Howell and Stolle, Co-Chairs

II.           Senate Joint Resolution 362: Restorative Justice
Christina Barnes, Ph. D., Sr. Methodologist, Virginia State Crime Commission
Mark Earley and Pat Nolan, Justice Fellowship Program, Prison Fellowship
Rob and Debbie Smith, H-E-A-R-T (Hope Exist After Rape Trauma)

III.          House Bill 1843: Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators:           Static-99
Steven Wolf, Ph.D., State Coordinator Sex Offender Services, Department of Behavioral Health

IV.          Virginia’s Prisoner Reentry Programs
                                Jane Brown, Department of Social Services
Barry Green, Director, Department of Juvenile Justice

V.            Virginia’s DNA Releases and Writs of Actual Innocence
Shawn Ambrust, Director, Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project            
                                Katya Herndon, Director of Legislative and Public Relations, Office of Executive Secretary,        Virginia Supreme Court

VI.          “Sexting”
G. Stewart Petoe, Director of Legal Affairs, Virginia State Crime Commission

VII.        House Bill Referrals 1898, 1928, 1962, 1963, 2274:  Sex Offender Registry
G. Stewart Petoe, Director of Legal Affairs, Virginia State Crime Commission

VIII.       Overview of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
G. Stewart Petoe, Director of Legal Affairs, Virginia State Crime Commission

IX.          Senate Joint Resolution 358: Hospital Violence
Thomas Cleator, Sr. Staff Attorney, Virginia State Crime Commission

X.            Adjournment
Next Meeting: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, Senate Room A, 10:00 a.m.

 

Back on August 18, we asked all of you to join us for a united stand at this VCC meeting.

We had no idea how many supporters to expect, especially since 8 supporters who were each bringing someone cancelled within 48 hours of the meeting.

We met 23 of you and you all happily selected one of our visuals to hold during the VI. and VII. sections of the meeting.

We learned that 2.3 million people are in U.S. Prisons today. That's 1 out of every 100 adult males. We also learned that 1 out of every 31 adult males are either on probation or parole today. $68 BILLION per year is spent on corrections.

In Virginia there are currently 67,000 people in prison (state and federal), that's 1 out of every 89 adult males. In Virginia 1 out of every 46 adult males are currently on probation.

The meeting drug on longer than the two previous VCC meetings and by 1:00PM the committee was just beginning part IV. of the agenda and 3 of our supporters had to leave. By this point in the meeting out of all the VCC members Senator Stolle (who arrived 25 minutes late), Senator Marsh, Delegate Kilgore and Delegate Albo had all left too. Martin Kent of the Attorney General's office and Richard Trodden were no-shows for the day so that left only 7 members of the 13 member VCC to listen to the rest of the speakers.

In regards to section III. Civil Commitment one or two incorrect facts were presented by the so-called expert.

In regards to topic VI. Sexting the numbers seemed REALLY low and in regards to section VII. the 2009 S.O. Bills, we counted 7 incorrect facts and we will be sending all the members of the VCC an e-mail giving them the correct data.

During section VII, one of our supporters made an effort to point out incorrect information and he was immediately silenced by Senator Howell with the statement, "No comments are being taken until the December meeting".  

When we all held up our visuals it was very interesting how the last 7 VCC members (and their counsel) reacted. At first they looked shocked and scanned the variety of visuals and then once they realized what the they said and that it meant we were all together they never again made real eye contact with the audience.

The one Richmond news channel that also attended the meeting all of a sudden went into action and turned his camera into the audience to capture our signs.

At the meeting we met Bonnie Atwood who  wrote, Citizens and Lawmakers Brace for More Sexting— Can it Prompt the New “Scarlet Letter”?  Capitol Connections Magazine- Summer 2009:   http://www.dbava.com/qm_sum_09_web.PDF .

We want to thank all of you that were able to attend the September meeting. We know that many of you drove many hours and it cost you a day of work, the fuel and the parking and we are so grateful that you knew your presence was needed and came.

The next VCC meeting is December 15 and public comments will be heard. We know its 10 days before Christmas and you may not be near Richmond but we need you to attend the December meeting and be heard. It could be icy/snowy weather in Richmond but we REALLY hope you will take this opportunity to take a stand.

