All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
May 9, 2023 - The Charlie Kirk Show
34:52
Debunking America's Over-Incarceration Myth with Barry Latzer
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
The Myth of Over Punishment 00:15:26
All right, everybody, a really, really fascinating conversation with Barry Latzer, who has a new book, The Myth of Over Punishment, a defense of the American justice system and a proposal to reduce incarceration while protecting the public.
So we asked the question, do we have an over-incarceration problem in America, like the left likes to say?
What are the solutions?
Is El Salvador showing the way?
We talk about it all.
We talk about it all, and it's fascinating.
It's no more timely than now as crimes is spiking in our major cities as we have a drug problem while we're about to let 700,000 people across the border at the end of Title 42 on Thursday.
You guys aren't going to want to miss it.
Barry knows his stuff.
Buckle up.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
We have a fascinating conversation coming up, especially as we think about law and order, the crime waves that have just ravaged, especially our big cities since COVID, crime up across the board.
We've got Soros, district attorneys.
We've got, actually, in Trump era, we had the First STEP Act that was seen by many, including Tom Cotton, who wrote the foreword to this book, as being soft on crime, which so I'm very much looking forward to this.
The guest is Barry Latzer.
It's a JD, PhD, The Myth of Over Punishment, a defense of the American justice system and a proposal to reduce incarceration while protecting the public.
So a fascinating conversation as we revisit crime.
I believe we have Barry.
Barry, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Thank you so much.
I'm with you.
Fantastic.
Honored to have you with us.
I have to say, I think I traveled the journey of the conservative movement over the last, you know, I guess since about 2019, the First STEP Act.
I can't remember exactly when that got passed.
But it was sort of, you know, lambasted on the right by guys like Tom Cotton, who wrote the forward to your book, as being soft on crime.
I looked at it and I thought, hey, you know, maybe we can decrease recidivism.
Maybe we can, maybe this is a good thing.
You know, maybe we can, there's some political upside to it.
I think I was being pragmatic about it.
I have a feeling you probably were looking at that with a lot of skepticism at the moment.
So let's go back to that era.
Let's start at the First Step Act.
I have a bunch of questions for you, but what was your reaction to that?
Do you cover it in the book?
And what were the lessons that we've learned from it?
Well, first thing to know is that law only applied to federal prisoners.
And federal prisoners are only 11% of the prison population.
So the first thing to realize is this is a limited impact law.
And it did provide some leniencies.
It provided some breaks for federal prisoners who really were on their way out.
That is, they were about to be paroled.
So I didn't, I couldn't get excited about the thing one way or the other, to tell you the truth.
I thought, you know, fine, you want to do some reforms, fine, this is a way to do it.
It's almost like a test case, you know, because it only applies to the federal institutions.
Have you looked at the data after the fact?
Would you call the First Step Act?
I mean, like I said, Tom Cotton wrote the forward to your book, and I remember vividly Tom Cotton just coming out against it.
He broke.
You remember you got a Republican president in the oval, and he came out against it.
I remember thinking, like, you know, what are you doing, Tom?
This is, Senator, this is not the right political move, but he did it anyway, out of principle.
So is there any read on how successful or not that's been?
Well, at the time, I know the Democrats and many of the progressives who were not politicians were saying, okay, first step is a good name for this because next we want to expand this to the state prisoners.
But nothing came of that.
And it's probably a good thing that nothing came of that.
And it's a good reminder to us that every state runs their own shop for criminal justice.
And of course, the feds could use carrots and sticks to try and get the states to do what the latest federal administration wants them to do.
But they didn't in this case.
They ran out of time.
Maybe they would never have done it anyway.
So I think this is a one-off.
I don't think this is going to be replicated.
And it really is a minimal impact law, to tell you the truth.
Fair enough.
Minimal.
So let's go back to the premise of your book, because I started with the First Step Act because I feel like many conservatives, they were drawn in by that.
They saw the political upside.
You know, Trump's being, you know, they think of him as such a mean-hearted man.
And here he is actually saying, hey, we want to get people out of federal prison and we want to give them a second chance.
I want to give them a first step up in life.
But I feel like I'm emblematic of the conservative movement.
