The Daily Signal - We Don’t Have a ‘Mass Incarceration Problem’ in America (and Other Myths About Police and Crime)

Episode Date: August 29, 2022

The tumultuous summer of 2020 prompted Americans to question our country’s criminal justice system. Fueled by death of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, political leaders and the media used these examples and others to attack police, prosecutors, and the rule of law. Today, we know they peddled a false narrative. Unfortunately, we’re seeing the consequences of their policies. It’s thanks to the work of scholars like Rafael Mangual at the Manhattan Institute that we know the truth about criminal justice in the United States. He’s the author of a new book, “Criminal (In)Justice: What the Push for Decarceration and Depolicing Gets Wrong and Who It Hurts Most.” Mangual is the Nick Ohnell fellow and head of research for the Policing and Public Safety Initiative at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Monday, August 29th. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Rob Blewey. On today's show, I speak with Raphael Mangual of the Manhattan Institute about his new book, Criminal Injustice, what the push for decarceration and depolicing gets wrong and who it hurts most. We also read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about how a pro-police organization is serving wounded officers. But first, we want to tell you about one of our favorite Daily Signal resources. If you are looking for an easy and entertaining way to keep up with the news that you care about, then you should subscribe to the Daily Signals YouTube channel. The channel offers interviews with policy experts on the most critical issues and debates America is facing today, as well as short explainer videos that break down complex issues and documentaries that dive deep into the way's policy actually impacts people.

Go ahead and subscribe to the Daily Signals YouTube channel today. You can search for the channel on your YouTube app, or visit YouTube.com slash daily signal. Now stay tuned for today's show. Coming up next. The tumultuous summer of 2020 prompted Americans to question our country's criminal justice system. Fueled by the deaths of George Floyd and Brianna Taylor,

political leaders and the media use these examples and others to attack police, prosecutors, and the rule of law. Today, we know they peddled a false narrative. Unfortunately, we are seeing the consequences of their policies. It's thanks to the work of scholars like Raphael Mangual of the Manhual of the Manhau, of the Manhattan Institute that we know the truth about criminal justice in the United States. He's the author of a new book, Criminal Injustice, what the push for decarceration and depolicing gets wrong and who it hurts most. Rafael is the Nick O'Neill fellow and

head of research for the policing and public safety initiative at the Manhattan Institute. He's also a contributing editor to City Journal. Rafael, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you so much for having me. It's a real pleasure to be on. Americans were led to believe that we live in a country with an overly punitive and racially oppressive criminal justice system. You debunk this myth. Tell us what you uncover in criminal injustice. Well, what I uncover is that there is a yawning gap between the rhetoric of our criminal

justice reform debate in this country and reality, right? I think you put it quite well when you say that the sort of dominant narrative about criminal justice in the U.S. is that it's fairly characterized as overly punitive, racially oppressive, right? You hear a lot about our quote-unquote mass incarceration problem. You hear a lot about over-policing. You hear a lot about racial disparities in criminal justice enforcement statistics, arrests, incarcerations, police uses of force, et cetera. All of these things obfuscate a really important reality, which is that actually the United States is not nearly as punitive as you would think if you

we're just a casual observer of the debate, we don't have a quote unquote mass incarceration problem. And I say this, not because it isn't true that we incarcerate more than a lot of other Western European democracies to which we're often unfavorably compared. That is true. But the question is why, right? And so when you look at our crime data, for example, our incarceration statistics make a lot more sense, right? We have a lot more pockets of serious concentrated crime in the United States, crime of the sort that would land you a lengthy prison sentence anywhere in the world, including in a lot of the Western European democracies that are often pointed to as doing criminal justice policy better. We know that the vast majority of people in prison, for example, are there

because they're serious, chronic and violent defenders. These are people who have committed violent crimes either most recently or in their past criminal history. These are people who pose a significant risk of recidivism. A lot of people don't know this, but over about a 10-year period, our recidivism rate in the United States is above 80%, which means less than 20% of individuals released from state prison here actually desist from crime. We know that we don't systematically deny people's second chances, which is another central part of the narrative, but we have second chance month here in the United States. But the idea that we deny people's second chances in some systematic way is in Congress with the reality.

