Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson's Unhinged Rant Against Prison Reform Makes Us All Dumber

Carlson claims the law "allowed hundreds of violent criminals" back on the street. Here's what he didn't tell you.

|

On Fox News last night, between the commercials for self-lubricating catheters and class-action lawsuits over defective hip replacements, you may have seen Tucker Carlson ranting about the release of "hundreds of violent criminals" onto the streets of America.

In a segment on his show, Carlson said that a source within the Trump administration had provided his show with exclusive data on crimes committed by the roughly 3,100 federal inmates who were released earlier this month under the FIRST STEP Act, a criminal justice reform bill passed by Congress last December.

"So far this year, more than 2,000 federal prisoners were put on the nation's streets thanks to the FIRST STEP Act," Carlson begins. "You might remember that law. It was sold to lawmakers and the rest of us a way to ease overcrowded prisons and give a second chance to nonviolent offenders. That's not what it's turned into."

Carlson continues:

In fact, that law has allowed hundreds of violent criminals and sexual predators back on the street. An administration official provided this show exclusively with data on what crimes were committed by the felons being released under the FIRST STEP Act. Turns out most of them were not in jail for smoking a joint 30 years ago. Instead, of the roughly 2,200 inmates who've been set free so far, 496 of them were in prison on charges related to weapons or explosives. Huh. Two hundred and thirty nine had committed sex offenses such as rape and sexual assault, 106 committed armed robbery, and 59 had committed aggravated assault or murder. That's not what we were promised.

This is the part where gentle viewers are supposed to clutch their hearts and say, "My God, what's happening to my country?"

The actual story is much less alarming. 

All of the inmates Tucker is referencing had their release dates moved up because the FIRST STEP Act forced the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to change the way it calculates the amount of "good time" credits inmates can earn through good behavior to shave days off their sentence.

You see, in the federal prison system, inmates were supposed to be eligible for 54 days of good time credits a year. Keeping a clean disciplinary record is one of the only ways federal inmates can reduce their sentences, since there is no parole in the federal system.

In practice, however, they could only accrue 47 days a year, thanks to the absurdly complicated way BOP calculated the credits. (If you're really a glutton for punishment, you can read a long summary of BOP's good time credit formula in a 2010 Supreme Court ruling upholding it, which includes an appendix entry about the algebra equations involved.)

For a federal inmate doing 10 years of hard time, that meant losing 70 days of potential credit toward an earlier release.

The FIRST STEP included a provision to ensure that inmates can now actually receive 54 days of good time credit a year, and it required BOP to retroactively recalculate credits for current inmates and adjust their release dates accordingly. Because of a drafting error in the bill, that provision didn't go into effect until July 19.

Lawmakers and advocacy groups who supported the FIRST STEP Act say the provision was simply a fix to clarify Congress' original legislative intent. In other words, these inmates were getting out exactly when they should have under the spirit of the law.

"Every single office we met with during the course of the FIRST STEP Act was told about that provision," says Jason Pye, vice president of legislative affairs at FreedomWorks, a conservative group that supported the legislation. "Virtually every communication we sent to the Hill about the FIRST STEP Act at least mentioned this provision, explained what it was, and why it was included in the bill. It was a feature of the FIRST STEP Act, and it was included to fix a misapplication of law by the Bureau of Prisons, which had calculated the 54 days of good time credit that could be earned by a prisoner to mean 47 days."

All of the inmates Carlson is fulminating about were going to be released anyway—and sooner rather than later. Most were released from halfway houses or home confinement where they were finishing out their sentences. And they're all still subject to three to five years of supervised release.

Naturally, Carlson's millions of viewers were left without this information.

Does Carlson think these inmates are at a higher risk of committing new crimes because they were released a few months earlier than they would have previously been? Or is he simply outraged that they were released at all? If it's the latter, his beef goes far beyond the modest FIRST STEP Act. More than 10,000 inmates are released from U.S. state and federal prisons every week, according to the Justice Department, for all manner of crimes. More than 95 percent of all state prisoners will eventually be released.

It's unclear exactly what Carlson wants us to be upset about—only that he wants us to be upset.

NEXT: Joe Biden's New Criminal Justice Platform Calls for Eliminating Harsh Policies Sponsored by Joe Biden

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. On Fox News last night, between the commercials for self-lubricating catheters and class-action lawsuits over defective hip replacements,

    Nobody… needs….23 types of self-lubricating catheters and 23 types of lawyers suing over defective hip replacements.

    1. And here I am lubricating my own catheter like an idiot.

    2. Not content with playing on racial identitarianism, Reason now plays on ageist identitarianism.

      Wokeness truly is a cancer on society.

      1. Just when I thought “Reason” couldn’t apply less to this publication an article starts like this.

        1. Nah bra, this is the sort of lingo that lets the kool kids know you are rhetorically down with the struggle. Even if you know they have no tucking clue what the struggle even is.