I want tough on crime.
I feel like we've looked back at the lessons that the country learned out of the 60s and 70s and 80s.
They got tough on crime in the 90s.
We had the three strike laws.
You had the reforming of the police departments in the inner cities of Los Angeles and New York.
And it's like we've completely forgotten all of those lessons.
We had this inner city boom of investment flooding into our inner cities.
And then we've forgotten these lessons under, I don't know why.
So build out the premise of your book.
We've got about four minutes in this segment.
We got the whole hour.
So take your time.
Okay, fine.
Okay, so you're right.
The context is massive crime rise, biggest violent crime rise in American history, probably, starts in the late 60s, runs through, well, first early 80s, looks like crime's going down a bit, then it goes back up, late 80s, early 90s, due to the crack cocaine epidemic.
By the way, I write about this in my previous book, While We're Plugging Books, The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America.
So now we go into the mid-90s, and what's happening?
The crime wave is finally abating.
And why is it abating?
For one reason, of course, we got tougher.
As you said, absolutely.
The system toughened up.
In the late 60s, early 70s, the system was very weak.
And that turned out to be a big incentive to more crime.
Big surprise, right?
If you weaken the system too much, you get more crime.
If you strengthen the system, you can reduce crime.
That's what happened in the mid-90s.
And I'll remind your viewers or auditors, the tough crime bill, 1994, pushed, of course, by the Democrats, pushed by President Bill Clinton.
And who shepherded it through the Senate?
Joe Biden.
Joe Biden.
Senator Joe Biden.
Okay, he doesn't want to remember that anymore.
But the fact is he supported it.
The Democrats supported it.
Why?
Because crime had been bad for over 25 years, very high rates, and people didn't forget that.
It's true that crime was going down starting in the mid-90s.
The crack epidemic ended.
Crime started to recede.
That is true, but nobody knew how long it would last, you see.
Nobody knew if this was going to be like the early 80s, where it goes down and then cycles back up again.
No one knew the answer to that.
So it was natural for people to get tough on crime.
Now, along come the progressives, the decarcerationists, as I call them, Michelle Alexander and her argument that this was part of a racist plot against African Americans.
And they argue enough of this toughening up.
It's time to soften the system.
It's time to reduce the impact of imprisonment.
And they, of course, launch their essentially decarceration movement, their movement to remove people from prisons, both state and federal.
And really, that leads us to where we are today.
What's happened since?
In fact, incarceration rates have gone down.
Crime has gone down until we hit 2020, the major pandemic spike, 2021, the George Floyd protests, the police hang back, the jails start discharging people to keep them from getting COVID.
And we have a big crime spike.
Now we're heading into 2023.
We're into 2023.
Will crime continue to spike?
I don't think so.
I think it's going to diminish.
We already have some preliminary data that says it will diminish.
But of course, the progressives are still pushing very hard.
And some of the district attorneys take this same tack.
They're pushing very hard to reduce prison and jail populations.
This is a big mistake.
And I think that's why the senator opposed this sort of thing.
That's why Cotton opposes this kind of leniency.
But I mean, you look at what's going on at the border with 700,000 illegals that are about to come over.
We've already had millions.
We don't know who these people are, where they come from.
We've already seen illegal immigrants commit mass murder down in Texas this past weekend.
So I'm going to challenge the assumption that crime is going to go down, but I want to hear your thoughts on why you have that opinion.
I want to talk about relieffactor.com.
I want you guys to check out relieffactor.com, 100% drug-free, knee pain, back pain, joint pain, elbow pain.
Check out Relief Factor Energy.
Help makes your body make nutrients readily available.
Relief Factor Sleep.
I know a lot of you are probably having trouble sleeping.
Relief Factor Sleep could be the best solution for you.
Everybody goes to bed.
Not everybody sleeps.
We're all about helping people live lives that are filled with connection, exploration, passion, and emotion.
That is what his life is all about.
Make sure you guys are sleeping well.
It's a major part of life.
Check it out right now, relieffactor.com, relieffactor.com.
Barry, I have a pretty basic question for you.
You know, I you watch sort of some of the documentary films that come out, and they sort of seem to be like a lead indicator, right?