that, for example, in the state prison population, the average prisoner has more than 10 prior arrests and more than five prior convictions. These are not people who have been denied second chances. These are people who have been given second, third, fourth, and fifth chances. What I wanted to do with the book was illustrate what the downside risk associated with that kind of approach to criminal justice policymaking is and also show who bears the brunt of that downside risk. And so there's so much that we hear about racial inequity in the criminal justice system. it's true that the costs associated with enforcement are not evenly distributed around the United States. It is also true, though, that the costs associated with crime are not evenly distributed around the United States. And we have this pretense in our debate where we pretend that the only

outputs of the criminal justice system that matter are enforcement statistics. And that's not true. When the criminal justice system is doing its job, when it is achieving its stated ends, as stated by the people at the system's helm, what it does is it produces crime declines. And when you look at who benefits from those crime declines, it's precisely the communities that reformers, and I use that word loosely, say that they are representing in their push to decarcerate and depolice. Well, let's talk about that a little bit deeper because despite all of the rhetoric that we heard in 2020, there were some pretty big policy changes that took place. You report that more than 30 states passed over 100 bills in the year following George Floyd's death. what happened in the aftermath of some of these changes? Well, we saw in 2020 the single largest year-over-year homicide spike in the country's

recorded history. And so that I think is incredibly troubling. We saw more than a dozen U.S. cities break all-time homicide records since 2020. We have seen more than a dozen more come very close to breaking their all-time homicide records. Now, obviously, I'm not saying that it is, you know, 100 percent. the case that each one of these reforms is responsible for the entirety of that crime increase, right, what causes crime to go up and down is complicated. But when you engage in a policy program that systematically lowers the transaction cost of crime by making arrests, prosecutions,

and incarcerations less likely, while at the same time raising the transaction cost of enforcing the law by reducing and restricting police powers, by raising the bar for certain prosecutions in terms of just the compliance burden associated with that kind of project. Well, you're going to create the conditions for the kind of resurgent crime that we've seen over the last few years. And again, it's really, really important that when we talk about this, we tend to do this in national terms or statewide terms or city-wide terms or county-wide terms. And it's an understandable colloquialism.

But the reality is that crime is very, very hyper-concentrated. There really isn't such a thing as America's crime problem. In any given city in the United States, less than five percent, of street segments will see about 50% of all violent crime. In my home city of New York, for example, a minimum of 95% of all shooting victims every single year are either black or Hispanic. Almost all of them are males. And I can assure you that blacks and Hispanics do not constitute anywhere near 95% of New York City's population. So when we talk about these crime rises, we have to do it, I think, with the explicit recognition that this problem disproportionately affected low-income,

minority communities that we're already dealing with enough social problems. And so, you know, that, I think, to me, really just makes this an even more urgent problem to solve, at least if you accept, or especially if you accept the sort of framework that a lot of progressive reformers tend to operate within, and that's viewing these public policy problems through the lens of racial equity. And just so I understand, you're talking specifically about the policies of decarceration and depolicing in terms of having a disproportionate impact on those low-income or black and Hispanic communities? Yep, that's exactly right.

I mean, when you read, you know, a news article about some, you know, drive-by shooting that wounded five people at a graduation party in a, you know, low-income minority neighborhood, when an arrest is made, it almost invariably turns out to be the case that the individual charge with that crime has, you know, 10, 15, 20 prior arrest, was out on probation, was out on parole was out on pretrial release, right? The sort of policies that allow individuals who, through their conduct, have made very, very clear that they don't intend to play by society's rules, when the system allows them to find their way back out into the street time and again after they've been arrested, that is going to minimize the incapacitation benefits that society enjoys from the

incarceration of those individuals. And again, those individuals are not going to just spend their time evenly across an entire city. They're largely going to spend the vast majority of their time in the neighborhoods in which they live, in the neighborhoods in which crime concentrates, and that's who's going to pay the price for these things. And so I open up the book by telling a story about a shooting video that I had watched in 2019. It shows the murder of a woman named Brittany Hill on the west side of Chicago. And broad daylight drive-by shooting. She's caught in the crossfire. I don't think she was the intended target. She was holding a one-year-old daughter at the time that she was shot. So this little girl just nearly missed being wounded herself, turns to shield her daughter, gets about maybe 10 feet

before she collapses, with her daughter still clinging to her, and then bleeds out in the middle of the street as the shooting continues. And now, the shooting was captured on video. It was a Chicago Police Department surveillance camera that had been installed in that neighborhood. And because it was caught on video, the police were able to make an arrest relatively quickly. And one of individuals charged with that shooting was a guy named Michael Washington who had nine prior felony convictions, was out on parole. God knows how many prior arrests he had. One of his felony convictions was for second-degree murder. So when you talk about, you know, reducing the prison population to achieve parity with other Western European democracies, which, by the way, would

require the U.S. to cut our incarceration rate by about 70 to 80 percent, you're talking about releasing people like that who have very, very high likelihoods of reoffending and reoffending violently. And that is a gamble that purveyors of this kind of policy program are taking with the lives of people who live in neighborhoods that oftentimes these reformers wouldn't dare live in themselves. George Soros, as you know, has invested his fortune to elect what he calls reform prosecutors or what my Heritage Foundation colleagues call rogue prosecutors.

