On this episode of News World. In two thousand and seven, Texas was faced with a crisis of overcrowded prisons and a projected two billion dollar demand. To remedy this problem, Right on Crime, part of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, supported an investment of two hundred and forty one million dollars into alternative sentencing, expanded access to parole, and evidence based programs aimed at improving the success rate for those re entering society or on supervision. As a result, eleven prisons closed while simultaneously reducing crime to the lowest level since the nineteen sixties. Instead of spending two billion dollars, Texas saved four billion dollars. So I'm really pleased to welcome my guests. Brett Tolman, executive director of Right on Time. Brett, welcome and thank you for joining me in News World.

On this episode of News World. In two thousand and seven, Texas was faced with a crisis of overcrowded prisons and a projected two billion dollar demand. To remedy this problem, Right on Crime, part of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, supported an investment of two hundred and forty one million dollars into alternative sentencing, expanded access to parole, and evidence based programs aimed at improving the success rate for those re entering society or on supervision. As a result, eleven prisons closed while simultaneously reducing crime to the lowest level since the nineteen sixties. Instead of spending two billion dollars, Texas saved four billion dollars. So I'm really pleased to welcome my guests. Brett Tolman, executive director of Right on Time. Brett, welcome and thank you for joining me in News World.

Thank you, mister speaker. Great to be with you.

Thank you, mister speaker. Great to be with you.

Before we get into Right on Crime, You've actually had a very interesting legal career. Could you walk us kind of through all the different things you've done.

Before we get into Right on Crime, You've actually had a very interesting legal career. Could you walk us kind of through all the different things you've done.

People ask me how I did what I did, but I think I was more lucky than good. But I came out of law school as a federal prosecutor for about a decade, and then I wanted to go back to Washington, d C. And I served as counsel and then ultimately chief counsel over crime and terrorism in the United States Senate and got to see how laws were made, but also to see the challenges as I worked on national security issues and got to see things like interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, all kinds of interesting things. And then President Bush was kind enough to make me the US attorney in Utah, and I did that for about four years. And the last case I did in the courtroom as a trial lawyer was prosecuting the kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart, which I'm very proud that he's not on the streets, as I think he would harm individuals if he were out. And that was my journey, I guess through the criminal justice system, and I became a prosecutor because as a young kid, my oldest sister was kidnapped and raped in college. Just a devastating moment for our family. And I'm happy to say that she's doing terrific today and a wonderful mother. What a traumatic thing, and I think that inspired me to be a prosecutor, and I was going to try to find bad guys and put him in jail. But here I am now twenty five years in the criminal justice system, and I'm actually fighting for changes in the criminal justice system because we have done a poor job. Our recidivism rate is seventy plus percent still, and that to me, is a measure of failure in any corporate or government standard we might apply.

People ask me how I did what I did, but I think I was more lucky than good. But I came out of law school as a federal prosecutor for about a decade, and then I wanted to go back to Washington, d C. And I served as counsel and then ultimately chief counsel over crime and terrorism in the United States Senate and got to see how laws were made, but also to see the challenges as I worked on national security issues and got to see things like interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, all kinds of interesting things. And then President Bush was kind enough to make me the US attorney in Utah, and I did that for about four years. And the last case I did in the courtroom as a trial lawyer was prosecuting the kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart, which I'm very proud that he's not on the streets, as I think he would harm individuals if he were out. And that was my journey, I guess through the criminal justice system, and I became a prosecutor because as a young kid, my oldest sister was kidnapped and raped in college. Just a devastating moment for our family. And I'm happy to say that she's doing terrific today and a wonderful mother. What a traumatic thing, and I think that inspired me to be a prosecutor, and I was going to try to find bad guys and put him in jail. But here I am now twenty five years in the criminal justice system, and I'm actually fighting for changes in the criminal justice system because we have done a poor job. Our recidivism rate is seventy plus percent still, and that to me, is a measure of failure in any corporate or government standard we might apply.

Well, can you talk about the federal supervisor release program.

Well, can you talk about the federal supervisor release program.

It's really fascinating to me that you take, for example, in the federal system, every individual that gets out of prison is supervised for roughly five years, and it's an inordinate amount of money that's devoted to supervision. And right now, there is, however, data and research that shows if you supervise folks longer than eighteen months, you actually can increase their recidivism. I tell people all the time, I don't want the left making changes to the criminal justice system. They don't do it right. They don't do it based on data and research and what works, like you referenced in Texas. They do it based on emotion. They'll call for defunding the police, or they'll call for whatever drastic change supervision It's one of the last remaining issues up on Capitol Hill where both sides are saying, hey, let's incentivize them like we did in the first step back. If they'll do what they're supposed to, then we can shorten their term of supervision and it'll reduce crime, and it'll give them the hope and opportunity to do the things they're supposed to. Get jobs, go to school, work on their family and their well being.