I mean, I remember five, six, seven years ago watching these on Netflix about how terrible our private prisons were and how there was just a big capitalist money-making greed scheme.
And it sort of gave the moral high ground to some of these left-wing activists that were advocating for reducing the prison population.
So I'm just going to ask it to you straight.
And the only reason I bring that up is because I think it's an interesting model for us to follow on the right.
It's like some of these take a long lead time.
Some of these are five to seven years out where you have to change the public perception and to get real change over the finish line.
So let me just ask you a basic question.
Do we have an over incarceration problem in America?
Are there too many people in prison or jail?
No, absolutely not.
And here's why I say this: you have to look at the crime problem before you can answer the incarceration problem, right?
If we had less crime, if we had fewer offenders, we wouldn't need as many people incarcerated.
We don't have good alternatives to incarceration.
I mean, I know that the progressives argue you have reform programs, rehabilitation programs.
Well, let me just give you one statistic here, Andrew.
When people are released from prison and we track them to see how well they fare after they're released, we find 83% are arrested for another crime after they're freed, after they're released from prison.
So with that kind of number, it's hard to believe that we know how to rehabilitate people, that we know how to reintegrate people so that they could be law-abiding members of society.
In that light, it seems to me that the progressives have to do some fancy footwork to persuade us that they have good alternatives to imprisonment or that they could rehabilitate within the confines of a prison.
The realities are this, Andrew.
55%, almost 56% of all the people in prison have committed violent crimes, murder, rape, robbery, assault, sexual assault, etc.
Okay?
55%.
That's a substantial majority.
16% have done serious property crimes.
I'm talking about burglary, thefts, major theft, not just a pair of sneakers from the department store, although that's a crime too.
Motor vehicle theft, fraud, and other property crimes.
So how many have done drug crimes?
We often hear the progressives say, oh, well, the big mass incarceration is due to drug crimes.
Not true.
14% of the people in prison are there because of drug crimes.
And of the 14%, over 10% are there because they were trafficking.
Not just mere possession, Andrew.
Not just the kid caught on the street corner with reefer.
We're talking about selling drugs or organizing the sale of drugs.
That's 10 out of the 14%.
The final group are 12%, excuse me, what we call public order crimes.
These are people caught with guns, illegal, driving while intoxicated, usually multiple offenses, and other similar public order offenses.
So are we locking up too many people?
Which of those people would you like to see let out?
Which of those people should we give a discount to in terms of their prison sentences?
Root Causes and Drug Trafficking 00:02:02
They have no good answer to that.
The decarcerationists, as I call them.
Absolutely.
I mean, I think you make some really interesting points there.
I mean, I wish we had more time in this segment.
We have a nice long segment after this break, and I think we can dive into a lot of that.
I mean, you know, we're not afraid on this show of saying, listen, the progressives like to say that this is a race problem, that we are locking up black men because we just, you know, white supremacy and this, you know, the oppression of this system, the systemic oppression of this white culture.
The fact of the matter is, the ugly truth that the progressives do not want to acknowledge is that there is a crime problem in the black community, a crime problem in the black community that is root causing.
You want to talk about root causes.
It's fatherlessness in the home.
It's, as you said, the drug problems back in the 80s and early 90s that finally abated.
Well, guess what?
We have another drug problem that's spilling right over our borders.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Why do I tell you about Balance of Nature every single day?
It's really quite simple.
Balance of nature is real food.
It's real science and it's real nutrition.
I take it every day.
It's so easy.
31 whole fruits and veggies in a capsule.
I know a lot of people who take supplements and formulated nutrition packs, but balance in nature goes right to the source.
Real fruits and veggies, all that nutrition captured with their advanced vacuum-cold process, packed in a capsule and sent to your doorstep.
I give my body what it needs because feeling great is important to me.
Getting good daily nutrition is the foundation of all aspects of good health.
And that is why you hear me talking about balance of nature on my show.
Shipping is always free, but don't forget to get a 35% off your first order as a preferred customer by using discount code Charlie when you go to balanceofnature.com.
You can order by phone by calling 800-2468-751 or go to balanceinature.com.
They're a terrific product.
I take it every day.
Check it out.
