It&#8217;s becoming a weekly ritual: California&#8217;s First Lady opens her mouth, inserts her foot, and the rest of the country winces.
In a resurfaced interview, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-gavin-newsoms-wife-bizarrely-attempt-to-relate-to-prisoners">Jennifer</a> Siebel Newsom recounts telling prisoners at San Quentin State Prison that she could relate to them. Why? Because at age six, she accidentally struck and killed her eight-year-old sister with a golf cart during a family vacation in Hawaii. She wasn&#8217;t punished, she explained, because it was clearly an accident, and she wanted those inmates to know their crimes were &#8220;probably an accident too.&#8221;
To call that comparison a stretch would be the understatement of the century.
Here&#8217;s the silver lining: if she keeps this up, she will single-handedly torch whatever remains of Gavin Newsom&#8217;s presidential ambitions. But there&#8217;s a larger point that cannot be glossed over. Democrats have long acted like they care more about criminals than their victims. Now they&#8217;re just saying the quiet part out loud.
The <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/02/20/governor-newsom-transforms-san-quentin-opens-nation-leading-learning-center/">prison</a> known as &#8220;The Q&#8221; has become the Newsoms&#8217; progressive playground. The couple has poured millions into rebranding the facility as a &#8220;rehabilitation center&#8221; for wayward souls, even though the vast majority of its 3,500 to 4,000 inmates are Level II and Level IV prisoners with rap sheets containing murder, assault, armed robbery, and rape. This is the same prison that once housed the largest death row in America — until Gavin Newsom imposed a moratorium on executions in 2019. At least <a href="https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/twenty-years-since-last-execution-california-remains-under-execution-moratorium-as-advocates-push-for-mass-clemency-grant">650</a> condemned inmates were then quietly integrated into the general population. Empathy, apparently, has no room for such inconvenient details.
And who exactly are these &#8220;wronged individuals&#8221; the Newsoms are so eager to coddle? <a href="https://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/scott-peterson-case/article267796397.html">Scott</a> Peterson, who murdered his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn son Connor, and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polly-klaas-killer-richard-allen-davis-seeks-death-sentence-overturned/#:~:text=Crime-,Judge%20to%20mull%20overturning%20Polly%20Klaas%20killer%20Richard%20Allen%20Davis,governor%20could%20change%20that%20policy.">Richard</a> Allen Davis, who kidnapped and strangled 12-year-old Polly <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/25/us/scott-peterson-off-death-row">Klaas</a>, for starters. The prison has also held Charles Manson, Robert F. Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan, and a rogues&#8217; gallery of serial killers. But still — ‘accidents happen’ the First Partner assures us! The bleeding-heart Newsoms just feel too strongly for these poor souls. They want to ease their sentences and — one suspects eventually — set them free.
This is not an isolated gaffe. Progressives are increasingly defending the perpetrator over the victim, and they&#8217;re doing it with brazen clarity. Remember the State of the Union, when Democrats refused to stand for the simple proposition: &#8220;The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. If you agree with this statement, stand up and show your support.&#8221;
That moment crystallized the divide. Democrats care about &#8220;them,&#8221; not you. It doesn&#8217;t matter that 18-year-old Sheridan Gorman was allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, or that 15-year-old Amber Paris was allegedly killed by a Guatemalan illegal immigrant speeding through North Carolina, or that 7-year-old Delilah Coleman will never walk again after an illegal immigrant from India crashed into her family&#8217;s car. The progressive catechism demands solidarity with the &#8220;oppressed&#8221; (i.e., criminal) over the &#8220;oppressor&#8221; — no matter the facts.
Despite a $3 billion state deficit in the 2026-27 budget and a total price tag for the &#8220;California Model&#8221; prison overhaul now reaching $14.2 billion, the Newsom administration carved out $78.5 million specifically for San Quentin&#8217;s physical makeover into a feel-good &#8220;rehabilitation center.&#8221; Compare that architectural largesse to the relative crumbs tossed at victim-services programs in the neighborhoods these criminals terrorized.
Violent crime in California remains nearly 10 percent higher than pre-pandemic 2019 levels. Aggravated assaults are still roughly 22 percent higher. The state&#8217;s overall recidivism rate hovers between 45 and 50 percent, even as boutique programs brag about single-digit success stories for a tiny slice of participants. This is an expensive experiment with other people&#8217;s safety.
Which brings us back to Jennifer Siebel Newsom and the story she told those inmates.
She was six years old, playing with her eight-year-old sister Stacey and other children on golf carts during a family vacation in Hawaii in 1981. The cart she was driving slipped into reverse. She did not see her sister behind it. The tragedy that followed was, by any measure, a genuine accident — the kind of event that would leave any child scarred.
&#8220;I felt the pressure to be perfect,&#8221; she later told the Los Angeles Times, &#8220;to make my parents forget, by being two daughters instead of one.&#8221; She described the survivor&#8217;s guilt, the compulsion to compensate, to improve other people&#8217;s lives, to do double the good. It’s no wonder she’s the way she is.
But sympathy does not require the eradication of judgment. The men Jennifer Siebel Newsom addressed at San Quentin were not involved in golf cart accidents. They were convicted killers, rapists, and predators. Projecting her childhood trauma onto their deliberate acts of violence is not empathy. It is a category error with consequences, and those consequences are carried not by the Newsoms but by the families of Laci Peterson, Polly Klaas, and every other victim whose killer now enjoys a governor&#8217;s reprieve and a First “Partner’s” suicidal empathy.
Soft on crime, hard on victims: If this is the compassion the progressive left wants to export to the rest of America, voters would be wise to decline the invitation. Some accidents, after all, are entirely avoidable.