    3. How Many Time You Lost This Droid Chance… If you wana get a reasonable income through laptop and if you have a reliable internet connection then you should be able to know how you make your income by laptop.Simply go to the BELOW SITE and start your work…> http://www.online-3.com

    4. Makes $130 to $160 per day online work and i received $16894 in one month online acting from home.I am a daily student and online work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time.Everybody will do that job and makes extra cash by simply open this link… http://www.online-3.com

  2. EXCLUSIVE: Prisoners being released onto the streets after serving their sentences

    1. And this is just the beginning….!

      Also, Barry Manilow is till gay

      1. That’s what happens when you legalize same-sex marriage.

  3. Carlson is full of shit here. First, we let violent criminals out on the streets every day. Unless Carlson wants to advocate for life without parole sentences for every one of them, that will remain the case no matter how the system is reformed.

    The issue here is whether letting these people out earlier than they otherwise would have been released creates a larger danger to the public than already exists. And I can’t see how it does. Two things remain true, these people are going to get out of prison at some point and some non zero number of them are going to re-offend.

    At some point, yes, if you let people out early enough the second number would rise because people would feel less deterred by prison. And if you let people out who otherwise would not have gotten out, that number would rise. But neither of those things is happening here. Carlson’s point is that letting people who have done years and in some cases decades in prison out a few months early is creating a danger to the public. And that is just nonsense.

    I generally like Carlson. But, he must have taken a marijuana or something because what he is saying here makes no sense.

    1. Likewise I usually like Carlson’s show, but every once in a while he goes nuts on something and makes zero sense. He seems to be very afraid that his computer is going to eat him or something.

      1. You guys actually watch his show? But why?

        1. Not everyone is as reflexively, and pathetically, progressive as you, eunuch.

          1. Bahahaha, so if you don’t watch Tucker’s show, you are a prog? Sometimes I feel like I am literally debating a flock of sheep. Joke’s on me, I guess.

            1. I feel like I am literally debating a flock of sheep.

              And you missed the opportunity to say “Ewe guys actually watch his show.” Shame, SHAME!

            2. Chip, no one said that you stupid bitch. And really, that’s the sort of inane bullshit Pedo Jeffy would say.

              Don’t go full Pedo Jeffy.

              1. Don’t you think your stupid insults would be more effective if, say, you didn’t rely on the same 5 over and over and over until the end of time? Don’t you want to be creative, persistent assholes rather than lazy, persistent assholes?

                1. Jeff isnt going to fuck you. Nevermind, he might. White knight on.

                  1. Definitely sheep. Retarded sheep.

                  2. You’re a child. When your mother spanked you for your piss-poor behavior last week did, you call her a ‘white knight’ too?

                2. Odd that you would attempt to call me out. As that isn’t one of my more commonly used retorts.

                  1. Just because you say four other retarded things more often than the fifth doesn’t change the fact that you’re retarded and your head is devoid of critical thought. I’m sure the prospect of not posting anything at all and getting a life has never crossed your mind. You got that Radio level handicap to worry about.

                    1. @Tulpa Your denial is pathetic.

        2. What is this “you guys” stuff? I don’t watch any cable news.

        3. Sometimes it’s entertaining. It’s no more complicated than that.

          1. But it’s not.

            1. Someone doesn’t know the difference between objective and subjective. Or is a troll. A troll who’s not funny, which is sad.

    2. >>>taken a marijuana or something

      lol

      1. Made me lol too. Seems John’s only exposure to weed is from ‘reefer madness’. Explains a lot about him, actually.

        1. I would love to see the effects of John trying weed for the first time.

          1. It is a line from the Big Bang Theory you half wit. That woosh sound was the joke going over your head.

            1. “from the Big Bang Theory you half wit.”

              That… also says a lot about your character. I can just imagine you and Tulpoopy AKA “Gay for Pay” sitting down to watch some Big Bang Theory together.

              1. Nothing says erudite like bragging about what TV shows you don’t watch. I guess you have to have something. I shouldn’t take what little you have away.

                1. Pretty sure it was you who called me (or Chipper?) a “half wit” for not being familiar with a stupid joke from a sitcom popular with adolescents….but hey, you and Tulpoopster got it. You still sounded like an idiot saying it.

                  1. You are a half wit. You don’t have to know the show to get the joke. No one says “took a marijuana”. The phrase is funny itself no context needed. That you didn’t understand that is frankly kind of sad.

                    1. Very sad.
                      That’s the Reason Squad though

                    2. “No one says “took a marijuana”. The phrase is funny itself no context needed. That you didn’t understand that is frankly kind of sad.”

                      I got it without having to watch the shows you watch. It’s like someone trying to say something cool about something they know little of. I laughed. The sadness though comes when you take 3 or 4 comments to explain yourself when we all got it the first time.

                    3. “when we all got it the first time.”

                      I didn’t. I literally thought he was talking like my grandmother, (god bless her) when she says those kids across the street were “taking marijuana”. That is how I see John in my minds eye……like a Tom Clanskyesque military guy that wears a hat with some obscure naval ship on it, nice haircut, thick glasses but never really cuts loose because he doesn’t like to lose control. Of course, I realize that I’m probably wrong about all of that.