Balanceofnature.com, discount code Charlie.
Balanceofnature.com, discount code Charlie.
Balancing Victims and Rehabilitation 00:10:08
I want to read Barry a little bit about your bio, your CV.
You've been doing this for a long time.
You have a great background in this for over three and a half decades.
Barry Latzer was a professor of criminal justice at John Jay College, member of the master's and doctoral faculties.
He taught courses on criminal justice, criminal law, procedure, state constitutional law, capital punishment, and most recently, crime history.
You've been written up.
Your writings have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, New York Daily News.
Yeah, interesting piece, though, that I picked up, Barry, was that you were the you were served as an assistant district attorney in Brooklyn in 85 and 86, and you were the counsel to indigent criminal defendants in Manhattan.
I can't help but think that that was a very interesting experience.
So these were folks that couldn't afford defense, right?
And you stepped up on their behalf.
What did you, I know this is sort of a side, Barry, but I mean, does that inform kind of what you're talking about now?
I mean, or what did you learn from those people?
Sure.
I was a professor for most of my life, and I said, you know what?
I can't get all of the knowledge I need out of a book.
And I asked my chairman at the time, I want to take a leave of absence and I want to go work as a district attorney.
And I did.
And I did in Brooklyn during the crack years.
You can imagine how busy we were.
And then after that, I went and worked in Manhattan and I signed up on there's a list of lawyers who will serve indigent defendants, people accused of crime.
And I worked on that side of the aisle, so to speak, with indigent defendants.
So both of them served as great learning experiences.
You know, Barry, I'm surprised it didn't, you know, oftentimes you go through an experience like that and you really connect with some of the horror stories, the personal traumas that these people have experienced that often lead to a life of crime.
You know, but just based on your current writings, I mean, you've come out on the other side.
You're tough on crime.
I mean, how did those connect at all?
Am I reaching here?
I'm just curious because you experienced some of these hardships.
It's hard not to feel bad for them.
You see the personal side of it.
But how does that inform your current tough on crime stance?
Well, I'm not a throwaway the key kind of guy, but I also saw what happened to the victims.
And when you see what happens to the victims, then you realize there's another side to this story.
And your heart should go out to the victims, too, who, after all, are innocents.
They're the ones who were victimized.
So I was very sympathetic to the victims as well.
And I thought, well, we can't only worry about the accused.
We also have to worry about the people that the accused hurt.
That's right.
And that's what informed my views.
But of course, I've done a lot of reading.
I've done a lot of research.
And that's all part of the mix, not only my personal experience.
All right.
So, Barry, I kind of want to transition a little bit.
I want to talk about solutions.
I think you and I agree.
I think the audience will agree we need to be tough on crime.
The fact that we're being, we basically are big cities.
You're seeing this in New York City with the subway protests after Jordan Neely was killed by what we refer to as a good Samaritan, a bystander that was protecting other bystanders.
This former Marine Penny, alongside other gentlemen.
But this person, Jordan Neely, was apparently schizophrenic or had other mental health issues.
He had been arrested 42 times, including punching a grandma, a 64-year-old grandma, and then attempted kidnapping of a seven-year-old on the subway, both instances.
So this guy was a menace to society.
He shouldn't have been there.
The real criminals in this instance are the politicians that have instituted these catch and release policies.
But I want to play a cut here.
This is from the DC police chief.
I don't have his name handy, but this is a clip Charlie posted on his Twitter a while back, and it just went viral.
It's from March.
But he talks about the average homicide suspect in the DC metro area.
Listen to this cut, 38.
Guns off the street.
What we got to do, if we really want to see homicides go down, is keep bad guys with guns in jail because when they're in jail, they can't be in community shooting people.
So when people talk about what we're going to do different or what we should do different, what we need to do different, that's the thing that we need to do different.
We need to keep violent people in jail.
Right now, the average homicide suspect, the average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times prior to them committing a homicide.
That is a problem.
That is a problem.
So here you have the black police chief of the DC Metro Police Department saying the average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times before committing murder.
So when you talk about sympathy for the victims, these are homicide victims.
These are murder victims in their families.
That man is, you know, he could be women too, but the men or women that are committing these crimes 11 times, Barry.