What are some of Soros's goals and why are they so problematic? Yeah, I mean, I think Soros shares the goal of pursuing racial equity through criminal justice reform by making incarceration less likely, by raising the transaction costs of policing in a community. We've seen, you know, him by his own admission, you know, he just published a piece in the Wall Street Journal defending his support of quote unquote reform prosecutors. You know, he has engaged in a campaign of electing individuals to office and DA's offices and county attorney. these offices, who have been very explicit in their goal not to prosecute certain offenses to essentially abrogate duly enacted laws and to not seek pre-child detention in certain kinds of cases as a matter of policy, to support parole in certain cases as a matter of policy, or to prohibit prosecutors from opposing parole.

So the basic idea, I think, that motivates Soros and a lot of people who agree with him, is that the U.S. incarcerates far too much, and therefore everything needs to be done within our control to make that a less likely outcome of involvement with the criminal justice system. The problem, though, is that he is not looking at the other side of the ledger. He does not seem to fully appreciate what the benefits are associated with incarcerating people who are likely to reoffend. And, you know, this is something that I called him out for after he wrote his piece in the Wall Street Journal.

I wrote a piece responding to him in City Journal. you know, he, I also think is very much motivated by this, you know, sort of racial equity argument, this idea that overrepresentation, at least compared to the proportion of the population constituted by certain minority communities, is a problem in and of itself. It's prima facie evidence of racial animus built into the system. And so to the degree that that exists, we need to undo that reality by essentially dismantling the system's ability to put people behind bars, even in the cases where that makes sense.

One of the problems with this is that it again pretends that the only outputs of the criminal justice system that matter are those with respect to enforcement statistics. And this is, I think, a major flaw in the systemic racism argument as to the criminal justice system because what it fails to recognize is that there's another side of the ledger. If the idea is that the criminal justice system was designed, and is operated to the specific detriment of low-income minority communities. The question becomes, why on earth is it the case that when the system works as the people at the system's helm say it's designed to work, i.e., when it achieves crime declines,

that the people that benefit are also low-income minority community members. There's a study that I cite in the book done by a criminologist named Patrick Sharkey, who I often probably part ways with on policy questions. But he does an analysis of the homicide decline between 1990 and 2014. He finds that it adds a full year of life expectancy to the average black men in America while only adding 0.14 years of life expectancy to the average white men in America. Now, you ask any police chief in the country, and prior to the progressive prosecuting movement, most prosecutors in the country,

and ask them what their goal is they would have told you to reduce crime. Well, when that happens, it's not rich white, white, communities that benefit. We know this from the data. And so that is a really important incongruity that my book highlights that I think pokes a big hole in the systemic racism critique that I think animates a lot of people like Soros to engage in the kind of decarceration and dep policing projects that we've seen become popular over the last few years. Given what you just have said and the tragic consequences that result, are you surprised that some politicians, including those running for office today, continue to advocate for

decarceration and depolicing? I'm not terribly surprised a couple reasons. One, I don't think that they see themselves as politically vulnerable on the crime front, at least with respect to the racial equity question. But I also think some of them sincerely believe that you can reduce crime without having to turn to the heavy hands of the criminal justice system. And this is something that I anticipated in my book as a retort, and it's one of the reasons why the second half of the first chapter is dedicated to pushing back on this root cause

argument. But I think a lot of people who are on the fringes of the reform movement and actually now very much in the mainstream of the reform movement, I think they sincerely believe that crime is really just a function of a lack of investment. that if you know you just threw more money into you know anti-poverty programs that that would solve our crime problem that you know that the violent crime is largely a function of you know socioeconomic inequality and I just don't think that is the case I don't think the data support that argument and I make that case early on in the book in part to kind of preempt this this