RSOL of Virginia

VCC 2009 Microsoft Power Point Presentations:

• Restorative Justice
• Sexually Violent Predator Census Growth at the VCBR
• Sexting
• Sex Offender Registry Requirements of the AWA and 2009 G.A. Bills

Email Titled “Inconsistencies and Errors”:
Date:  09/17/2009
By:  RSOL of Virginia

Dear Virginia Crime Commission members,

There seemed to be confusion at yesterday’s meeting on how much it would cost Virginia to comply with SORNA/AWA and how much would be lost of the Byrne Grant. It will cost Virginia $12 million to comply with SORNA and Virginia would only loose $400,000 (10% Byrne Grant) if they do not comply.

Only one case of a Virginia juvenile being charged for “Sexting” seemed to be known by Mr. Petoe at yesterday’s meeting. Also the conversation and presentation only included the juveniles. What about the 18, 19 and 20 year old boyfriends and girlfriends who receive these unsolicited photos or videos should not face prosecution or being listed as a Sex Offender?

Or what about the Loudon County case where School Administrator, Ting-Yi Oei spent almost a year of his life fighting for his career, his reputation and his life, Citizens and Lawmakers Brace for More Sexting— Can it Prompt the New “Scarlet Letter”? By Bonnie Atwood. Capitol Connections Magazine - Summer 2009: http://www.dbava.com/qm_sum_09_web.pdf  .
Mr. Oei’s case shows that Virginia’s prosecutors do not always use good judgment as the VCC stated at yesterdays meeting and because of that, Sexting laws do need to be proposed in 2010 in addition to educating students of the dangers of Sexting.

There are several incorrect facts from yesterday’s Power Point Presentations and if you are to make an accurate decision when you vote at the December 15 VCC meeting you should have the correct data.

First, as I brought to your attention during the meeting, using the Virginia Sex Offender Registry to harass or intimidate someone is currently only a misdemeanor, not a felony as it should be.

The Sexting Power Point Presentation:

Slide # 11 states a juvenile who is adjudicated delinquent of a sexual offense is not automatically required to be registered. The state of Virginia requires ALL sexually related convictions to be registered.

Slide # 12 states

1. Juveniles who are convicted as adults of producing or distributing child pornography must register as sex offenders for at least 25 years.
2. Virginia’s registration requirements for these offenses comply with the Act.

Virginia would be compliant with the 25 years if Virginia had a 3-Tier system which is recommended by SORNA. Tier 1 is the lowest offender and could petition after 15 years; also there is no requirement that the information for a Tier 1 be publically posted and as such could save the Commonwealth a great deal of funding. Tier 2 is a mid-level offender and could petition after 25 years and Tier 3 is the worse offender and would be listed for life. Virginia only has two classifications, Non-Violent=15 years  which we all know has been revised twice by the G.A. and Violent=Lifetime. So when this slide says Virginia complies with SORNA or AWA, Virginia actually exceeds the guidelines because the offender is Violent according to the Commonwealth and will never be removed. With AWA they’d have a chance to be removed in 25 years. Differentiation would allow more attention to be focused on those who do in fact pose a greater threat and require more attention. This may in fact prevent a situation like that which occurred in California.

Sex Offender Registry Requirements of the Adam Walsh Act Presentation:

Slide #7 states

1. Requires that any telephone number a registered sex offender uses, or intends to use, be added to the registry.
1. This is not required by SORNA, but is required pursuant to the authority of the U.S. Attorney General to mandate additional information be added to registries.  The A.G. recommends that the numbers not be made available to the general public.

As I stated at both the 2009 G.A. House and the Senate Sub-committee hearings, “One must ask; would phone lines where only internal communications are utilized be included. In these cases the actual phone number may or may not be known and may not be accessible to the person to whom this new requirement would apply. If this is the case then how would the State Police verify this new information?

In my husbands case, the phone lines are too numerous to count and he knows of at least 3 in which it’s a direct hotline to other facilities where no phone number is available. Not only would listing all this be an impossible task, but in some cases would be a violation of workplace security.

Please try to imagine if this restriction were applied to you, could you actually comply with the requirements? If your answer is no, then how can you expect anyone to comply despite their best efforts?”