                    4. Next time say marijuana cigarette so we can laugh at him again.

                  2. McJizz, BBT’s primary demo is not adolescents. It’s thirty somethings. Why must you be such a dullard?

          2. hey Chip, you found a new friend! Maybe you two faggots can go fuck each other!

        2. i took it as John making fun of the blue-hairs … he usually isn’t funny on that level

          1. That is exactly what it was.

            1. I know you work for the feds, so you can’t admit to ever trying weed, but if you ever did, wink twice.

              1. It is over ten years ago. So it doesn’t count anymore. Yes, I did. I love the stuff. If it were legal, which it is in some places but not consistent with a security clearance, I would stop drinking and just do that. Most people’s problem is that they don’t live in their own head enough and smoking pot or other drugs of that type allow them to get out of it even more. My problem is I live in my head too much and think too much and too fast for my own good. Pot slows me down and almost makes me a normal person. Drinking just intensifies whatever mood I am already in. Pot actually puts me into a different and better mood.

                1. You’re not so bad John.

                  1. He really isn’t. I always said I like John, despite giving him constant shit.

                    1. And by constant shit, you mean literally presenting your own fecal matter as love offerings. Despite a fistful of restraining orders, and civil commitment.

                    2. That is fine Chipper. I give as good as I get and I never complain about it or hold a grudge.

                2. “Pot slows me down and almost makes me a normal person. ”

                  So…..pot makes you less of a pretentious twat, but you lose your super-genius superpower? I can see your dilemma.

                  1. Mostly it makes assholes like you tolerable.

                  2. McJizz, John isn’t even a little pretentious. although you are. And a buzz kill too.

                    1. “And a buzz kill too.”

                      Thanks for confirming what I’ve suspected for a long time. Maybe someday you’ll sober up and your dad will get a job. We can only hope.

                    2. Tulpoopy, maybe your dad will get a job too.

                3. I have the same issues. Fortunately weed is legal where I live and I have no current need for a security clearance.

                  1. Be careful, though.
                    In Hawaii they used the medical-marijuana list to go after gun owners, as having violated federal laws when they filed for their background check and were deceptive on the question about use of controlled substances.
                    Other gun-grabbing states could do the same.
                    P.S Tucker had a guy on from the administration, last night, and this was explained. Tucker’s problem was getting his information from news reports that didn’t go into the weeds about this correction of BOP policy, and thought these violent felons were being released, contrary to the promises that none would be.

            2. No one is surprised eunuch ruined a good joke, it’s his m.o., but I haven’t seen mcgoo do so regularly.
              Looks like mcgoo wants to throw in with eunuch+chemjeff+sqrlsy Squad

              1. What is sad is that no one disagrees really on this thread. Yet, they can’t help but come in and try to score some cheap points by pretending they don’t understand the joke. I really do live rent free in their heads.

                1. “Looks like mcgoo wants to throw in with eunuch+chemjeff+sqrlsy Squad”

                  Would much rather throw in with them than you, littly shitty, lc, tulpooper, john and the rest of your boot-licker friends/socks. At least they aren’t republicans pretending to be libertarians. Of course, as a sentient testicle, I’m not sure you know the difference.

                  1. WAAAA Go whine and cry to someone who cares.

                  2. McJizz, you put yourself o the wrong side of everything. It is likely a natural instinct for you.

                    You really are part of the problem.

                    1. I do it just to get your attention. You are the funniest sock at reason.com and my favorite NPC. I particularly enjoy the tough guy persona….it’s very entertaining. Keep up the great work!

                    2. First, I am not a sock. I have no other identity here. Nor do I need one. If I appear tough, it’s just that I am, at least by comparison. You progs tend to be weak and unmanly.

                      And only someone, such as yourself, would try and improperly apply the ‘NPC’ label on me. Talk about your more desperate attempts.

                    3. That was convincing, Tulpa.

                  3. Pathetic and desperate is certainly your look, mcgoo

                    1. Vapid and unimaginative is certainly your look, typing testicle.

                  4. Mcgoo95
                    Screw off Tony, you demented 50-center. You’re not fooling anyone with your new sock.

                    1. Whatever you say LC..

        3. I’m partial to the “This is your brain on drugs” anti-drug PSA adds.

          I’d like two brains over easy. 🙂

          1. Try Tulpa and Nardz. It’ll be a small meal. On second thought, I don’t recommend eating Tulpa’s brain.

            1. Eunuch, you regularly prove shallow and witless.
              You try super hard to crack jokes, and none of them are funny.
              But please, don’t let me stop you from begging for approval that you’ll never get.

              1. It was indeed a weak attempt. Which is fitting, as he is a weak little sack of shit. And he doesn’t even come with a sack.

      2. Wow, dozens of posts on a simple and funny, even if recycled, joke. Sad.

    3. he must have taken a marijuana or something because what he is saying here makes no sense.
      I like Carlson, but he’s very wrong here.

      1. I like Carlson, but he’s very wrong here.
        And, like the journalist he is, he brought on someone, last night, who corrected him.
        An explanation he seemed to accept.