Governor Gavin Newsom is set to be inaugurated for a second term on Friday, Jan. 6, and the preparations for the ceremony are underway in downtown Sacramento.

Jennifer Siebel Newsom Knows Exactly How Murderers Feel

California

Crime

Criminal Justice

Illegal Immigation

Jennifer Newsom

Prisons

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars.
***
Earlier this week, the New York Times editorial board <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/31/opinion/trump-jan-6-pardons-crimes-recidivism.html">declared</a> with great alarm that “The People Trump Pardoned Are on a Crime Spree.” President Donald Trump has issued many pardons and grants of clemency, as have his predecessors. The worst of these decisions, says the board, was Trump’s grant of “clemency on the first day of his second term to everyone who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.” That clemency was extended to approximately 1,500 participants in the infamous riot universally known by the date on which it occurred: January 6. Whether it was wise to issue a mass clemency to the rioters is a debatable proposition, but whether those rioters have since gone on a crime spree is an empirical question with a clear answer: Not even close.
The Times’ editorial tells readers that the results of the clemency “have been disastrous.” Big, if true! But the claim doesn’t hold up under even modest scrutiny. Here is what the board considers damning evidence: “At least 12 of the pardoned rioters have since been charged with other serious crimes, including child molestation, assault, harassment, murder plots and charges related to a vicious dog attack.”
Twelve, you say!?
“Disastrous” is about as dishonest a characterization for a recidivism rate of less than 1% as one can imagine. For context, national data show that more than 80% of released state prisoners — most of whom are released (typically after less than two years) onto parole after serving an average of about 44% of their maximum sentence, despite having around 10 prior arrests and five prior convictions — in America are rearrested for a new crime. On average, state prison releasees will generate five new rearrests over a 10-year period. Now, who would bet on the Times running an editorial decrying the practice of early parole, or calling for longer sentences? I certainly wouldn’t.
In fact, the same editorial board has a long history of dedicating page space to those pushing a decades-long effort to decarcerate and de-police. Over the years, the Times has said very little about the recidivism issue, but has had plenty to say in supporting efforts to be more lenient with offenders and tougher on police. That long record of both implicit and explicit support for criminal justice and police reforms that enabled a significant amount of reoffending — exactly the kind the Times now criticizes — makes this week’s editorial impossible to take seriously, especially the part calling for an electoral referendum on public safety.
Where were those calls when Democrats across the country were defunding their local police departments, pushing to release more and more repeat criminal offenders, and breathlessly celebrating prosecutors who ran on diverting as many criminal offenders as they felt they could politically get away with releasing?
The question is, of course, rhetorical. No one actually believes that the New York Times’s editorial board has suddenly connected with its inner carceralist. The editorial is transparently cynical and flagrantly hypocritical.
Republicans have traditionally held an advantage over Democrats in public opinion regarding which party is more effective on public safety. President Trump has made “law and order” a central theme of his presidency. Less than two weeks ago, he presided over a roundtable discussion on crime in Memphis, TN, where his administration deployed a U.S. Marshals-led task force comprising federal law enforcement agencies, local police, and the National Guard. The administration has been <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/03/president-trumps-memphis-safe-task-force-delivers-crushing-blow-to-crime/">enthusiastically touting</a> the success of the task force, to which it has attributed a steep decline in crime in what has long been one of America’s most dangerous cities.
Facilitating a 1,500-person crime spree would constitute a major political liability for any president — but it would be an especially bad look for this president. But the New York Times is grasping at straws here, and if it wants the public to take its newfound concern for the problem of repeat offending seriously, it should consider speaking up about any one of the countless examples of that problem plaguing Democrat-run cities across America.
***
Rafael A. Mangual is the Nick Ohnell fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a contributing editor of City Journal, and author of the 2022 book, Criminal (In)Justice.