We do need to apply some sense to these requirements. The attempt to do this would hopelessly bog down the system as one can not anticipate all phones one might use.

Slide #8 states

1. Requires that the registry information on “place of employment” include all places and physical job site locations, including volunteer work.
1. This is not precisely required by SORNA – “name and address of any place where the sex offender is an employee….”

Employer addresses are required by SORNA but the employer name or company name is NOT required. In fact New Hampshire removed the employer name/company name two years ago from their registry because an employer will not hire an offender specifically because they do not want their company listed on the registry.

Slides #10 and 11

As I stated at both the 2009 G.A. House and the Senate Sub-committee hearings, “As to changing the visitation time requirements regarding registration, the existing law of 14 days is more than adequate.

Changing the law to limit the amount of days allowable would in some cases limit the chance for the registered to return to productive society. This is particularly evident in that most businesses will schedule training classes or seminars to travel over a one week period to take advantage of the airline discounts. Limiting the stay to a mere 7 days requiring registration would hopelessly confuse the ability to follow registration and actually create a situation where the registrant could have multiple listings and differing states of residency.”

Slide #12 states

1. Creates a new requirement that a “substantial change in appearance” would also necessitate a re-registration in person within 3 days.
1. This is not required by SORNA, nor by the U.S. Attorney General.

As I stated at both the 2009 G.A. House and the Senate Sub-committee hearings, If this committee is to require that any significant change in appearance would require the registered to resubmit to a new photograph, than a “significant” change needs to be clearly defined and documented.

What exactly is the definition of a significant change in appearance? Unless the authorities enforcing this law define exactly what constitutes a significant change and submits these defining changes to the persons affected, then how can we pass this bill into law?

Would an unreported haircut be a crime or the gradual graying of ones hair that goes virtually unnoticed by the individual an offense? Changes of this type may be considered significant, but to the person on the registry they might not even be aware the changes have occurred until someone that hasn’t seen them in many months’ mentions that they look different.

Perhaps going 4 days without shaving. What about weight gain or loss, what is the amount that would require a new photo, 5, 10, 20 pounds?

What about a bad case of acne or eczema or a broken nose that didn’t heal perfectly?

Women typically will wear there hair in a different styles, whether it be up or down.

When ones appearance changes on a day to day basis, dependant upon how they may have slept or if they’ve showered and shaved to start the day, who can state what constitutes significant under this bill?

This bill is far too vague and is completely open to subjective opinion; and should not go forward. We ask that this bill be tabled until there is a clear list defining what is and what is not considered a significant change by the state.

Without clear and precisely defined rules and regulations the state is setting the registered up to fail.”

Slide #17 states

1. Virginia currently prohibits retroactive application of certain offenses. 
1. If committed before July 1, 2006, a felony conviction under § 18.2-67.5:1, a conviction under § 18.2-91, or a conviction for possession of child pornography do not require registration.
2. This is in violation of SORNA, federal regulation, and the U.S. Attorney General.

As an audience member verbally pointed out, this is not correct. There are many people currently listed on Virginia’s registry that were convicted before July 1, 2006 for this very crime.

Interestingly this and many other type convictions has been successfully challenged in the Ninth US Court of Appeals in regards to juveniles convicted prior to SORNA and has been deemed unconstitutional. They went as far as to refer to the Registry as a punitive rather than just an administrative order.

Slide #19 states

1. Under SORNA, a person convicted of sexual battery of anyone 13 years old or older must be on the registry for at least 25 years, if the battery was accomplished through force or threat of death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping.
1. Under Virginia law, sexual battery of an adult will only result in registration if it is the offender’s third offense.

This is NOT correct. My husband was convicted of sexual battery of a 15 year old without the above qualifiers, it was his first offense and he was told he’d have to register for 10 years and then 4 months later the Virginia General Assembly increased it to 15 years.

Slide #20 states

1. SORNA requires juveniles over the age of 14 to be registered if they are adjudicated delinquent of aggravated sexual battery, rape, forcible sodomy, or forcible object penetration.
1. Currently, Virginia law only provides for the possibility that such a juvenile be registered; the Commonwealth must first file a petition, and the judge must agree that the specific facts of the crime warrant registration.