  4. Why does anyone trust or respect this guy? Is it just because the relative scope of cable network viewers is so limited?

    1. Because he makes Rachel Maddow look like Alex Jones.

      1. Lol.
        Though, to be fair, Rachel Maddow makes Rachel Maddow look like Alex Jones

        1. Trump tax return clip is an all time great

        2. girl-Keith-Olberman

          1. Or more masculine Keith Olberman?

            1. why not? and/or applies.

          2. I would love to see Madd ow and Olbermann fight to the death in a thunderdome cage. To the tune of ‘We Don’t Need Another Progtard’.

            1. I would love to see you rockin that song with a fuckin kick-ass Flying V while strapped to the front of a giant monster truck hauling ass across the desert!!! Little Shitty shreddin, FUCK YEA!!!!!

              1. By the way….you think you can sing too…..like Tina Turner? That’d be fuckin aweeeeesoooomeeee!

                1. I can’t sing, at all, but other than that I am spectacular. You just wish you could be like me. Even though you can’t.

        3. Rachel Maddow makes Alex Jones look like Tucker Carlson.

          1. Rachel Maddow makes Alex Jones look like Nick Gillespie.

    2. Because there are probably 250M people in this country old enough to care about politics, and some of those intersect the dumber-than-a-bag-of-rocks circle in the Venn diagram of life.

    3. “Why does anyone trust or respect this guy?”

      What’s with his eyes? They seem awfully close together for a TV celebrity.

  5. There are still too many pot-smokers in jail, even after all of the recent reforms.

    However, what is getting far worse, is there are WAAAAY too many imprisoned blowers upon cheap plastic flutes, AKA, lung flutes! So STAY SAFE out there among them English!!!

    To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

  6. Why all this Tucker Carlson talk? Justin Amash is out there! What is he doing RIGHT NOW??

    1. He got back to the office from lunch about 10 minutes ago. As I type this, he is walking this way after coming out of the men’s room.

      Uh oh…He’s looking right at me. Probably saw me observing him and then typing something into my phone. I think he suspects I’m spying.

      Oh crap, he’s coming up to talk to me. Crap crap CRAP

      1. What did Justin Amash have to say to you? Is it true that Amash is Amish?

        Do pray tell!!!

      2. Maybe he’s worried you noticed he left a 10% tip after placing an unnecessarily complicated order.
        Because “liberty”

  7. I hear in China, the authoritarian government routinely keeps prisoners in jail months or years after their release dates so they can continue to provide unpaid labor and possible organ transplants.

    Tucker should move to China since he likes that kind of BS.

    1. Actually, China seems to satisfy all the tenets of national conservatism.

      1. Progressive virtue signal harder, eunuch.
        You still don’t have any friends.

    2. Some states do that with dreaded “sex offenders”. So, as much as I would like to say the US is different, it really isn’t or not as much as you would think.

    3. The US has far more prisoners than China (2.1 million v 1.6 million) and the highest incarceration rate in the world (6x higher than China). So if you want to lock em all up and throw away the key, the US is #1.

      USA!USA!USA!

      1. I am your SQRLSY One, and I approve of this message of yours…

        Sad to say, 6X higher than China is NOT enough for the law-worshipping conservatards around here!!!

        BTW, a little-acknowledged FACT is that as violent young smart-asses age in jail, as you turn from 25 to 45 and then 65, your testosterone goes down, you get weaker and more mellow (and more sensible), and you become less of a threat to society… WHEN were you last assaulted by a 90-year-old geezer on his death bed? Age ’em out, and let ’em go!!! SAVE YOU SOME MONEY!!!

      2. Reminds me of a recent discussion on Reddit that I observed.

        One person asked a Trump supporter how many American citizens he would tolerate being wrongfully deported in order to enforce immigration law. The Trump supporter replied that he would be comfortable with 0.5% of the population. When it was pointed out that this would be about 1.6 million people, the Trump supporter just kind of shrugged it off and said ok.

        There’s a lot of people in this country who really don’t mind serving in the role of the jailers of the state. It’s kinda terrifying.

  8. C’mon now C.J., do you really believe Tucker is intelligent enough to understand all of that? Any of that?

  9. I think it’s pretty easy to sum up Carlson’s point–this was not supposed to be available to violent offenders.

    And that’s it.

      1. What?

        You mean the article that said that violent offenders were getting out early because the law includes a reworking of how they tally ‘good time credit’?

        That law?

        The law that was sold as not being available to violent offenders that is apparently available to violent offenders?

        Why does the reworking of that tally apply to violent offenders?

        That IS a valid issue.

        1. Same reason the law of gravity applies to violent offenders. And you.

    1. OK, and his “point” is both inaccurate and irrelevant.

      1. 1. Congress passes law giving federal inmates 54 days of good time credit each year.
        2. BOP only gives inmates 47 days.
        3. Congress passes law forcing BOP to give inmates 54 days and correct their release dates.
        4. “Buhhh ThEy’rE ReLeAsIng ViOLenT InMaTes OntO MUH STREETS.”