Sign at the entrance to the New York Times Headquarters in

The New York Times Finally Discovers That Criminals Commit Crime

Crime stats

January 6

New York Times

public safety

Charlotte hearing

Dumbest Democrat Ever Delivers Cringe Worthy Performance In Front Of State Assembly

Charlotte

Iryna Zarutska

Matt Walsh

North Carolina

Opinion

Sheriff

Stabbing

WDRB News

Meet The DEI Activist Judge Who Let A Rapist Out Of Prison Early To Spite White People

advertising

Blacks

O.J. Simpson

Racism

Super Bowl

Television

White Supremacy

Whites

Chicago typical silver colored commuter train moving on elevated tracks to railroad station in between urban city buildings of Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Career Criminal Freed By Radical Pro-Crime Judge Sets Christian Woman On Fire On Subway

Chicago

Illinois

Murder

Subway

Train

Violent Crime

By all accounts — including his own — 36-year-old roofer Joe Gonzales was an evil human being who deserved to die. In 1992, in the state of Texas, Gonzales murdered a 50-year-old building contractor who supposedly owed him $200. Gonzales robbed the man and attempted to make his death look like a suicide. But it wasn&#8217;t a very convincing defense, because people who kill themselves normally don&#8217;t rob themselves after they do it. At trial, Gonzales told the jury, “I am a man who has no regard for the law. I am a man who has no regard for humanity.&#8221;
Within just twelve minutes, in November of 1995, the jury <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/19/us/on-death-row-10-months-man-is-executed.html">convicted</a> Gonzales and recommended the death penalty.
If you had to guess how long it took Joe Gonzales to actually be put to death, what would you say? What&#8217;s the approximate timeframe for how long you think Joe Gonzales sat on death row, before he was finally executed?
Maybe you&#8217;re thinking this is a trick question, and that the answer is: He was never actually executed, he&#8217;s still on death row, appealing the jury&#8217;s decision, to this day. That&#8217;s normally how death penalty cases go. We all know that. But in this case, surprisingly enough, Joe Gonzales was indeed put to death. And he was put to death very quickly, relatively speaking. Just ten months after the jury recommended the death penalty, in September of 1996, Joe Gonzales was executed by lethal injection. It was the fastest execution in U.S. history since Gary Gilmore was executed in Utah in 1977 by firing squad, just three months after he was convicted of two murders.
The reason both of these men were executed so quickly is that, unlike most death penalty defendants, they weren&#8217;t interested in dragging the process out. They didn&#8217;t have any interest in appealing their sentences. So they allowed the government to proceed with the executions, without undue delay. And the government obliged. Left to their own devices, without any frivolous appeals, states like Texas and Utah were able to dispense justice in a reasonable timeframe.
This is not ancient history. We&#8217;re not talking about executions in colonial New England, or anything like that. In modern America, it&#8217;s entirely possible to put violent criminals to death, promptly. One of the key steps we need to take, as these cases demonstrate, is to get rid of the idea that death penalty defendants are entitled to an automatic appeal. These appeals can take decades to resolve. They&#8217;re almost always unnecessary.
But ever since the 1970s, because of a Supreme Court decision, these appeals have been mandatory (unless the defendant waives them). As a result of this decision by the Supreme Court, the average time that inmates spend on death row has ballooned.
<div id="attachment_989217" style="width: 799px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-989217" class="wp-image-989217 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row-789x576.jpg" alt="Source: Death Penalty Information Center" width="789" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row-789x576.jpg 789w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row-300x219.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row-768x560.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row-1360x994.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row.jpg 1362w" sizes=" (max-width: 789px) 100vw, 789px" />Source: Death Penalty Information Center</div>
In the 1980s, as you can see here, the average time spent on death row was around 74 months. Now it&#8217;s over 260.
So it didn&#8217;t take long, after the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in 1976, for everything to slow down. They introduced mandatory appeals, and now inmates are spending three times as long on death row.
<div id="attachment_989223" style="width: 779px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-989223" class="wp-image-989223 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Death-Penalty-age-769x576.jpg" alt="Source: Death Penalty Information Center" width="769" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Death-Penalty-age-769x576.jpg 769w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Death-Penalty-age-300x225.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Death-Penalty-age-768x575.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Death-Penalty-age.jpg 1370w" sizes=" (max-width: 769px) 100vw, 769px" />Source: Death Penalty Information Center</div>