Virginia lowered the minimum age for registration to 13 years old and attempted to lower to 12 years old unsuccessfully.

Finally, I questioned a statement in the AWA Presentation, SORNA specifically allows the Attorney General of the United States to expand or exempt the requirements that are listed in the federal statutes. So I e-mailed the lead counsel member to the U.S. Judiciary Committee in Washington D.C. whom we’ve met with and asked if this statement is correct. She responded back, “The statement you quote is extremely broad, and I’m not sure how to interpret it.  SORNA does direct the AG to issue guidelines and regulations to interpret and implement SORNA.  It also gives the AG discretion in certain areas, such as discretionary or mandatory exemptions from public disclosure and retroactive application of the law.  But the AG on his own, with no statutory authority or mandate can’t change laws that Congress has passed”.  So, this slide from your presentation is extremely misleading and should not be used again.

Please take these truths to heart and vote as educated persons on these important decisions. No one likes to dwell on these issues but in order to truly protect all Virginian’s you must fully understand these things.

These changes would only add confusion, frustration, additional expense and burden not only to the registrant, but to the Commonwealth. The extra costs to the taxpayer due to the extra work involved with attempting to keep the registry up to date are limitless.

Thank you.
RSOL of Virginia

Summary of September 16 VCC Meeting
From:  CURE S.O. Representative
Date: 09/18/09

 

Both Virginia CURE and RSOL chapters were well represented. VA-RSOL had organized a lot of supporters (looked like 25-30?) and brought various visuals to hold                                           during the presentations. Very cool!!

Unfortunately, public comment was NOT allowed at this meeting, so we had to sit there biting our tongues. Comment WILL be allowed at the December meeting, so be prepared!!
Sexting is the "easy" one discussed, so I'll address that first. The VCC basically decided that prosecutors wouldn't push charges, so they should encourage schools to educate kids and leave the law alone. Some of the charges related to sexting aren't registerable in Virginia, so they claim these kids won't get registered anyway. We know that this isn't true, and the discussion didn't consider those who aren't minors - as in a 17 year old sending a nude pic to her 18 year old boyfriend (who then gets charged with possession of child porn as an ADULT and with distribution if he shows it to anybody).

I initially thought that juveniles convicted of these offenses would be subject to proximity restrictions. However, I checked the Code which specifies that only those convicted as adults are subject to them.
Several bills from the 2009 session were discussed in light of SORNA requirements - both what is specifically required by SORNA and what is required by the AG's "guidelines". The presenter noted that SORNA gives the AG "CARTE BLANCHE" in creating/changing the guidelines. He stated that if the AG suddenly decided that shoe   sizes were required, states would suddenly be out of compliance again (if they had ever achieved compliance in the first place). Although there is much debate among advocates regarding the legality of the AG creating and changing SORNA per HIS  interpretation, it appears that we are stuck with this for now. It is unclear how his "interpretations" can be so far from the original Act and still be considered requirements "under SORNA."

Personally, I think that Mr. Petoe's (the presenter) characterization of the AG's ability                   to capriciously change requirements is a great argument for us. Why spend money to get into compliance if the rules can change at any time?

The 2 most critical bills being discussed from the 2009 session were HB1898 and HB1928. These would add EXTENSIVE changes to the registry with the claim that it is being done to satisfy SORNA requirements. In the interest of time/space, I'm not detailing the other smaller bills.

We know part of this stuff, but I thought the interpretations related to the wording of our bills was interesting.

HB1898 -
* Adds physical job sites (not just employment) and volunteer work - Lots of discussion on this one and the presenter said this was hard to interpret. Neither SORNA nor the AG requires such specific employment info. SORNA DOES require more specific info that  employer address, but it can be more general. For example, a plumber could just provide   basic address and then say "services in the city/county of ___". This seems really stupid, but, that's what the guy was told by the SMART office. Volunteer work must be reported and public.
* Adds phone numbers an offender "intends" to use - NOT required under SORNA but required by AG. NOT to be made public b/c of harassment and sex offenders contacting each other. The entire crowd broke out in derisive laughter which greatly surprised the presenter. 
* Adds vehicle info for any car the offender "regularly" uses - REQUIRED by SORNA and MUST be public regardless of how many vehicles there are. 
* Requires immigration status - NOT required by SORNA but required by AG. Noted that relevant numbers are NOT to be public.
* Specifies that if RSO stays away from residence more than 7 days, the "temporary lodging" address must be registered - NOT required by SORNA but required by the AG.
* Change in "temporary lodging" must be reported in person within 3 days - NOT required by SORNA but required by AG, but AG doesn't require the change be made in person.
* Specifies that out-of-state RSO entering Virginia for more than 7 days must register in person (currently 30 days) - NOT required by SORNA and "probably" not required by AG UNLESS "overly expansive" definition of "temporary lodging" is used.
* Specifies that out-of-state offender entering Virginia for employment for more than 7 days (currently 14) must register in person - NOT required by either SORNA or AG.

