Mass incarceration adversely affects hundreds of thousands of families in Virginia today, interrupting many communities. Its costs are high for children, partners, communities, the economy, and especially taxpayers.
Meanwhile, the scientific consensus is that long sentences or prison for minor offenses do not help public safety, often reducing it. Small steps have been made to bring balance back to the issue of late, but there is resistance and fear among leaders. Little meaningful change will occur until public perception is shifted away from stereotypes to instead examine everyone involved–victims and people with convictions–as human beings.
The current limited perception has a source, too. It has been cemented for generations by media reports that frame every person with a conviction as a one-dimensional danger. Politicians get in on the act, too, stirring up votes through fear. Just look at Delegate Bell’s unforgiving, fact-free diatribes every time the legislature aims to let people EARN shorter sentences, reunite families, focus on making better citizens, and save millions for better purposes.
In recent years, that media frame has begun to occasionally include a more balanced view–but not nearly often enough. Regressive viewpoints continue. Just this week, we observed exactly the type of negligent reporting that perpetuates fear, division, and expensive, useless punishment.
On the evening of April 20, 2020, Channel 6’s Crime Insider segment examined closely some concerns about the release of two aged, reformed people from behind bars: Vincent Martin and Deborah Shriver. In both cases, they discussed questions regarding the victims’ familial notifications, an important examination of transparency and adherence to the proper protocol. They also included extensive coverage of important human perspectives, via lengthy personal accounts from the families of victims. These viewpoints are commendable and should absolutely be considered, as victims’ rights are important in the pursuit of social justice and safety.
However, that is the only perspective the segment offered, and there is so much more to these situations than that. This one-sided reporting perpetuated misunderstandings about the actual legal process in Virginia and failed to present any semblance of a balanced perspective. They thus created an extremely biased and misleading understanding for any viewers not intimately familiar with the criminal justice system already. Basically they painted a picture that the parole board is letting out all sorts of dangerous people without proper consideration of anyone involved, and that is the furthest thing from the truth. Rather than the expected responsible reporting, this reeks of the biased fear mongering that helped create mass incarceration in the first place.
To start, they did not offer even a modicum of a voice to those granted parole. How can a story about their release be balanced without including any input from those most affected by the decision: Mr. Martin, Ms. Schriver, and their families? These crimes were terrible, to be sure, but so many years after they occurred these are the human beings most impacted.
Incarceration after danger ends only costs the state and communities and wastes resources. The report included an extended diatribe by a prosecutor from 1979, whose job was solely to persecute Mr. Martin and who has had no knowledge of him in over 40 years. Yet they could not get the input of either of them or anyone who knows them best?
Furthermore, Channel 6 made no effort to even examine the positive things they had done to EARN their release. Both of these individuals are senior citizens, long past the age that almost anyone commits violent crimes. They are statistically negligible risks, and in both cases they have worked diligently to demonstrate exactly the rehabilitated behavior that is supposedly the whole point of prison.
Not to mention, the extreme difficulty for anyone to be granted parole in the Commonwealth was never discussed, nor why these two were approved. It overlooked the stringent demands of a board that says no the vast majority of the time, instead leaving the impression to most viewers that they are just commonly letting people out without full consideration.
In fact, no attempt was made to actually extend the reporting to help enlighten Virginians about the system. Parole today is ONLY even an option to those whose crime occurred before 1995 and to senior citizens who have done extended time already. Most citizens don’t know this and Ch. 6 skipped the opportunity to inform by barely mentioning how long ago Mr. Martin’s conviction occurred. Is there anyone who is not different 41 years later?
They also misled viewers by ending coverage of some valid concerns with a statement from a police representative that the courts should decide if evidence needs reexamination, not the parole board. While logical, the court system here does not actually permit anyone the chance to reexamine such issues without DNA proof–though hopefully this will improve slightly when actual innocence rights expand in July. In this case, it is exactly the job of the parole board to decide whether the circumstances of a case deserve a second look. Letting her statement stand, well intentioned but misleading, amounts to neglectful reporting.
Finally, where was the broader coverage of actual evidence and science? There exists copious scientific data with a consensus indicating these two–and so many other parolees–amount to almost no risk. In fact, the evidence concludes that we already spend too much and disrupt too many families by over-incarcerating when other responses to crime are more effective at avoiding future crime, like counseling, job training, and restorative justice. No single case is determinative, but the release of people demonstrating pro social behavior is actually a boon to public safety and the economy overall. Why would the news not cover the legal and statistical facts?
We expected better in today’s Virginia, and we are deeply disappointed. This story deserved to be covered. The voices of victims are important in that coverage, but it amounts to bias to only cover their criticisms decades later. Channel 6 guides understanding in the Commonwealth and therefore has a responsibility to inform people accurately and fully, especially on issues that affect people’s physical freedom. The repercussions of this reach far beyond these individual cases, as this kind of coverage inaccurately shapes public perception about the system in this state, making evidence-based reform that actually improves public safety less likely. What if your loved ones were behind bars, wouldn’t you want them to at least have their voice represented?