Along the same lines, as you&#8217;d expect, there&#8217;s also been a dramatic change in the average age of a defendant who&#8217;s executed on death row. In 1975, the average age was 36. In 1980, the average age was 24.
By 2005, the average age was up to 44. Now it&#8217;s over 50. In fact, more than 570 prisoners on death row are over the age of 60, as of 2019. Back in 1996, that number was just 39.
Some elderly prisoners — like Vernon Madison in Alabama — are spending so much time on death row that they&#8217;re developing dementia and having strokes, which makes them ineligible for the death penalty because they&#8217;re supposedly &#8220;incompetent to be executed.&#8221; Yes, that&#8217;s an actual category of inmate. You might argue that competence is kind of irrelevant for the death penalty. You don’t need to be competent. You don’t need to do anything but die. But this is the system we have now. Even if you were competent to stand trial, it&#8217;s possible for you to lose your mind on death row. And then you go back to general population, as a confused vegetable, while the victim&#8217;s family wonders when they&#8217;re going to get the justice they were promised. This is supposedly the &#8220;humane&#8221; solution, according to the Supreme Court. We need an absurd amount of appeals and bureaucratic wrangling, lasting years and years, before we can actually execute anyone.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1677-have-you-forgotten-about-iryna-zarutska-they-want-you-to-here-s-why"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-976065 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Keep in mind, the Supreme Court made this decision in an era before advanced DNA evidence, modern ballistics techniques, or widespread video surveillance. The general sentiment, at the time, was that innocent people might be convicted and sent to death row. So therefore, because evidence wasn&#8217;t robust, we supposedly needed mandatory appeals, to make sure that innocent people weren&#8217;t executed.
But that&#8217;s not the case any more.
Most death penalty cases are similar to the murder of Iryna Zarutska.
It’s an important case, even amid all of the other things happening in the country. And we cannot forget what happened to her.
That’s why I want to give a brief update on the case and tell you what’s going on with it now. The answer, as we’ll see, is that nothing is going on. There is no update. No movement at all. And that’s the point.
Now, of course, there is no doubt whatsoever as to who is responsible for Iryna&#8217;s death. The killer in this case has more than a dozen prior arrests. He committed the crime on camera, as we all remember. In a just society, the man responsible — Decarlos Brown Jr. — would be given a speedy trial, under our Constitution, and then put to death.
That&#8217;s true even if you buy his defense, which is that he was &#8220;mentally ill&#8221; in some way. But really, the defense is nonsense. This is a surveillance photo from the light rail, a second or so after he stabbed and mortally wounded Iryna. It&#8217;s the photo you&#8217;ve probably seen many times before.
<div id="attachment_989213" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-989213" class="size-large wp-image-989213" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2-575x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: Surveillance video, Charlotte Area Transit System" width="575" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2-575x576.jpg 575w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2-300x300.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2-150x150.jpg 150w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2-768x769.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2.jpg 1070w" sizes=" (max-width: 575px) 100vw, 575px" />Screenshot: Surveillance video, Charlotte Area Transit System</div>
It&#8217;s obvious that Decarlos Brown went out of his way to target a defenseless woman who wasn&#8217;t even looking at him. He sat in wait for his victim. After he killed her, he said something along the lines of, &#8220;I got that white girl.&#8221; And then, as this surveillance footage from the train station, which was just released, demonstrates, he changed his clothing.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Watch: Video shows Iryna Zarutska’s accused killer being arrested at Charlotte light rail station" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GcCtpUL9hrs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Credit: WBTV News/Charlotte/YouTube.com
This is the footage of the arrest of Decarlos Brown. The officers swarm him pretty quickly. But as you can see, he&#8217;s not wearing the red clothing anymore. He&#8217;s carrying his sweatshirt. So it looks a lot like he understood that he had just killed someone, and wanted to avoid detection.
Whether he &#8220;heard voices&#8221; or not, or whether he has &#8220;impulse control issues&#8221; or not, it doesn&#8217;t matter. Someone who decides to murder an innocent woman, for any reason, forfeits his right to live. And that&#8217;s clearly what happened here.
But because our death penalty system is a bureaucratic morass, Decarlos Brown will not be executed anytime soon.
This is the latest reporting from a <a href="https://www.wbtv.com/2025/10/15/hearing-determine-if-north-carolina-will-pursue-death-penalty-alleged-light-rail-killer-delayed/">local news station</a> in North Carolina. Here’s what’s happening with his case right now.