So what is the solution?
What is the solution?
Do we build more prisons?
Are we going to have the prison population the size of El Salvador?
Which is another interesting story I want to get with you.
Get to with you.
Okay, first of all, the figure is accurate, except, in fact, it's 11 times per state prisoner, not just the ones who commit murder.
The state prisoners average 11 arrests prior to their imprisonment.
And here's something worse, Andrew.
Once they're released, we know that 83% of them will be arrested for another crime.
83%.
That is a very high and scary figure.
So we're dealing with a relatively small population that is responsible for a great deal of our crime.
Now, how long do they serve?
And this is going to shock your audience, too.
The data show that they serve on average under three years.
Two-thirds of the prison population are released in about two and a half years.
And so they don't serve their full sentences.
Now, I'm not even arguing that they should serve their full sentences necessarily.
I have a different argument to make.
And the argument is when a prisoner is released, released usually to parole because he hasn't served his full sentence.
So if you've served, let's say, 15 years of a 20-year sentence, you do five years more in freedom on parole.
When that prisoner is released, I say, let's give him the bracelet, as it's called, electronic monitoring, so that we know where he goes, so that we know when he's in the vicinity of a new crime, so that he can be encouraged to meet with his parole officer, to go to a job and rehabilitate himself, to go to a drug treatment clinic and get off his drug problem.
Let's encourage him to do that and discourage him from going back to prison, as so many do.
And this will save money on prisons.
This will rehabilitate people and give them an opportunity to reintegrate with law-abiding society.
And it will protect the public at the same time.
Barry, that's my proposal.
Okay, so how does your proposal differ from what currently is the reality?
I mean, when you go on parole, if you're a parolee at this point, you don't have an ankle monitor?
Is that...
No, no, sir.
Usually they don't.
And it's an honor system for men who unfortunately have not been very honorable.
And that's our problem.
You have so many cases that each parole officer couldn't possibly monitor all the people he's responsible for.
The consequence of that, of course, is that each parole officer only monitors a small percentage of the parolees that he or she is responsible for.
And therefore, the rest of them are really on an honor system to comply with the terms of parole.
And by the way, what are those terms?
Don't do drugs.
Don't do excessive alcohol.
Don't hang out with your former pals who are involved in criminal activity.
Get a job, do the job, et cetera.
They're common sense things to keep people out of trouble.
So basically, you're saying you call this incarceration.
Am I right?
Ecarceration.
So incarceration, your premise is that, hey, it's much cheaper than imprisoning somebody.
Give them an ankle bracelet.
Are there ways to game that, Barry?
Is there...
Sure.
So how do we?
There are.
There are.
Okay.
So is there any...
I mean, if a guy gets angry enough, he probably could chop the thing off, cut the thing off, and go and commit his crime.
But many will not because it gives you reminders, Andrew, okay?
It says, go meet with your parole officer at 12 o'clock.
Go to your job at 9 o'clock.
Go to your drug rehabilitation clinic at 8.30.
It gives you reminders, opportunities, encouragements to do the right thing rather than just be one session with a judge who says, now get out there, son, and don't misbehave anymore.
That's easily forgotten, and the pressures of the street will lead to more crime.
So let's put a little counter pressure on them.
Let's put the ecarceration to use.
This is a technology we in the United States invented.
We developed this technology and yet other countries are using it, Andrew, and we're barely using it.
Mental Health in Prisons 00:07:14
And by the way, the countries that are using it are some of the most progressive countries in the world.
The Scandinavian countries, France, Israel, they're all using this technology and we're being left behind.
So Barry, this would have to be done state by state, though, right?
I mean, you could do it.
Absolutely.
Yeah, all right.
So that's going to be a state and maybe even...
Maybe even county by county, Andrew.
I mean, of course, someone's got to pay for it, but it's worth it.
Cheaper than prison by.
Barry, I want to bring up another point.
This made headlines recently.
I think it's a really good point.
This came out from Bragg's New York City again, New York City just leading the way, that nearly a third of all shoplifting arrests in the city last year involved just 327 people, according to police.
So 327.
So when you talk about, when we talk about the enormity of the problem, I think it feels so huge to so many of us that we just like, you know, and by the way, I think this is an interesting point as well.