retort but you know take my home city of New York for example and just like look at 1989 in 2016. The reason I'm picking these two years is because 1989 is the year that preceded New York City's peak for homicides, which was in 1990. We saw 2,262 killings that year. And 2016 is the year that preceded our Valley homicide number, which is 292. So over that period, we reduce homicides more than 90%. And if you look at the poverty rate in New York City, it didn't change almost at all. In fact, it moved slightly in the wrong direction. So poverty gets slightly worse, yet we're able to reduce homicides by nearly 90%. What that tells you is that even to the extent that measures like poverty or unemployment

or income inequality are associated with higher rates of crime, we don't have to wait to figure out a way to solve one of society's most intractable problems in order to provide people with the public safety that they desperately need. We know this because we've done it before without actually doing any of that. But if you look at the Great Recession, for example, 2006 to 2010, the unemployment rate in the United States nearly doubles. The homicide rate declines by 15%. We didn't see a huge spike in homicides during the Great Depression. We did see homicides go up significantly in the 1920s, which is a period of economic boom. And so, you know, the idea that we should just wait and see

if we can solve poverty, if we can solve inequality, which is, again, a problem that is just endemic to human existence, right? It's something that's a common denominator across societies, across human history. The idea that we need to do that in order to get crime under control is, I think, misguided. And it distracts us from the important reality, which is that there are things we can do today to make street safer. Raphael, how did your own experiences shape your thinking and inspire you to do the research that led to the book? Yeah, I mean, I think it was a few things. You know, my father was an NYPD detective.

And so I kind of grew up around law enforcement. And I think, you know, that allowed me to develop. a healthy respect for that institution over the years, you know, over my formative years. But, you know, when I got to college, that was when I really was confronted with this kind of vitriolic opposition to these institutions that I had always intuitively understood to be sort of central to a functioning society. And I found myself really just at odds with what a lot of my professors were telling me. And that was when I started kind of doing a lot of the research. And the more research I did, the more, you know, I started to see that what my own experiences told me was actually true.

I mean, my family was fortunate enough to be able to move me and my sister out to a Long Island suburb from Brooklyn, New York in the middle of the 1990s at a time in which crime was really a daily concern. But I realized through that experience and through staying connected with people who didn't have that fortune, that, you know, that was. a privilege of mine. And, you know, that really, I think, helped me fully appreciate the inequity with respect to the risk of victimization. My wife is from the west side of Chicago, and, you know, we have family that live in neighborhoods that are really struggling with serious violent crime. You know, we were in my last year of law school caught in the middle of a shooting. We actually witnessed a shooting in the middle of the street, broad daylight, bullets literally flying past our car. Now, this was a neighborhood that we barely spent any

time and only we were going to visit family, and yet we were still nearly victimized in that way. So imagine, you know, what it must be like to live in a community that sees gun violence on a daily basis. And that is really, I think, at the root of why I wanted to write this book. I mean, it just seemed to me like the victims of crime didn't really have a consistent voice that was making the case against the kind of misguided ideas that was going to make their daily life less safe. Well, thank you for doing that.

But on that note, are you hopeful that America will return to traditional crime control measures, perhaps as a result of the information that you're presenting or the work that others are doing in this field? I mean, I certainly wrote the book with the goal of influencing the debate in that direction. I don't think in the short term I'm very optimistic about where we're headed, unfortunately. I think part of that is just because things have been moving in this direction for some time now. and, you know, the reform movement may have lost a little momentum, but not really. And I think that actually tells us a lot more. I mean, I think back to New York City in 1993, Mayor Giuliani barely won that race by the skin of his teeth,

even though, you know, New York was seeing close to 2,000 murders a year. And so that was, I think, you know, indicative of just how bad things really needed to get before there was a kind of round backlash. Now, I will say that my hope is that every time the pendulum swings past the point of equilibrium, that it doesn't go as far as it did the last time and therefore comes back to the center much more quickly. So I don't think we'll have to wait as long this time around, but I do think we're some time away before people are really fed up with the kind of direction that lots of cities have been moving in. What are things that we as individual citizens can do to combat either the myths about our criminal justice system or maybe, we take action either locally with our own law enforcement agencies to make sure that they are

responsive to some of the concerns that we have as citizens, particularly if there are individuals or listeners who are living in high crime areas? Yeah, I mean, I think getting involved with your local police department, a lot of police departments in American cities across the country will hold, you know, monthly precinct level meetings where you can go and voice your concerns about crime there. You know, engage with your local representatives. I think a lot of the momentum of the criminal justice reform movement, particularly its more radical wing, owes to the fact that a lot of people just kind of been passive. They have pushed back, I think partly because, again, the vast majority of people live in communities that are as safe as the safest places in the world.