<blockquote>The man accused of killing a Ukrainian woman on a Charlotte light rail almost two months ago was scheduled to have a crucial court hearing on Thursday. Decarlos Brown Jr., the man accused of killing 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska back in late August, was scheduled to have a Rule 24 court hearing on Thursday, Oct. 16. A Rule 24 hearing is for the state to determine whether or not they would pursue the death penalty. Court documents said that the hearing has now been pushed back until April 2026. The decision to delay the hearing came from Brown and his attorney, Daniel Roberts. However, the reason for the delay was redacted, according to court documents.</blockquote>
So there&#8217;s going to be a &#8220;hearing&#8221; to &#8220;determine whether or not&#8221; the state will &#8220;pursue the death penalty&#8221; — as if there&#8217;s any doubt that they should. Decarlos Brown should&#8217;ve been put down somewhere after his 10th conviction. And he certainly should be executed now. But this hearing won&#8217;t take place until April of next year.
Of course, the best part of all is that you don&#8217;t even get to know why the hearing was delayed. You get no information whatsoever. All you can be sure of, at this point, is that the trial isn&#8217;t going to take place for a very long time — if it occurs at all. Even in a case where the defendant&#8217;s guilt is obvious to everyone in the entire country, we&#8217;re told to put up with endless delays, for no reason.
These delays are downstream from that Supreme Court decision in the 1970s. And that Supreme Court decision was downstream of the belief — which is false — that innocent defendants are sent to death row all the time. That wasn&#8217;t true in the 1970s. And it&#8217;s certainly not true anymore. We don&#8217;t need a neurotic number of hearings and appeals to determine the fate of animals like Decarlos Brown. The evidence is overwhelming. And it&#8217;s overwhelming in every other death row case, as well.
So why haven&#8217;t any states attempted to bypass this Supreme Court decision, with lawsuits or new legislation? Why haven&#8217;t we seen legal challenges to this absurd framework that essentially renders the death penalty moot? Why don&#8217;t states say, actually, we don&#8217;t need mandatory appeals anymore, or endless hearings. We can just hold a trial, present the overwhelming evidence, and then get on with the execution. There&#8217;s certainly no constitutional basis for making the death penalty effectively impossible to enforce. On the contrary, the Founders approved of the death penalty — explicitly, in many cases. So why don&#8217;t we see any legal challenges on this point?
The only explanation that makes sense is that — in the case of Decarlos Brown, and every other case like his — the people in charge of the state government want us to forget what happened. They want the outrage to subside, which it usually does. And then they can get away with giving as lenient a sentence as possible. That&#8217;s what the mayor of Charlotte clearly wants. Remember, she put out a statement saying we should feel sympathy for people like Decarlos Brown, and attacked anyone who shared the footage of Iryna&#8217;s murder. She doesn&#8217;t want Decarlos Brown to be executed. If she can arrange it, she wants him out on the streets, as soon as possible, so he can terrorize more innocent women.
And it&#8217;s not crazy to think the mayor of Charlotte might accomplish that goal. Just a week ago, we covered the case of a convicted child killer who managed to get out of prison in less than a decade. Fortunately, in the case of Decarlos Brown, there are federal charges as well — and those charges are also death-eligible. But that prosecution — and any potential conviction — could be undone by a future Democrat administration. And at this point, particularly if Decarlos Brown isn&#8217;t executed, that outcome seems like a distinct possibility. But it shouldn&#8217;t be possible. The right to a speedy trial doesn&#8217;t just apply for the benefit of the defendant. It also applies for the benefit of society at large. We have a constitutional right to see violent criminals punished, swiftly, to the fullest extent of the law.
Every once in a while, over the past month or so, I&#8217;ve come across a post on X with that picture of Iryna, along with a message like &#8220;We haven&#8217;t forgotten you,&#8221; or something along those lines. I hope that&#8217;s true. But as months turn into years, inevitably, people will become distracted. There will be more violence and chaos and tragedy — Democrats will make sure of that. And it will be easy, despite our best efforts, to forget what happened to Iryna. That&#8217;s what they want us to do. That was the whole point of the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in the 1970s, and all the state laws that followed. Now&#8217;s the time for those laws to change. And it&#8217;s time for Iryna Zarutska&#8217;s killer to receive a fair trial, and then a speedy execution in a matter of weeks, if not days — which is, admittedly, a far more dignified death than he deserves. But under our Constitution and our common law tradition on the death penalty, which has been ignored since the 1970s, it&#8217;s the fate that Decarlos Brown should receive.
* * *
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