        1. “4. “Buhhh ThEy’rE ReLeAsIng ViOLenT InMaTes OntO MUH STREETS.”

          Bwahahaha…..nice

  10. Don’t fear, if Harris wins the White House, she will stop this. Count on it.
    “Lawyers under the oversight of then-Attorney General of California Kamala Harris argued in 2014 against the release of nonviolent criminals because they wanted to keep them for cheap labor.” (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/kamala-harris-office-sought-to-keep-inmates-locked-up-so-that-california-could-use-them-for-cheap-labor)

    Of course, she later chastised her lawyers for using that defense. But then, she has a habit of rewriting her own history.

    1. “she has a habit of rewriting her own history.”

      As all progtards do. Were she to become president, she will be able to rewrite history with her armies and her crooks. Inventing memories while they burn all the books.

  11. “…Makes Us All Dumber.”

    Speak for yourself, CJ.

    1. I am not worried. Just this week my wife reminded me that I could not possibly be any dumber.

  12. “It’s unclear exactly what Carlson wants us to be upset about—only that he wants us to be upset.”

    It doesn’t matter what we’re upset about so long as we’re upset. Outrage and righteous indignation sells. No wants to listen to a reasoned argument supported by facts, especially since facts often contradict one’s worldview.

  13. Some day we’re going to have to decide what prison is for. Currently it exists on inertia.

    I’ve never been convinced long term incarceration is a good idea compared to alternatives. I can see holding an acutely agitated individual for long enough to cool off; can’t see that exceeding 90 days, usually less. If you’re convinced somebody’s dangerous over the long term when out on the loose, that person should be put to death — or conceivably crippled as by having both hands or arms cut off so as to be harmless. It doesn’t make sense to me that you can see someone in advance as being dangerous for x number of years and then harmless after just after that period.

    If punishment for deterrence purpose is the reason for incarceration, there’ve got to be better ways, such as torture. Punishment for any reason other than deterrence would be needless cruelty.

    1. It currently exists on inertia and revenge. If the person is going to get out some day anyway, why is it necessarily worse to let them out after say ten years than fifteen or twenty? Unless you can show that the extra years in prison are going to make them less dangerous somehow, the only reason to keep them is revenge.

      1. Of course prison is for punishment. At least in part. Thats why we refer to it as ‘crime and punishment’.

        1. You know else referred to it as ‘crime and punishment’?

          1. Dostoyevsky?

        2. I think our problems with prison come down to the unwillingness to define what it is that we expect our prisons to achieve in regards to convicts. People are, understandably, incensed when prisons do much more than incarcerate people. It’s an emotional subject and it’s difficult to discuss to the point where you can talk about recidivism and the long-term consequences of a penal system where rehabilitation or reintegration aren’t priorities. And I can understand some of the frustration and anger with it…prisoners committed crimes, and some of the necessary rehabilitation comes off as rewarding people with job training and placement for fucking up and harming someone else.

          That said, if punishment is the only thing prison offers, there’s all the reason in the world to expect that the people who eventually come out of prison will be going back in. Most of them were criminals because, for one reason or another, they struggled to function in society and chose crime as their role. If some of those causes aren’t addressed, it’s likely those struggles will continue and you’ll see a lot of them going back in.

          And if it’s the case where we’re just recycling the same prisoners for committing crimes and we aren’t trying to rehabilitate them or reintegrate them, why let them out at all? Why not just go to full draconian punishment, where the penalty for every crime is death? If we’re bound and determined to just throw them away and don’t think they contribute enough to justify rehabilitation, it makes as much sense as any other option. I wouldn’t be in favor of that, but I think this is a conversation that needs to be had about what it is that we expect in terms of results from prisons, rather than going off emotional arguments about what we think criminals do or don’t deserve in prison.

          1. Criminals come in all sorts of different kinds. How many are criminals because of some deficiency that can be made up by giving it to them with their cooperation? Don’t assume that’s all of them or even a large proportion.

            Violent criminals are hotheads. Many of them are only very temporary hotheads who need to be restrained like, maybe just a few hours. They could then be swiftly punished as a deterrent to others if that’s thought appropriate — electric shocks or some such pain — or not if not. Others are long term hotheads who should be permanently incapacitated or killed. Either way, long term incarceration is cruel and dumb.

    2. It’s the way so many things work in this country – you have two conflicting, mutually exclusive notions about what prison is supposed to accomplish, and rather than pick one, we mash them both together and have a system working at cross-purposes.

      Traditionally, societies have relied on corporal punishment and public shaming for law enforcement. Most civilizations haven’t had the resources to lock up large portions of the population for extended periods.

      A Quaker came up with the idea of prison as a way to “reform” criminals – make them live like monks in quiet isolation, give them a Bible to read, and in a few short months of self-reflection, a good Christian citizen will emerge.

      But that doesn’t satisfy the revenge side of punishment. We don’t see it as being fair to the victims if the perpetrator doesn’t get his share of suffering. So you have to make prison be really sucky, which then undermines the “quiet reflection” bit so that it becomes a breeding ground for resentment and a training-and-networking center for career criminals.

