OUTRAGEOUS Bill Protects Rapists From Prison Time

Empty courtroom with judges bench and wooden decor.

Days after a Democratic governor took office in Virginia, state legislators introduced a bill that would eliminate mandatory minimum prison sentences for rape, manslaughter, distribution of child pornography, and assault on law enforcement officers.

Story Snapshot

House Bill 863 would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for multiple violent felonies including rape, manslaughter, child pornography offenses, and assault on police officers
The legislation would also repeal mandatory five-day jail sentences for first-time DUI offenders with blood alcohol content of .15 or higher
Law enforcement experts warn the bill could undermine victim accountability and public confidence in the justice system
Democratic sponsors argue judges need discretion to weigh individual case circumstances rather than apply one-size-fits-all sentencing
The bill currently sits in committee review where amendments are expected before any floor vote

The Timing Raises Eyebrows

Governor Abigail Spanberger had barely warmed her desk chair when Democratic legislators dropped House Bill 863 into the hopper. The January 17, 2026 inauguration was followed within days by this sweeping sentencing reform proposal sponsored by Delegate Rae Cousins. The bill targets mandatory minimum sentences that currently govern some of Virginia’s most serious violent crimes. This wasn’t some minor technical correction buried in legislative fine print. The proposal strikes at the heart of how Virginia punishes rapists, those who harm children through pornography, people who commit manslaughter, and criminals who assault police officers.

What Actually Changes Under This Bill

The legislation eliminates sentencing floors that currently guarantee prison time for specific violent felonies. Judges would gain authority to impose any sentence up to the maximum penalty, including potentially no prison time at all in cases they deem appropriate. The bill also addresses repeat violent offenders by removing mandatory minimums for subsequent convictions. Beyond violent crimes, HB 863 tackles DUI penalties by scrapping the mandatory five-day jail sentence for first-time offenders with blood alcohol levels of .15 or higher. Supporters emphasize that maximum penalties remain unchanged, meaning judges retain full authority to impose harsh sentences when warranted by case facts.

Law Enforcement Sounds the Alarm

Josh Ederheimer brings both academic credentials and street experience to his criticism of HB 863. The University of Virginia assistant professor and retired law enforcement officer acknowledges that mandatory minimums probably don’t deter criminals in the heat of the moment. Violent offenders aren’t weighing sentencing guidelines while committing rape or manslaughter. But Ederheimer argues that deterrence misses the point entirely. Mandatory minimums serve victims and communities by guaranteeing meaningful accountability when convictions occur. Police departments watch criminals cycle back onto streets after serving minimal time, only to reoffend and create new victims. Former Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares joins the chorus of concern, warning that eliminating sentencing floors for violent crimes represents a dangerous shift in Virginia’s justice priorities.

The Reform Movement’s Counterargument

Delegate Cousins frames HB 863 as common sense legislation that trusts judges to do their jobs. She argues that rigid sentencing mandates prevent courts from considering relevant circumstances that might justify leniency or additional punishment beyond minimums. Bryan Kennedy, an attorney serving on the Justice Forward Virginia board, pushes back against characterizations that the bill means violent criminals avoid jail. Judges will still send people to prison, Kennedy insists, but they’ll have flexibility to weigh factors like mental illness, intellectual disabilities, or other mitigating circumstances. The reform advocacy group lists HB 863 as their top 2026 legislative priority, viewing it as a continuation of efforts that saw a similar bill pass the Virginia Senate in 2021 before stalling.

The Uncomfortable Questions Nobody Wants to Answer

Here’s what the reform advocates won’t address directly: what happens when a judge’s discretion results in a rapist receiving probation instead of prison time? How does a victim’s family process a manslaughter conviction that yields a suspended sentence? The argument that judges need flexibility sounds reasonable in the abstract, but violent crime victims don’t live in abstractions. They live with trauma, loss, and a desperate need to believe the system takes their suffering seriously. Mandatory minimums emerged precisely because inconsistent sentencing eroded public confidence in justice. Some judges were too lenient, some too harsh, and victims never knew what to expect.

The bill’s supporters point to circumstances where mandatory minimums produce unjust outcomes. Fair enough. But the solution to occasional injustice isn’t eliminating all sentencing standards for rape, child pornography, and violence against police officers. Virginia has mechanisms to address truly exceptional cases without gutting baseline accountability for heinous crimes. The rush to pass this legislation immediately after a new Democratic administration took power suggests priorities that don’t align with how most Virginians view public safety. Law enforcement frustration with repeat offenders isn’t some abstract policy concern. It’s the reality of watching the same violent criminals create new victims because the system failed to protect communities the first time.

What Happens Next in Richmond

House Bill 863 currently sits before the House and Senate Justice Committees, where amendments are expected before any floor votes occur. Democratic control of the governorship and legislature provides reform advocates with institutional power to advance this agenda. However, vocal opposition from law enforcement experts and former Republican officials creates political pressure that may force modifications. The 2021 precedent shows that similar legislation can pass one chamber without becoming law, suggesting the path forward remains uncertain. Committee members will need to decide whether trusting judicial discretion on violent felonies serves justice better than guaranteeing minimum accountability through sentencing floors.