It's really fascinating to me that you take, for example, in the federal system, every individual that gets out of prison is supervised for roughly five years, and it's an inordinate amount of money that's devoted to supervision. And right now, there is, however, data and research that shows if you supervise folks longer than eighteen months, you actually can increase their recidivism. I tell people all the time, I don't want the left making changes to the criminal justice system. They don't do it right. They don't do it based on data and research and what works, like you referenced in Texas. They do it based on emotion. They'll call for defunding the police, or they'll call for whatever drastic change supervision It's one of the last remaining issues up on Capitol Hill where both sides are saying, hey, let's incentivize them like we did in the first step back. If they'll do what they're supposed to, then we can shorten their term of supervision and it'll reduce crime, and it'll give them the hope and opportunity to do the things they're supposed to. Get jobs, go to school, work on their family and their well being.

You know, we should have explained everybody. The recidivism is the rate at which people go back to prison. So if you can reduce recidivism, you're reducing the number of prisoners you have because they're not breaking the law. Then, So this is something I originally got tied into by Chuck Colson, who had served time in prison coming out of Watergate, and who had become totally committed to faith based models and to thinking through how do we take somebody who has broken the law, help them change their life, and help them prepare to live once they left prison without ever going back. Now I am curious for a second, what's your theory of why is it that after eighteen months supervision actually becomes destructive.

You know, we should have explained everybody. The recidivism is the rate at which people go back to prison. So if you can reduce recidivism, you're reducing the number of prisoners you have because they're not breaking the law. Then, So this is something I originally got tied into by Chuck Colson, who had served time in prison coming out of Watergate, and who had become totally committed to faith based models and to thinking through how do we take somebody who has broken the law, help them change their life, and help them prepare to live once they left prison without ever going back. Now I am curious for a second, what's your theory of why is it that after eighteen months supervision actually becomes destructive.

I think It's a number of factors, but it really boils down to two things. One, the likelihood of minor infractions increases. And when I say minor, you know, when you're in supervision, you have to check in with your supervising agent. You have certain things you can and can't do, you can't travel out of your jurisdictions. All of those things can cause a violation to occur. So you have an exponentially higher chance as they get back into regular life to make a minor infraction, which then they can be revoked on their supervision and brought back in. The Other issue is it is incredibly exhausting. Most of the individuals that you talk to now, keep in mind they've served their sentence in a lot of cases lengthy sentences, so they're out. This supervision is so long that it causes quite the discouragement and frustration, and they are always constantly feeling like people are looking over their shoulders. It's conservative states who have taught us this. It's states like Oklahoma and Georgia and Mississippi that have shortened their shortening their supervision and getting better results.

I think It's a number of factors, but it really boils down to two things. One, the likelihood of minor infractions increases. And when I say minor, you know, when you're in supervision, you have to check in with your supervising agent. You have certain things you can and can't do, you can't travel out of your jurisdictions. All of those things can cause a violation to occur. So you have an exponentially higher chance as they get back into regular life to make a minor infraction, which then they can be revoked on their supervision and brought back in. The Other issue is it is incredibly exhausting. Most of the individuals that you talk to now, keep in mind they've served their sentence in a lot of cases lengthy sentences, so they're out. This supervision is so long that it causes quite the discouragement and frustration, and they are always constantly feeling like people are looking over their shoulders. It's conservative states who have taught us this. It's states like Oklahoma and Georgia and Mississippi that have shortened their shortening their supervision and getting better results.

It's ironic the liberal states are refusing to put people in jail, and so they put violent criminals back on the street. The conservative states put people in jail, but then if they behave correctly, they get them out of jail. It's the opposite of all you would think. And it turns out that the liberal approach to not pay attention to criminals, like New York, to have no bail, to allow people back on the street for the twenty fifth or thirtieth time, that model doesn't work. But a model that says we are going to lock you up, you are going to serve your time, but then we're going to help you re enter society seems to have a pretty dramatically different effect.

It's ironic the liberal states are refusing to put people in jail, and so they put violent criminals back on the street. The conservative states put people in jail, but then if they behave correctly, they get them out of jail. It's the opposite of all you would think. And it turns out that the liberal approach to not pay attention to criminals, like New York, to have no bail, to allow people back on the street for the twenty fifth or thirtieth time, that model doesn't work. But a model that says we are going to lock you up, you are going to serve your time, but then we're going to help you re enter society seems to have a pretty dramatically different effect.