      It’s corporal punishment meted out over decades, so that it looks more humane, but is in fact orders of magnitude less humane.

      1. I have never understood how it is that locking someone in a cage away from society and their family or any semblance of normal life is somehow more humane than corporal punishment.

        If I went to Congress and started advocating floggings as a form of punishment instead of prison, I would be called an evil barbarian. Yet, the same people who would say that think nothing of locking people up in unbelievably bad conditions for decades. It makes no sense to me.

        1. I think it’s a similar mental slight-of-hand that allows Buddhists to chain people up and leave them in the desert to die of exposure while thinking of it as not carrying out capital punishment.

          A guillotine is far more humane, but some person has to actually cup the rope, which no one wants to do.

          1. “Cup the rope” – Freudian slip?

        2. Someone who is dead cannot repent. The humanity of prison is not how you’re treated or the conditions; it’s the fact we let you become a human again at society’s expense. Your reward is dying with a conscience. Denying that is far more inhumane than any sort of torture.

          1. Your reward is dying with a conscience. Denying that is far more inhumane than any sort of torture.

            How . . . medieval.

      2. If you’re the sort of person who genuinely does something wrong, is punished for decades, and then decides to be resentful and a career criminal, then you’re exactly the sort of person who cannot be helped and should be removed from society permanently. Whether that means execution or not is up to society.

        The rest of us aren’t murdering and raping because we aren’t fundamentally broken people. You don’t have “honest mistakes” with those sorts of sins against humanity. If you really do change in prison, take comfort in knowing that your God of choice will forgive you. Don’t expect society to take a risk when you’re the fuckwit who couldn’t even figure out not to commit the gravest of sins in the first place.

        1. the sort of person who genuinely does something wrong, is punished for decades, and then decides to be resentful and a career criminal

          You really don’t know how any of this works, do you?

          A lot of studying has been done on what long-term prison sentences do to people’s mentalities and senses of community. Are you familiar with any of it?

          1. Prison doesn’t “do” anything to your mentality. There is no such thing in this world as someone “doing” something to your mind. You are an individual and responsible for yourself. If you’re so fundamentally flawed that you actually murder someone, prison didn’t make you that way.

            I never said prison wasn’t hard to endure. I have family that has suffered from some of the flaws of criminal justice, such as biased sentencing during re-election periods and mandatory minimums creating a sentence that doesn’t fit the crime and denies due process. All I’m saying is that when we’re talking about murderers and rapists, you can’t keep blaming everyone and everything else.

    3. Really think we should look into exile.
      Of course, that would require actually guarding our borders

      1. If only there were another habitable planet in the solar system. Exile would be a real option then.

        1. The British used to cal that ‘Australia’.

          1. Calling Australia habitable is using the term liberally.

            1. ‘Australia, where everything can kill you. No, really’

          1. A Twilight Zone episode as well

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lonely_(The_Twilight_Zone)

            One of the better ones I think.

            1. Just watched it again. The series is up on Netflix.

            2. There was the one from 80’s where a man is left free but sentenced to one year of public invisibility. Where he has a mark attached to his forehead that makes it illegal to interact with, or even acknowledge him.

        2. Use as a tool of foreign policy.
          Antagonize the US, get our criminals.
          You hear me – IRAN?

          1. PS – might also be a viable solution to homelessness crisis

          2. That might work. Just put them on a tanker ship and get too close to the Iranian coast. Then refuse to take them back.

      2. Penal colonies. Those have been done but nobody has them anymore. If it is an island or something you only need to patrol the coast. I think you would still have an escape problem today.

        1. Not thinking penal colonies, so not worried about escape – just reentry.
          I’m talking about making them someone else’s problem.

          1. Oh. You would need a place to send them and it is a lot cheaper and easier to secure a smaller space than the whole border. Exile has generally been to colonies or remote regions like Siberia.

  14. An administration official provided this show exclusively with data on what crimes were committed by the felons being released under the FIRST STEP Act.

    Duped by a deep-stater.

  15. You need a bigger pin — you don’t have enough angels dancing on the one you have. The FIRST STEP act let them out because it changed the way BOP was doing business. End of angel dancing.

  16. Tuck is upset that his dick is the size of half a highlighter. I have a sixth sense about these things, and I suspect that much of white male conservatardism is a result of penile insecurity, but further study is needed, if anyone dares.

    1. No, you just can’t understand anything because you very stupid, and you’re a raving faggot. Plus, with your hollowed out asshole, probably anything smaller than Mandingo or Wesley Pipes is tiny for you anymore.

      Now go drink your Drano.

      1. You are one depraved motherfucker. Let’s do lunch.

        1. ^and this is why Tony is so much better than Reason’s Eunuch Squad

          1. I know, right?

            Because Tony, like you, treat libertarianism as a joke, and responds accordingly.

            Chipper, and I, and others that you loathe, actually value liberty and fight for it, which pisses you off because it undermines your project of shoving everyone onto the Trump Train one way or another.