I mean, you've got states like Texas and New York and Florida that are roughly in California that are the populations of these states are equal to that of other countries, right?
And so you throw in a conglomeration of countries all having their own crime stories.
And I think mentally, you know, you do hear stories from France or Australia or whatever from time to time, but we have those populations in individual states.
So we're constantly bombarded with this negativity.
But the resources are there because the populations, the tax bases, the citizens are paying into these funds at a municipal level and the state level, the federal level.
This is a problem that we can tackle.
So when you say it's a small, relatively small population causing so much crime, it really, really is.
And what we need to do is we need to get tough on these repeat offenders and not really let them out.
Barry, an interesting side note here, we had some breaking news that hit during the break.
And it turns out the shooter in Allen, Texas, a Hispanic male, we know that much, he was actually discharged from the army because of mental health.
I'm going to throw up this chart.
Go ahead and throw up the graph that I sent team.
Let's see here.
There you go.
So this is an interesting graph.
And it basically, it's 20 years old, to be perfectly honest, but it shows this drop in mental hospitalization in America.
And then at around 1975, let's say the lines intersect and you see the prison population skyrocket in America and the mental hospitalization population dramatically decrease.
You know, it strikes kind of, Barry, almost one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
You know, there's all these images from an older America of these very scary, insane asylums.
But it does strike you that maybe this was how we dealt with a lot of these folks in the past.
You think of Jordan Neely in New York City.
What role, if any, do you think increasing funding for mental hospitalization, what role is there in decreasing crime in America?
Yeah, I think it's significant.
When I did some research on this, I don't have the data in front of me now, Andrew, but when I did some research, I found that there were significant portion of the prison population and even more of the jail population that had significant mental problems, including psychoses of various sorts.
So I think we've done our country great harm by deinstitutionalizing people who really need help.
They need help in maintaining their medicines.
They need help in staying off the streets and staying out of trouble.
And they need help in keeping from committing crime.
So I think we need to start rethinking the opening, the reopening of our hospitals for people with serious mental problems.
I think it's a good criminal justice policy, but it's also, frankly, a good mental health and medical policy.
It'll be expensive, but it'll be worth it.
Yeah, so it seems like we have these two sort of parallel approaches.
Refunding the institutionalization of the insane, the schizophrenic, the people with serious mental problems, but also imprisoning those that are repeat offenders.
I mean, we go back to this New York City story where you have, you know, a third, they're arrested, 327 people arrested 6,000 times.
I mean, it's just, it's absolutely insane.
So the question is, you go back to like three strikes, you're out.
You know, these have been widely controversial, you know, but I want to turn our eyes to El Salvador.
I'm going to play this clip, Cut 37, and this is from Naib Bukele's El Salvador.
He's got a 90% approval rating.
Homicides have dropped like a rock in that country.
37.
Yeah.
So, Barry, I don't hear you advocating for some mass prison that can house 40,000 MS-13 gang members, but he's sending a signal to his population that the game is over.
He's not playing around.
What message do our leaders need to send?
I mean, is there a point where you say, hey, you're in prison for life?
You do this 10 times, you're done five times?
Or what's the middle ground?
One minute.
Well, as I understand it, the El Salvador problem is a gang problem.
And we don't have to look very far to see the same gang slash criminal problem in the United States.
Look at any big city.
You see warring gangs in Chicago.
We had a big gang problem in New York.
So the big cities are facing these gang problems.
And when the gangs start shooting, using guns, assaulting people, it's time really to convict them and put them in prison.
Because playing around with groups like that and with young men like that, and it's almost always young men, is just encouraging more crime, more disorder, more violence.
And then you get these terrible cases like the man who was arrested 40 times, released, and then went on the subway and scared the devil out of people.
So we need to crack down on those gangs.
Great.
Well, listen, Barry, this has been a fascinating conversation.
I see a nuanced view, but I see a tough on crime view that I think is well overdue.
The myth of over punishment with Barry Latzer.
Thanks so much, Barry.
We appreciate it.
And that's all the time we have for today.
We'll see you tomorrow.
Charlie Kirk Show.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.
Export Selection