MixCollage-08-Sep-2025-02-31-PM-2293

Have You Forgotten About Iryna Zarutska? They Want You To. Here’s Why. 

Death Penalty

Prisoner in court

An Update On The Shocking Crime That Democrats Don’t Want You To Know About

An Update On The Shocking Crime That Democrats Don't Want You To Know About

Florida

Kentucky

Prison

White House

MixCollage-07-Oct-2025-02-38-PM-9301

The Case Of The Child Killer Released From Prison Just Got Even More Insane

Leftists

Liberals

Serial Killers

MixCollage-06-Oct-2025-03-11-PM-189

He Murdered A Child. Now He’s Walking Free. This Case Should Be A Wake Up Call For The Country.

Children

On Tuesday, a judge ruled that Luigi Mangione, the murderer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, should not be charged with first-degree murder.
The question was whether there would be <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-tosses-two-terrorism-charges-against-luigi-mangione">another charge</a> of terrorism added; it was dropped.
Clearly, Luigi Mangione shooting Brian Thompson — and leaving a note talking about how this was designed to effectively terrorize people who are part of the health care system — was an act of terrorism. It was a politically motivated murder with the intent of driving terror into the hearts of people who are part of the capitalist system or part of the health care system.
The judge in this case, Justice Gregory Carro, put out a statement explaining why the legal definition of terrorism was not met. The judge stated, “The defendant&#8217;s apparent objective, as stated in his writings, was not to threaten, intimidate, or coerce, but rather to draw attention to what he perceived as the greed of the insurance industry &#8230;”
The judge’s statement is a permission structure for violence. I would ask, how would you define drawing attention to what you perceive as the greed of the insurance industry through murder?
This was definitionally terrorism. If it wasn&#8217;t to “threaten, intimidate, or coerce,” then why was someone murdered?
Mangione didn&#8217;t write an Op-Ed in The Nation about the health care system; he murdered a man. And he murdered a man, yes, with the intent to threaten, intimidate or coerce people who were members of the health care industry.
If you take this judge&#8217;s argument and you extend it to literally any terrorist group around the world, it means that there is no such thing as terrorism. It writes the definition out of existence. You could say, “Radical Islamic terrorist beheads a Wall Street Journal reporter. Well, you know, he wasn&#8217;t really meaning to threaten, intimidate, or coerce others. He was really attempting to draw attention to what he perceived to be Western intolerance.”
What a bunch of absolute garbage. 9/11 terrorists under this definition would not have been terrorists, because obviously, “Osama bin Laden was just trying to draw attention to the predations of American foreign policy in Saudi Arabia” or some such nonsense.
The permission structures for terrorism and violence are there. They are deeply embedded. They&#8217;re embedded. It is largely relegated to the Left, but there are some on the Right who are willing to countenance this sort of stuff. That’s just the reality.
This is why there were crowds outside of the courthouse when it was announced that Mangione will not face life in prison without the possibility of parole. He could easily get out while he is still 50 or 60 years old after shooting a man in cold blood in the back and then in the back of the head.
There were people celebrating that in New York City on the streets. You want to know why Zohran Mamdani could be the mayor of New York City? This is why.
Scavengers, demons. That&#8217;s what this is. There were people on the Right who were angry at me when I said that the capture of Luigi Mangione needed to end with the death penalty for Luigi Mangione, and that anybody who celebrated the death of Brian Thompson was doing something evil. Some people on the Right objected to that, and tried to create permission structures, saying, “Well, yes, he shouldn&#8217;t have done that. But, you know, there are real grievances. And if you ignore those grievances &#8230;”
It was largely relegated to the Left. But there were some horseshoe theory people on the Right who were doing that routine. The Mangione case is a key tipping point case for political violence in the United States.
And you can see those permission structures emerging in the world&#8217;s worst ways on social media. Social media has been a bane on our existence.
Until those permission structures disappear, violence like this may well become more commonplace.