            1. No Pedo Jeffy, you don’t. You are so obtuse over what is libertarian, what is anarchy, and what is decent. You also argue in such a sophist and disingenuous fashion that everyone Finds you annoying and treats you with disdain,

              It’s also why you are not worthy of respect. Then you tip it all off with your willingness to bring any child rapist here that can make the journey.

              1. You regularly call for the genocide of your political opponents, Shit.

  17. Refresh my memory, Ciaramella…which President advocated the First Step Act and pushed Congress to pass it before signing it into law? Which President was that who made criminal justice reform a priority? Which President is the one who’s been pushing people to give convicts, including felons, a second chance to reintegrate them into society?

    Because you clearly failed to mention that in your bullshit article before you choose to smear that President’s administration. Which is pretty typical for the lying hack writing that Reason’s been doing since 2016.

    1. “Which President was that who made criminal justice reform a priority? ”

      Kim Kardashian?

      Oh wait she is not president…yet.

    2. Because you clearly failed to mention that in your bullshit article before you choose to smear that President’s administration.

      I missed the part of the article that smears the Trump Administration. Which part was that?

      1. Trump, Tucker, potato, tomato. TDS works both ways.

  18. Swing and a miss. Sure, if that’s what Carlson was going for, you might have a point. But he’s not trying to nitpick the days and weeks; he’s asking us why the fuck we’re releasing 1-59 people convicted of murder based on good behavior and not based on whether or not the initial sentence was appropriate. Sure, with what they were promised, they should get released. But his position is that they should be given harsher sentences for their actions. He’s also asking us to reconsider the narrative, because most prison reform is sold as helping “non-violent” offenders who, based on actual statistics and real world events, are not non-violent in the slightest.

    This article was the most perfect strawman I’ve read. Good job!

    1. Without actually seeing the data on prisoner crime vs. days released early, it’s hard to know who is full of shit.

      I’m thinking both, as neither provided the relevant data to judge this issue, but instead spun the data to make a case.

      I’m generally with Tucker, but I consider him bad on criminal justice. He’s busy pushing increased risk of psychosis from Pot, but it’s always percentage increase, not absolute increase. That such a thing can be easily calculated is doubtful, that Tucker could wade through the dishonest propagandists is even more doubtful, but even if true, without knowing the absolute risk the threat is entirely uninteresting.

      100, 000% increase! We’re all doomed!

      Except if the base rate is only 1 in a billion, which moved up to one in a million.

      But Tucker does have a point about how the bill was sold. It was sold as early release for non-violent offenders, not “let’s let murderers out of prison early”. Regardless of how short the time was, it would have been trivial to limit the changed calculation to only non-violent offenders.

      Today, *maybe* it’s a short time difference. Reason doesn’t bother to support their claim of this with numbers.

      But give the Deep State a lever to pry off sentencing from violent offenders, and they will use it. Violent criminals on the street are *useful* to the Deep State. A population terrorized by violent crime doesn’t get so uppity.

      1. But give the Deep State a lever to pry off sentencing from violent offenders, and they will use it. Violent criminals on the street are *useful* to the Deep State. A population terrorized by violent crime doesn’t get so uppity.

        I hear Emmanuel Goldstein is the one in charge of the Deep State. Can’t be trusted, that guy.

        1. Don’t tell but he died years ago. It is Martha Stewart now. Don’t let that bright smile and dyed blond hair fool you.

        2. racebaiterjeff here to represent for #LibertariansForTheDeepState

      2. Without actually seeing the data on prisoner crime vs. days released early, it’s hard to know who is full of shit.

        To first order, it’s obviously proportional: if you shorten prison sentences by 10%, you get 10% more crime against the general population from the people you released. Since that population has a high rate of reoffending, that means a large number of additional crimes.

        On top of that, crime rates drop with age; if you shorten prison terms by one year, you increase crime rates in that population by several percent.

  19. It may be a rant, but most of it is true. Murderer’s? Seriously?

  20. Intellectuals of the looter persuasion will point to mutha Tucker and smirk “see? see?… libertarian!”

  21. Wow I’m glad Tucker Carlson is so effective that the lefty media mob is picking apart everything he says.

  22. Anyone who thinks Carlson is a source for quality information needs to seriously have their head examined.

    1. Sometimes he is. You just don’t like him.

      1. Case in point.. this case.

        His information is good.

        His conclusions.. not so much. At least, not if you are a libertarian. Which he is not.

        Letting people out of prison is always going to result in people who were released committing more crimes when they are released. Whether they are guilty or not.. You could round up all of the fans from a Washington Redskins game and toss them in jail and it would prevent a bunch of crimes from being committed by those people. It doesn’t make it right.

      2. Actually, we are both right – he’s a laughable source for quality information AND I don’t like him.

        He’s been nothing more than a glorified, pedantic frat boy ever since he launched his so-called “career.”