And so crime's just not a daily concern for them. I think to me, one of the most important things that we could do to probably hasten the process of getting us back in the direction. of sane criminal justice policy is to make more data available to help us illustrate what the problems actually are. I mean, it's crazy to me that in so many cities, we can't say for certain, for example, how many arrests on average the typical homicide suspect has, that we can't say what percentage of that city's crime is committed by people out on probation, out on parole, out on pretrial release. How does that compare to recent years? I mean, you know, making this data available will allow the narratives to be interrogated more thoroughly and more accurately and in a more

objective way. And that, I think, will advance the conversation more quickly and get us to a sounder place. At least that's my hope. Rafael, as we wrap up here, how can our listeners follow your work and the policing and public safety initiative at the Manhattan Institute? Well, you can go to Manhattan-institute.org. You can sign up for our Manhattan Institute daily emails for our policing and public safety initiative update emails. You can follow me and my colleagues on Twitter. I'm at Rafa underscore Mengual. You know, follow people like Hannah Myers,

our director of the policing and public safety initiative, Charles Fane Lehman, who's a fellow here, Robert Verrugan. You know, lots of really just great minds doing a lot of important work. And, you know, again, this is just, it's a topic that's near and dear to our hearts. It's something that we understand to be public safety is something I think we understand to be necessary, a necessary condition for a dynamic urban economy. And it's what motivates us to do the kind of work that we do and to do it in a level-headed way.

So I hope, you know, your listeners will engage with our work. And I hope, you know, maybe they'll start with my book. Well, Raphael, we know that the Manhattan Institute has a long track record of success when it comes to these policies. policy issues. And so we're thankful to you for writing the book. Again, it's called Criminal Injustice, what the push for decarceration and depolicing gets wrong and who it hurts most. We thank you for writing it, for doing this interview and presenting some common sense, I think, which hopefully our policymakers will take to heart as they consider the policies that impact our criminal justice system here in the United States. Thank you so much for joining

us on the Daily Signal podcast. Thank you so much for having me. At the Heritage Foundation, we believe that every single policy issue discussed in D.C. tells a story. So we want to tell it well. On the Heritage Explains podcast, co-host Tim Decher and Michelle Cordero, take one policy issue a week, mix in a creative blend of clips, narration, and hard-hitting interviews to equip you on crucial issues in under 20 minutes. So get your story straight. Subscribe to Heritage Explains wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for sending us your letters to the editor.

Each Monday, we feature our favorites on this show. Virginia, who's up first? In response to my recent Parliamentic Women podcast interview with Carmen Maria Montiel about the similarities between Venezuela and America, Carol writes, Dear Daily Signal, thank you for the interview with Carmen, very eye-opening. I wish more people would realize what is happening to our country as she can see it. Those who are from a foreign country who choose to live here see what they moved away from. We have an employee from Venezuela who states the very same things as she talks about.

God help us. Thank you again. And in response to Thomas Spor's tribute to Dr. Peter Pry, Thomas Pat Egbert's writes, I just felt the need to drop a note and thank General Spore for the article noting the passing of Dr. Peter Pry. It was so well written and empathetic. Dr. Pry was truly a pioneer in the EMP field and will be missed. Your letter could be featured on next week's show. So send us an email at Letters at DailySignal.com.

The Heritage Foundation takes the field on offense with their young leaders program. I'm Evelyn Homily from Hillsdale College. I'm Harrison Stewart from the University of Virginia. I'm a journalism intern with the Daily Signal. I'm a digital productions intern and communications. For spring, summer, and fall semesters, the Heritage Foundation hosts undergraduate and postgraduate interns right here in the nation's capital to train our country's future conservative leaders.