HB1928 - Adds in-person re-registration within 3 days for a "significant change in appearance" - NOT required by SORNA or AG.

The presenter also detailed areas in which Virginia is not in compliance. These included raising penalties for FTR (costs over 1/2 mil per year), mandatory juvenile registration for certain offenses, retroactive registration for some offenses, elevating some specific offenses, and the BIGEXPENSIVE ONE - increasing the frequency of LE in-person confirmation of registration info.

The VCC Chair (Senator Howell) asked what "compliance" would cost versus how much we would lose. (I've told them a thousand times, but anyway ...) She indicated that the state AG had told her it was about $600,000 (it's really about $200,000 - $400,000 - see details at the end of this email if desired). The presenter looked up Senator Howell's bill from 2008 that had SOME of the AWA requirements in it and told her that just those pieces would cost about 12.5 MILLION a year just for state police and registry staff and another $310,000 for bed space. (He didn't mention that those numbers don't include adding some of the other bills discussed today.)

At any rate, the Chair said, "The reality is that any of these won't go forward with fiscal issues." They decided to bring back the ones without a fiscal impact at the meeting in December. The tricky part there is that bill patrons CLAIM no fiscal impact  when the budget dept says the impact "cannot be determined". Therefore I expect the two I detailed above to get further consideration.

The other tricky part is that BOTH candidates for governor are using sex offender laws                  in their platform. They may push SO legislation regardless of who wins and damn the                     budget!

Civil Commitment

The Commissioner of Behavioral Health & Developmental Services AKA DBHDS (formerly the Dept of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services) along with the Director of the Office of Sexually Violent Predators gave presentations on the status of Civil Commitment in Virginia. Although the agenda noted that the Static-99 was going to be discussed, it wasn't.

Some basic points by the presenters:

* Since beginning civil commitment (in Virginia) in 2006, 214 people have been found                  to be SVP and 156 are currently housed at the state facility (VCBR). We have 3 females that can't be housed with the males, so they take up a full 25-bed unit.
* Across the country, of 3,000 committed, only 154 have been released since 2007.
* It costs $144,000 per bed to house committed offenders (versus about $35,000 for DOC)
* The qualifying offenses increased from 4 to 28 in 2006 - the year the facility opened!!
* Our basically brand-new facility will be full by 2012 because of the increase in qualifying offenses. Original projections were for 100 people by 2012 - now that number is over 350.

The state needs to figure out how to accommodate all these people, but of course NONE of the discussion revolved around the fact that too many people are qualifying! They considered 3 options:

* Reopen part of another facility to house these folks - at a cost of $1,155,430 a year for 24 beds with a one-time expense to redo the facility.
* Expand use of SVP "conditional release" - They would have supervised transitional                     housing for 3-6 months along with intensive treatment and supervision. Family housing could be used in place of this group home arrangement. (Don't know where they think they are going to put group homes of sex offenders all over the state ...) Mandatory GPS, etc. This plan would cost under $50,000/year.
* Build a new transitional (step-down) facility with slightly less security (if you build it, they will come ...) - At a cost of $85-$100 million to build PLUS the per bed costs once they fill it.

Everybody liked the conditional release idea, but in the spirit of saving $$, one senator                  had a brilliant idea!! How about making it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE to violate the terms of conditional release? That way, we won't send them to (expensive) commitment but back to DOC!! Oooh, they LOVED that idea and will draft a bill to that effect.