  23. The headline of this article a display of intolerance and the sign of an inadequate education. Listening to points of view that you disagree with doesn’t make you dumber. The first paragraph of the article is devoted to condescending remarks about the commercials. The fact that the author finds the method for calculating good time is too complicated for him to comprehend is a reflection on his intelligence. The inmates were released earlier and many were violent criminals who committed new offenses. The author C.J. Ciaramella is a disgrace.

  24. How Many Time You Lost This Droid Chance… If you wana get a reasonable income through laptop and if you have a reliable internet connection then you should be able to know how you make your income by laptop.Simply go to the BELOW SITE and start your work…> http://www.online-3.com

  25. […] of the mass release, while reducing BOP population overall, was not noticeable at institutions. Reason magazine confirmed this, reporting today that “Most were released from halfway houses or home […]

  26. Does Carlson think these inmates are at a higher risk of committing new crimes because they were released a few months earlier than they would have previously been

    Even if the risk is the same, giving criminals a 10% break on their prison time means a 10% increase in recidivist crime from that population. That’s easily thousands more violent crimes per year.

    On top of that, crime rates drop quickly with age, so even a 6-12 months increase in prison terms can have a significant impact on recidivism and risk in the released population because it makes them older.

    So, early release not only leads to more crime it also leads to a higher risk of recidivism.

    You should try reasoning things through, Ciaramella, before accusing others of “unhinged rants”. But I suppose rational analysis is not in vogue at Reason these days.

    1. Shooting people accused of crime cuts down on recidivism too…

      1. Shooting people accused of crime cuts down on recidivism too…

        Are you really so daft that you don’t see the difference between “shooting people accused of a crime” and “keeping people in prison for the term they were sentenced to”?

  27. That’s not the right answer.

    The right answer is – yes, this law let people convicted of violent crimes back out on the street earlier.

    The correct answer is also “yes, some people helped by criminal justice reform will go on to commit other crimes.”

    Until we can be honest about that, this will never get resolved. Tossing every scruffy looking person you can find with some weed in their pocket is a pretty good way to cut down on petty crime. I’m sure that cops can have a better than 50% hit ratio on “likely to be some kind of a criminal” when scouring a bad neighborhood. So from a “prevents crime” point of view, over-incarcerating is an effective tool.

    But it is an unjust tool. And that’s not how we do things here.

    That’s the argument.

    Anything less than “Yes, some people who are not in jail because of criminal justice reform will go on to commit crime and hurt people” is going to invite Willie Horton style gotchas.

    1. If I was named President of the US, I’d pardon every single person in jail for a consensual crime on my first day. Drugs, prostitution, etc. I’d let them all out and expunge their records. And I’d let everyone know that some of those people are going to be bad people and some of them will do bad things.

      That would be true if we arrested everyone who listens to death metal or hardcore ganster rap too. “Some of them will do other crimes” is not an argument for tossing people in jail like that.

      Unfortunately, we are obsessed with only exonerating attractive defendants. So they have to be nice – maybe convert to Christianity and become a jailhouse clergyman. And sympathetic. Maybe they are mentally challenged and were taken advantage of. Or maybe they had little kids and they just want to be a part of their lives.

      So people who are wrongfully in jail but are kind of assholes and probably would steal your wallet are not going to get exonerated. We need to take a more principled stand. It is wrong to put people in jail for something they didn’t do. And it is wrong to put people in jail for things done between consenting adults. Even if some of those people are also criminals in other ways.

      1. Unfortunately, we are obsessed with only exonerating attractive defendants. It is wrong to put people in jail for something they didn’t do. And it is wrong to put people in jail for things done between consenting adults.

        What does your unhinged rant about “consensual crime” and “exonerating attractive defendants” have to do with early release of violent criminals?

        In addition, while there are many laws that I, as a libertarian, consider unjust, nevertheless, I obey them and I expect that other people obey them too or face the consequences. Because what’s even more unjust than unjust laws is selective enforcement of unjust laws.

    2. Tossing every scruffy looking person you can find with some weed in their pocket is a pretty good way to cut down on petty crime.

      And that has to do with Tucker Carlson’s argument… exactly nothing. Carlson is pointing out that this change leads to violent criminals being released early, rather than serving out more of the sentence they have been convicted to. And recidivism in violent criminals means violent crimes, not “petty crime”.

  28. Reason has become a gaggle of trolls. I may not agree with Tucker Carlson but his segment was neither unhinged nor a rant unless we’re dealing with completely different definitions of both words. A lot more facts and a lot more reason would improve things.

  29. The fact the rules for calculating “good time” were changed and let these prisoners out early does not mean they are non-violent offenders. The only stupidity here is the assumption that they will not commit other violent crimes once released which data proves it highly unlikely. The recidivism for violent offenders is extremely high so they will likely be back in prison in a short time

  30. […] reform bill, the FIRST STEP Act, for releasing approximately 3,100 federal inmates from jail early. Reason reports that Carlson claimed that the move released “hundreds of violent criminals” […]

  31. […] reform bill, the FIRST STEP Act, for releasing approximately 3,100 federal inmates from jail early. Reason reports that Carlson claimed that the move released “hundreds of violent criminals” […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.