0:00 The Carlos Brown Jr. had been arrested
0:02 14 times, including in an armed robbery,
0:05 and in January 2025, he was back in
0:08 court for a misdemeanor 911 case,
0:10 clearly delusional, and walked out
0:12 without bond. Months later, he stabbed
0:15 Ireina Zerutska to death on a train. In
0:18 Chicago, Alfonso Tally, a seventime
0:21 felon, was put on an ankle monitor over
0:24 the prosecutor's objection. He cut the
0:26 monitor, disappeared, and later killed a
0:29 police officer. In Texas, a man found
0:31 incompetent on minor charges was
0:33 released after those cases were
0:35 dismissed. He then murdered a
0:36 62-year-old sitting on a park bench.
0:39 While in the US, judges like to release
0:41 clearly dangerous individuals before
0:43 trial. In Europe, it's more common to
0:45 convict them, give them a slap on the
0:47 wrist, and then release them back. In
0:49 Germany, a court used juvenile
0:51 sentencing on an adult quote asylum
0:53 seeker who raped a 16-year-old and
0:56 assaulted others. He got no prison time
0:58 after his sentence was suspended.
1:00 Instead, he got sensitivity training. In
1:03 Sweden, an air train man got 3 years for
1:06 a 16-year-old, and an appeals court
1:09 refused deportation because the attack
1:11 quote did not last long enough to count
1:14 as exceptionally serious. In Wales, an
1:17 arrit man did five years for attempted
1:19 tape of an unconscious woman, was not
1:21 deported, and was later convicted of
1:24 another woman, among innumerable more
1:26 examples. Suffice it to say, judges
1:29 repeatedly releasing and going easy on
1:31 violent criminals resulting in
1:32 predictable tragedies has become not
1:34 only a pattern, it might as well be
1:36 standard practice and has even caused a
1:39 catch and releaselease dynamic between
1:40 law enforcements as officers continually
1:42 arrest the usual suspects only for them
1:45 to be let out immediately after and
1:47 resume their activities. Unless, of
1:49 course, you're in the UK and you dare to
1:50 post a right-wing meme, then you're far
1:52 too dangerous. So, what's going on here?
1:54 Why are judges on mass failing to uphold
1:57 their responsibility to their
1:58 communities? That will be the topic of
2:00 today's video. And if you enjoy it,
2:02 consider subscribing. It helps the
2:03 channel. A common excuse for the judges
2:05 I've seen used is that their hands are
2:07 tied. In the US, for example, pre-trial
2:10 detention is meant to be the exception,
2:12 not the rule. This means that even if a
2:14 suspect has many arrests, even violent
2:16 arrests, standard procedure is not to
2:19 keep them in jail awaiting trial.
2:21 Generally, judges are only supposed to
2:23 hold someone awaiting trial if they are
2:25 deemed to be a flight risk. And this
2:27 becomes even more complicated in
2:28 situations where a defendant is deemed
2:30 incompetent to stand trial. On the
2:32 surface, this seems like a valid excuse
2:35 until we start factoring in cases of
2:37 sentencing. And the fact that these
2:38 restrictions on what a judge could do to
2:40 hold violent individuals didn't seem to
2:42 be such a disastrous problem until up to
2:45 one to two decades ago. In fact, judges
2:47 have many tools at their disposal which
2:49 they could use. Not least of which is
2:51 actually sentencing violent criminals to
2:53 prison properly. But also, while
2:55 pre-trial detentions and the denial of
2:57 bail are the exception, they can still
2:59 be done in most countries. For example,
3:01 in the US under the bail reform act of
3:04 1984, a judge has the right to
3:06 preventative detention, quote, if doing
3:09 so can reasonably assure the security of
3:11 any other person or community. And this
3:14 right was upheld by the Supreme Court in
3:16 1987. Most judges have the ability to
3:18 hold these violent repeat offenders
3:20 effectively at their discretion the
3:22 moment they are in the system. Even in
3:25 cases of incompetency to stand trial
3:27 combined with mental health facility
3:28 shortages, which are typically the
3:30 hardest cases, judges still have options
3:33 before being forced to release the
3:34 individual altogether. State level
3:36 courts also have similar provisions and
3:39 so do European ones, meaning the hands
3:41 tied defense is for the most part
3:43 untrue. Judges more often than not have
3:46 the ability to keep dangerous criminals
3:48 under control if they want to. Given
3:50 that despite this, many judges still
3:52 refuse to do so. The only remaining
3:54 factor to study is their personal
3:56 motivations. There are several theories
3:58 regarding their motives. But before we
4:00 get into that, a quick word from today's
4:02 sponsor, the book, The Ultimate Guide to
4:05 Rebuilding Civilization. It's an
4:07 illustrated encyclopedia of humanity's
4:09 inventions and discoveries, which may
4:11 soon become very useful if the West
4:12 continues on its path of social
4:14 self-destruction. It's a global
4:16 bestseller that walks you through some
4:17 of the most important advancements all
4:19 the way from the essentials like how to
4:21 preserve food to how to establish
4:22 railroads and more. There's a common
4:25 saying in many failed nations like
