Youngkin helped build a parole board that works. Conservatives should stand behind it.

Late last week, headlines warned that Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s parole board approved release for eight of the ten people whose parole hearings occurred Oct. 1 in Virginia. One outlet labeled the administration “soft on crime.” Another reported that the Spanberger board has granted parole in roughly a quarter of discretionary and geriatric cases since May.

Jason Miyares, Youngkin’s former attorney general, has been among the most vocal critics of the Spanberger parole board’s recent decisions. But these claims deserve context, especially since the framework on which these decisions rest was built by the administration of Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin.

During his term, Governor Youngkin signed three bills during his term that made the Commonwealth’s parole process more efficient, functional, and transparent.

SB 1361 (2023): A bipartisan bill that stripped the parole board of its blanket exemption from Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, moved its final votes into public meetings, and—perhaps most importantly—required the board to publish individualized reasons for every grant and denial alongside each member’s vote. The board had previously deliberated behind closed doors and did not have to explain its decisions, meaning victims, prosecutors, and the public often learned of a release only after the fact. Youngkin’s own parole board chair, Chadwick Dotson, said the agency had “operated largely in the shadows.”

HB 913 (2024): Passed unanimously, this bill allowed the parole board to vote with just three members present so that cases no longer stalled over attendance.

HB 1589 (2025): Carried by Republican Del. Wren Williams, this bill guaranteed victims a role in those public deliberations and required at least four votes to parole anyone serving a life sentence for murder. Another Republican, Del. Tony Wilt, passed a bill earlier this year that added a 10-factor scoring system to discretionary parole decisions, set to go into effect in 2027.

The question now is whether the Youngkin-approved and Republican-designed guardrails are working and if they will hold up in the face of the newfound freedom those granted parole will find outside the wall. Thanks to these transparency laws, anyone can check.

Reasons behind the Oct. 1 decisions are due in the board’s upcoming October report, and older reports dating back to 2021 are available publicly. The most recent report from September 2026 lists every decision with detailed reasons. Of the 85 parole cases decided, the board granted seven and denied 78—a grant rate of about 8 percent.

The seven to whom it granted parole had a lot in common.

All seven had served at least 28 years. Each had been infraction-free for at least the past two years. The board credited every one of them with clear acceptance of responsibility for the offense. Six of them had low risk assessment scores, six had a stable release or reentry plan, six had insight documented about what drove their past criminal behavior, and six had completed correctional and vocational programs.

Taken together, these factors show why the board approved the requests. The denials read very differently, and rightly so.

Most of those denied still needed to complete cognitive behavioral therapy and show insight before the board could consider the risk reduced. Others cited institutional infractions, continued denial or minimization of responsibility, untreated substance use or mental health needs, or no credible release plan.

Age and time served alone were insufficient for release. The board chose to deny a 72-year-old who had served nearly 40 years for murder. It similarly denied an 82-year-old, citing institutional infractions and his continued denial of responsibility.

A functioning parole board should look exactly like this, distinguishing people who have spent decades proving they have changed from people who have not, and explaining why in writing.

Youngkin’s board did the same.

In August 2022, the Youngkin board paroled a 59-year-old who had served more than 38 years for rape, sodomy, abduction, and robbery, noting he had been infraction-free and that the victim did not oppose release. In January 2023, it granted parole to a 61-year-old who had served nearly 34 years for four first-degree homicides, citing his demonstrated rehabilitation, institutional record, and completion of correctional programs. These are two of many Youngkin-era grants that mirror the decisions now drawing such feverish alarm.

While it is true past behavior cannot guarantee future behavior, the passage of time and evidence-based rehabilitation metrics are the best indicators we have of desistance from crime. And just as earned time credits incentivize positive behavior behind bars, so does the possibility of parole.

Parole asks a simple question: Does this individual still pose a risk to public safety?

Knowing that question will someday be asked gives incarcerated people a concrete reason to do the hard work of changing. Conservatives know why: incentives matter. Some people should earn a second chance based on their own longtime efforts.

Republicans spent years insisting that parole in the Commonwealth operate transparently and by objective criteria. Now that it does, they should judge it by its record, which clearly shows public safety weighed carefully alongside accountability, in public, with detailed receipts to boot. Conservatives helped to build that system. Now is the time for them to stand behind it.