The Director of the SVP office had some interesting notes. He reported that sexual recidivism in those conditionally released was very low - only one person released had offended sexually - and technical violations were about 30%. With those violations, most are returned to commitment. Not sure about the numbers he was considering here.

The SVP Director also said that his guess was that 1/3 of those committed would be there "a while", 1/3 should be released within 5 years, and 1/3 COULD BE RELEASED NOW IF THEY HAD A STABLE HOME TO GO TO!!!!! He said that we could expand release by 50% if housing was available for them. (Yes, I know the 50% and 1/3 don't go together, but that's what he said.)

The Commission Chair immediately asked the Legislative Counsel this question:

"Mr. Benjamin, does it present any constitutional issues that these people are being held in civil commitment not because they are dangerous but because they don't  have anywhere to go?" His simple answer? "Yes." 

Byrne Grant info:

We would lose 10% of our Byrne Grant if we don't comply with AWA. According to                    the DOJ, Virginia’s Byrne Grant was $3,943,036 in 2006 and $5,957,518 in 2007 but   after federal cuts was only $2,098,772 in 2008. Congress is expected to restore that funding to the 2006 level, but even at that, a loss of 10% for non-compliance would only total about $400,000. If that funding is not restored, it would be a loss of only about $200,000. (See Justice Policy Institute at http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf and the DOJ allocation page at    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/07JAGstateallocations.pdf).
Information regarding the federal stimulus package does note a plan to provide a much                  larger allotment to Virginia – possibly as much as 40 million. However, according to Virginia’s own documents, compliance with MOST (but not all) aspects of SORNA would cost an additional 12.5 million per year over the millions already dedicated to registry management. Even if Virginia does get 40 million, non-compliance with all of  SORNA would be a loss of 4 million compared to spending over three times that much to comply with policies that are being found both ineffective and unconstitutional across the country.

I don't need to tell you ladies and gentlemen how important that is! It isn't clear at this time what bills will be going forward in January 2010.

RSOL of Virginia did a fantastic job of organizing folks to be present for this meeting!

I can't emphasize enough how important it is to be at the December 15th meeting where public comment is allowed. Even if you don't want to speak, you can show your support with your presence!

CURE S.O. Representative



Summary of September 16 VCC Meeting
From:  Joe
Date: 09/17/09

 

I have to say I am very glad I went yesterday and it was so nice to finally meet you.

On the way home me and my wife had numerous conversations about the Crime Commission and my first thought and honestly is that our crime laws are being put in place by a group of 60 year old kindergartners and that is exactly the appearance they give off. Where is my lunch, I need my milk, ohhhh looky someone is showing a slide film and especially that one Senator. Honestly the whole thing is disgraceful and knowing they are getting paid for this is even more disgraceful.

 Delegate Bell shouldn’t even be on the commission ,he was totally negative and close                    minded to the point he looked like a idiot especially when the conversation went to finding jobs for people being released ,well why should we help someone coming out of jail get a job when Tommy who didn’t commit a crime cant find a job? Ummmmm hello he would rather spend that $144,000.00 for a bed  for one person per year in jail rather than have a rehabilitated criminal becoming a active member of society and pay taxes to help to pay for his pay check as a Commission member . That is a no brainer especially considering there are free job services for the public already through social services.

Joe                         

 

Summary of September 16 VCC Meeting
From:  Ron
Date: 09/16/09

I can not begin to understand how you all manage to gather the strength and hope that                    things will change.

 After seeing today how incorrect many statements were and how un-informed many                     of them are as well as the lack of attentiveness they had through out the entire proceeding, I would almost want to give up.

 It seems like a losing battle, but I know now, that it’s going to take many all of us sticking together and making a presence for them to understand how serious this stuff is.  As I said before, I’m not to far away... anytime you all are heading out I’m there.

I was concerned at first with the media and camera, but there is no reason for me to  hide.

Ron

Va.‘s Sex-Offender Center will Fill up by 2012, Officials say, September 17, 2009:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/CIVL17_20090916-222403/293448/

Crime Commission Addresses 'Sexting', (Virginia), September 17, 2009:
http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=11144362

Prison Reform Could Save State Cash (Virginia), September 17, 2009:
http://www.wtvr.com/wtvr-prison-reform-crime-commission090916,0,2764259.story