Virginia Bill To End ‘Mandatory Minimums’ Faces Safety Debate

The Bill At The Center Of The Fight

House Bill 863, introduced by Democratic lawmakers in the Virginia General Assembly, seeks to remove mandatory minimum sentences for a range of offenses, according to reporting by Fox News Digital. The measure arrived shortly after Democrat Abigail Spanberger was sworn in as governor, and is part of a broader package of criminal justice amendments backed by members of her party.

Former Republican attorney general Jason Miyares told Fox News Digital that, as drafted, HB 863 would eliminate mandatory minimums for crimes including manslaughter, rape, possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and certain other repeat violent felonies. It would also remove the mandatory five-day jail term for some first-time driving under the influence offenses.

Mandatory minimums are statutes that require judges to impose at least a set minimum prison term for specific crimes. HB 863, as described in public reporting, would not change the maximum penalties for these offenses. Judges could still impose long sentences. The change is in what must happen, not what can happen.

Supporters Say Judges Need Flexibility

The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Delegate Rae Cousins of Richmond, has framed HB 863 as an effort to move away from automatic punishments and toward individualized sentencing.

In a statement reported by Washington, D.C. station ABC7 and cited by Fox News Digital, Cousins said, HB 863 is a common-sense proposal that eliminates the requirement for one-size-fits-all minimum sentences for certain crimes.

She added, This change would give the experienced judges in our communities more discretion to make decisions based on the unique facts of each case. As the General Assembly session continues, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation and promote fairer outcomes in our justice system. The ABC7 report is available at wjla.com.

Supporters of changes like HB 863 generally argue that rigid sentencing floors can produce outcomes that even judges and prosecutors view as excessive in individual cases. They point to situations involving mental illness, addiction, or a defendant’s limited prior record as examples where a mandatory term can remove any incentive to plead guilty or accept treatment-focused conditions.

Virginia has already pared back some mandatory minimums in recent years, particularly for certain nonviolent offenses. HB 863 would extend that debate to the core of violent crime sentencing, which is one reason it has drawn such intense early scrutiny.

Law Enforcement Focuses On Accountability

Opposition has formed quickly among some current and former law enforcement officials who argue that mandatory minimums are less about judicial control and more about giving victims a baseline guarantee.

🚨Virginia Democrats just launched an all-out assault on public safety and the rule of law.

Meet HB 863 – a bill that ELIMINATES mandatory minimum sentencing for “certain offenses.”

And just what are those “certain offenses”?

Drug distribution, unlawful firearm possession,… pic.twitter.com/JR2rYpXq6n

— VA Senate GOP (@VASenateGOP) January 20, 2026

Miyares, who left office as attorney general before the current session, has warned that eliminating mandatory floors for violent and sexual offenses would undercut confidence in the system, according to Fox News Digital. He has framed the proposal as a retreat from firm consequences for serious crime.

Josh Ederheimer, a retired law enforcement officer who now serves as an assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Center for Public Safety and Justice, told Fox News Digital that many officers see mandatory minimums as a backstop against rapid release for people convicted of serious offenses.

From a law enforcement standpoint, I think police generally want offenders to be held accountable, Ederheimer said in an interview with Fox News Digital. He described growing frustration when individuals are released quickly and then reoffend, particularly after violent felonies.

Ederheimer highlighted one specific concern about returning violent offenders to the community: For violent felonies, however, the biggest practical concern is that the defendant will re-offend, and that the public is not alerted or aware that the defendant has returned to the community. It’s an accountability concern that falls on the shoulders of judges and prosecutors.

From his perspective, the issue is not just the length of a particular sentence. It is whether victims and communities can rely on clear expectations. As he put it, I think that the police and public alike have expectations that convicted criminals will be held accountable and that full sentences should be served. He said mandatory minimums can assure victims and the broader public that a convicted person will serve their sentence.

Removing those statutory floors could mean two families, in two similarly serious cases, see very different prison terms. For some victims, Ederheimer suggested, early release can feel like a reversal of what they believed had been promised in court. It is the circumstance when convicted felons are released early that victims may feel a sense of betrayal or that justice was not served. That’s the dilemma.

Do Mandatory Minimums Deter Crime?

One of the most striking parts of Ederheimer’s comments is that, while he defends mandatory minimums as a tool of accountability, he also questions their effectiveness in preventing crime in the first place.

Asked whether these statutes discourage people from committing violent offenses, he told Fox News Digital, From a law enforcement perspective, I don’t think mandatory minimums serve as a deterrent. He added, I think that largely defendants are not focused on repercussions at the time of their offense.

That view tracks a body of criminological research that has found the certainty of being caught generally matters more for deterrence than the severity of the eventual sentence. The Fox News Digital interview does not resolve that tension: a measure that may not stop crime at the front end can still shape how victims and communities experience justice at the back end.

This is the crux of the HB 863 debate. Supporters frame the bill as a calibration of punishment to individual circumstances. Critics frame it as a removal of hard lines that victims and the public can see and understand. Both sides cite fairness and safety, but they emphasize different points in the process.

What HB 863 Would Not Do

Even in early coverage, there are some points of agreement about what HB 863 does not change.

According to Fox News Digital’s summary of the proposal, the bill would not reduce statutory maximum penalties for the offenses it touches. A person convicted of rape or manslaughter could still face a lengthy prison sentence. Judges would simply no longer be required by law to impose a particular minimum term before considering anything else.

The bill also would not affect the legal definitions of these crimes. It targets sentencing structure, not what conduct counts as a felony. That distinction is important for understanding the scope of the fight. The controversy here is not over what is illegal. It is over how much control the legislature should exert over trial judges once someone has been convicted.

What Happens Next

HB 863 is expected to be heard in the House and Senate justice committees, where members can amend, narrow, or block the proposal. Fox News Digital reports that changes are likely as the bill moves through the process.

Committee hearings would typically bring additional voices into the debate, including prosecutors, public defenders, survivors of violent crimes, and possibly current or former judges. For now, the public record is dominated by the sponsor’s call for discretion and law enforcement concerns about releasing violent offenders without clear warning to communities.

Unanswered questions remain. Lawmakers have not yet publicly detailed which, if any, violent crimes they might exclude from the final bill. Victims’ advocates have not all weighed in on whether guaranteed minimums help or hurt the people they represent. And even critics like Ederheimer acknowledge that mandatory minimums may fail to deter crime, even as they insist those same laws help victims trust that a conviction will mean a meaningful sentence.

As HB 863 enters the legislative hearing rooms in Richmond, the core choice for Virginia is still taking shape. Will the state keep using mandatory prison terms as a promise of accountability, or decide that rigid sentences are too blunt an instrument for the most serious crimes in its code?