4:26 Zimbabwe. What did we use for lights
4:28 before candles? Electricity. So, if you
4:31 don't want to end up like them, check
4:32 out the link in the description and pin
4:34 comment and use the promo code logic 10
4:37 for a 10% discount. And now, back to the
4:40 video. Theory one, female judges. In
4:44 1980, only 5% of federal judges were
4:47 women in the US. Today, they make up
4:49 33%. But for state level judges, the
4:52 number has grown to over 40%, nearly
4:55 half in places like California. In
4:57 Europe, the numbers are even more
4:59 extreme, with female judges being the
5:01 majority, averaging at 61%. The theory
5:04 is simple. As female representation as
5:07 judges has increased, the softer the
5:09 judges have become. Intuitively, this
5:11 makes sense. Women are on average more
5:14 agreeable than men. Oppose harsh
5:16 sentences like the death penalty more
5:18 and as we've seen repeatedly, especially
5:20 recently, have an odd habit of publicly
5:22 sympathizing of murderers if they are
5:25 handsome or a woman or seen as a victim
5:27 in some way. However, the data we have
5:30 for when it comes to sentencing and
5:31 pre-trial detention is mixed. Some
5:34 studies suggest female judges are more
5:35 lenient, but a lot more suggest it's
5:37 about the same with even some cases of
5:40 female judges being harsher under
5:41 specific contexts. So, while the
5:43 feminization of the legal system is very
5:45 likely a factor, we don't have the data
5:48 needed to paint the full picture. Theory
5:50 two, identitybased bias. I'm not beating
5:54 around the bush. The violent criminals
5:56 being repeatedly let out are
5:57 disproportionately from the exact
5:59 identity groups that you would expect.
6:02 Therefore, there are two national
6:04 considerations here. The first is ethnic
6:06 loyalty. It is reasonable to expect that
6:08 judges from groups of high in-group bias
6:11 may have that reflected in their
6:12 decision-making and judges from those
6:14 identities have been steadily increasing
6:16 in the last few decades. However, they
6:19 remain a small minority and data on
6:22 their leniency even with their own group
6:24 is actually mixed. What could be a far
6:26 greater factor isn't in-group bias among
6:28 minority judges, but rather the
6:31 extensive outgroup bias shown among
6:33 white liberals who often see minorities
6:36 as victims of society. And this
6:38 empirically affects sentencing, as
6:40 you're seeing on screen. In fact, the
6:42 left openly brags about their judges
6:45 giving lighter sentences to minorities
6:47 than right-wing judges whom they
6:49 denounce as racist, which feeds into the
6:51 next theory. Theory three, ideology. The
6:55 last few decades have been marked by
6:57 extreme political polarization among the
6:59 populace. Judges are not immune from
7:01 this either. In fact, they are the prime
7:04 target. Federal judges make this
7:06 particularly obvious. Their appointments
7:08 are almost always political first and
7:10 judicial second. We no longer divide
7:13 judges by schools of legal thought, but
7:15 rather simply by party affiliation. They
7:18 are Republican or Democrat judges and
7:20 expected to be loyal to their respective
7:22 camp. The situation is just as bad for
7:25 state judges and prosecutors who were
7:27 elected into their position and must
7:29 plate the politics of their voters. This
7:31 has resulted in a phenomenon of activist
7:33 judges that is politicians masquerading
7:36 as judicial officers whose goal is to
7:39 get elected with the promise of enacting
7:41 social change, not enforcing the law.
7:44 It's not a coincidence that these repeat
7:45 offender situations disproportionately
7:47 occur in places where leftist social
7:49 causes dominate. So the question of why
7:52 judges keep letting these dangerous
7:53 individuals walk is instead simply a
7:56 question of why do leftists want these
7:58 people released? And the most common
8:00 answer to that is misplaced empathy.
8:02 They're often minorities and seen as
8:04 disadvantaged victims of society. And
8:06 this isn't a straw man. European courts
8:09 literally note the need for empathy for
8:11 these individuals and their difficulties
8:13 integrating when explaining their
8:14 sentences. But one final niche
8:17 consideration worth mentioning. There's
8:19 an ancient strategy in warfare where one
8:21 side releases the worst form of
8:23 criminals on a rival populace. That
8:25 populace brutalized by such crimes and
8:27 without being able to appeal to law
8:29 enforcement end up leaving on their own
8:31 accord making space for another
8:33 population. This strategy is recognized
8:36 in the Geneva Convention and to do so
8:38 deliberately would constitute a war
8:40 crime. But whether an act is done
8:42 deliberately or not matters little for
8:44 the affected populace. The end result is
8:46 their streets are unsafe and they are
8:48 forced to leave, making space for a new
8:50 different population. After all, the
8:53 true purpose of a system is not what
8:55 proponents claim it is, but rather what
8:57 it actively does. So judge for
8:59 yourselves what the purpose of your
9:00 judicial system actually is.