As a daily signal intern, I've had the opportunity to cover exciting events here in D.C. and work in a fast-paced environment with some of the conservative movement's best journalists. In YLP, interns are on the cutting edge of the conservative movement, attending exclusive briefings from heritage experts, members of Congress, and movement leaders fighting for the fate of our country. It's been exciting connecting with big names in the political. world and better understanding our nation's greatest threats. If you want to go on offense with other passionate, dedicated conservatives, go to heritage.org slash intern to learn more about the young leaders

program. Virginia, you have a good news story to share with us today. Over to you. Thanks so much, Rob. What began as a tragic situation for Lieutenant Randy Sutton ultimately became a mission to serve wounded police officers across America, a mission that has affected the lives of of over 13,000 men and women. Since the time he was a young man, Randy Sutton knew he wanted to be a cop. He entered the police force in his hometown of Princeton, New Jersey, when he was just 19 years old, before he was even legally old enough to buy bullets for his gun. So here I am getting ready to go into the New Jersey State Police Academy,

and I had to ask my mom to go buy my bullets for me. Sutton served with the Princeton Police Department for 10 years, before he moved across the country and joined the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. During the 24 years Sutton was on the force in Las Vegas, he survived four shootings. But his career came to a screeching halt. One night when he was out on patrol in the Las Vegas strip around 2.30 in the morning, while driving with another officer in the passenger seat of the squad car, Sutton suffered a stroke. I stopped the police car in the middle of the road, got out of the car in case he needed to get me

the hospital and then I started speaking gibberish and I knew I was speaking gibberish I couldn't control it though and then I lost the ability to speak altogether and then lost the ability to move and crumpled to the pavement absolutely helpless and it was the most frightening moment of my life in all reality I was not afraid of dying but I was afraid of living like that trapped And it's a nightmare that still haunts me to this day. But as Sutton told me, the nightmare didn't end there. After being rushed to the hospital and receiving medical care and making a full recovery, he learned that his police department was refusing to pay his medical bills.

I was shocked. I said, you have to pay my medical bills. This is a statutory workers' comp injury. And they said, yeah, well, but we're not going to pay. Sutton hired a lawyer and after a year of litigation, the police department finally paid his medical bills. Sadly, Sutton began to learn that his story was not that unique. Lieutenant Sutton is known in the police community because he has appeared in some TV shows and movies and written books. When Sutton shared his own story, other officers began reaching out and telling him about experiences they had of their departments not covering medical bills.

He had conversation after conversation with officers who felt abandoned by their departments. Every single one of these communications ended with something along the lines of, I feel forgotten, I feel abandoned, I feel alone. As Sutton heard the stories of other officers, he began doing research to see if there was an organization that offered practical and emotional support to police officers injured in the line of duty. But after discovering that no such national organization existed, Sutton decided to start his own. So three and a half years ago, the Wounded Blue was founded. The Wounded Blue is a nonprofit on a mission to improve the lives of injured and disabled law enforcement officers through support, education, assistance, and legislation. But out of everything the pro-law enforcement organization does,

Sutton says their most critical work is building community among wounded officers. Peer support is essential to what our mission is. As I told you that almost every one of those communications that I had and still have with cops from around the country that are injured, is that feeling of abandonment, that feeling of loneliness. And so our motto is really important. It's never forgotten, never alone. And that's the most important part of our mission is to let these men and women know that they don't have to walk this journey alone, that others that have experienced it will walk it with them. To date, the Wounded Blue has served more than 13,000 injured men and women.

Sutton says sometimes the injuries are physical, but oftentimes officers struggle with PTSD and need help recovering from trauma. One of the ways Sutton and his team at the Wounded Blue are serving our law enforcement is through a partnership with another excellent nonprofit called Camp Patriot. Camp Patriot is a 250-acre ranch in Montana for wounded and struggling special forces officers. But the camp has just recently opened its doors to the Wounded Blue. Now, wounded officers who need a place to rest have a little fun and experience support from those who have walked in. in their shoes will be given the opportunity to spend five days at Camp Patriot. This is just another avenue, another tool in our tool belt, if you will, to bring comfort to our population of injured and disabled officers.

For Sutton, he says that there is no greater reward than coming alongside wounded officers supporting them and watching the transformation in their lives. I can't tell you, though, how gratifying it is that, you know, when you hear from someone that was literally on the precipice of suicide, and a year later after, after, you know, being involved with my organization, the Wounded Blue, they are an entirely different, healthy person. If you want to support the work of the Wounded Blue or just learn more, you can visit the Woundedblue.org. Virginia, thanks so much for sharing. We're going to leave it there for today. You can find the Daily Signal podcast and the Rurkissue audio network.

All of our shows are available at dailysignal.com slash podcasts. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, or your favorite podcast app. If you like what you hear, please leave us a review and a five-star rating. It means a lot to us and helps us spread the word to other listeners. And be sure to follow us on. Twitter at DailySignal and Facebook.com slash the DailySignal News. Make it a great day or not. The choice is yours. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation.

The executive producers are Rob Blewey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen, Doug Blair, and Samantha Rank. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.