Luigi Mangione Appears In Court To Face NY State Murder Charges

Luigi Mangione And The Permission Structures For Violence

Ben Shapiro

Brian Thompson

Health Care

Judges

Luigi Mangione

New York City

MixCollage-08-Sep-2025-02-34-PM-5517

The Savage Crime The Media Doesn’t Want You To Know About

Legacy Media

President Donald Trump reacted on Monday to the brutal murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska aboard the light rail train in Charlotte, North Carolina, in late August.
Surveillance video from the train captured almost everything as repeat offender DeCarlos Brown, Jr. stabbed the 23-year-old woman three times, at least once in the neck, and then got up and walked casually to the door — stopping only to remove his sweatshirt — as blood dripped to the floor of the train car.
Trump responded to the video that went viral over the weekend — despite a lack of coverage from legacy media — in a post shared first to his Truth Social platform.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 Statement from <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: <a href="https://t.co/6ZsykAaPMW">pic.twitter.com/6ZsykAaPMW</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1965146715679543347?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I have seen the horrific video of a beautiful, young Ukrainian refugee, who came to America to escape the vicious War in Ukraine, and was innocently riding the Metro in Charlotte, North Carolina, where she was brutally ambushed by a mentally deranged lunatic,&#8221; Trump posted.
He went on to note that Brown, who had been in and out of jail a number of times, had faced some 14 court cases in Mecklenburg County alone — and argued that he never should have been allowed back out on the streets.
&#8220;The perpetrator was a well known career criminal, who had been previously arrested and released on CASHLESS BAIL in January, a total of 14 TIMES. What the hell was he doing riding the train, and walking the streets? Criminals like this need to be LOCKED UP,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;The blood of this innocent woman can literally be seen dripping from the killer’s knife, and now her blood is on the hands of the Democrats who refuse to put bad people in jail, including Former Disgraced Governor and &#8216;Wannabe Senator&#8217; Roy Cooper.&#8221;
&#8220;North Carolina, and every State, needs LAW AND ORDER, and only Republicans will deliver it! Additionally, where is the outrage from the Mainstream Media on this horrible tragedy?&#8221; Trump concluded with an endorsement for former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley in his Senate bid. &#8220;VOTE FOR MICHAEL WHATLEY FOR UNITED STATES SENATE, HE WON’T LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN!&#8221;
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/charlotte-mayor-uses-brutal-train-murder-to-lecture-about-mental-health-resources" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles</a> released a statement as well, taking nearly the opposite tone. After briefly offering her condolences to the victim&#8217;s family, she issued a lengthy statement calling for more mental health resources and cautioning the public to not villainize those who had mental health struggles.

President Trump Meets With His Cabinet At The White House

‘Where Is The Outrage?’: Trump Rails Against Media, Dem Crime Policies After Brutal Train Murder

Donald Trump

Media

Politics

Menu