Yeah, and mister speaker, I could not say it better. I think your voice is so important on this. But you and others who understand that. But there's a role of redemption in the criminal justice system that's been lost in a lot of areas, and especially lost and are blue left, you know, liberal cities. They believe there should not be any accountability, and so if there's no accountability, you never have to think about redemption. But there should be accountability and people should be unnoticed that we don't allow law breakers in this country, but we will provide you to move beyond your worst day or your worst decisions if you'll apply yourself and we give them opportunities. If you don't give them those opportunities, then there's no redemption. And I'm fascinated by things like Boston. Right now, in Boston, they've only had two homicides. That is such a large, major city. It's eighty two percent down from where it was just a couple of years ago.

Yeah, and mister speaker, I could not say it better. I think your voice is so important on this. But you and others who understand that. But there's a role of redemption in the criminal justice system that's been lost in a lot of areas, and especially lost and are blue left, you know, liberal cities. They believe there should not be any accountability, and so if there's no accountability, you never have to think about redemption. But there should be accountability and people should be unnoticed that we don't allow law breakers in this country, but we will provide you to move beyond your worst day or your worst decisions if you'll apply yourself and we give them opportunities. If you don't give them those opportunities, then there's no redemption. And I'm fascinated by things like Boston. Right now, in Boston, they've only had two homicides. That is such a large, major city. It's eighty two percent down from where it was just a couple of years ago.

What seems to have done that.

What seems to have done that.

I've been digging into it, and they're taking a faith based approach. They're using members of the community and faith based membership to actually intervene with their juveniles, to step in let them know they know about some crimes that they've committed, and if they don't change their ways, then they will pursue them. And so they're almost giving them a form of redemption prior to and they're noticing that these crimes are going down. I contrast that to what we see in New York and Chicago and other areas where they don't want to arrest anyone. And I think to myself, that truly is the definition of insanity at play right before our eyes. They're doing the same thing that they've been doing, and they're expecting different results. The violence is rising and they're not redeeming any.

I've been digging into it, and they're taking a faith based approach. They're using members of the community and faith based membership to actually intervene with their juveniles, to step in let them know they know about some crimes that they've committed, and if they don't change their ways, then they will pursue them. And so they're almost giving them a form of redemption prior to and they're noticing that these crimes are going down. I contrast that to what we see in New York and Chicago and other areas where they don't want to arrest anyone. And I think to myself, that truly is the definition of insanity at play right before our eyes. They're doing the same thing that they've been doing, and they're expecting different results. The violence is rising and they're not redeeming any.

Of their youth.

Of their youth.

Hi campaigned with Juliani back when he ran for mayor, and he took a city which had an enormous murder rate and lowered it every single year and ultimately created one of the safest cities in the world. And we knew how to do it. Mayor Bloomberg came along, sustained the Giuliani policies. They continued to work. The murder rate continued to decline, and then liberals took over and within three years they had gotten rid of every single thing which worked, and the crime rate went back up. The city got to be worse. You got to be more, frankly, much less safe. It's sort of like you try to teach children it's okay to touch the stove once, but you ought to learn that it's hot, and these folks they don't seem capable of learning.

Hi campaigned with Juliani back when he ran for mayor, and he took a city which had an enormous murder rate and lowered it every single year and ultimately created one of the safest cities in the world. And we knew how to do it. Mayor Bloomberg came along, sustained the Giuliani policies. They continued to work. The murder rate continued to decline, and then liberals took over and within three years they had gotten rid of every single thing which worked, and the crime rate went back up. The city got to be worse. You got to be more, frankly, much less safe. It's sort of like you try to teach children it's okay to touch the stove once, but you ought to learn that it's hot, and these folks they don't seem capable of learning.

I think that's a perfect historical reference that is really tragic, and so much credit is deserved by Mayor Giuliani. And he was a former US attorney and he was a federal prosecutor, and there's many of us out there that have realized we want to be tough on crime. We should be tough on crime as a country. But if that doesn't mean lowering your crime rates and reducing your recidivism, then you're not really tough on. To me, it's another chapter of the weaponization of our justice system. What's happening in these liberal cities, because what they're saying is, because it's politically expedient, I'm going to send out a message to my community, for example in San Francisco, We're not going to prosecute these certain types of crimes. And once they send that out, boom, all of a sudden, massive rise in those types of crimes, and the population is getting tired of it. The people that it hurts the most, though, are our minority communities, are poorer communities, And that to me is the weaponization of the justice system on a macro level across this country that I sure hope that we're going to reverse. And I'm starting to see some reversals because even some on the left are saying, hey, this is outrageous, we need to stop it.

I think that's a perfect historical reference that is really tragic, and so much credit is deserved by Mayor Giuliani. And he was a former US attorney and he was a federal prosecutor, and there's many of us out there that have realized we want to be tough on crime. We should be tough on crime as a country. But if that doesn't mean lowering your crime rates and reducing your recidivism, then you're not really tough on. To me, it's another chapter of the weaponization of our justice system. What's happening in these liberal cities, because what they're saying is, because it's politically expedient, I'm going to send out a message to my community, for example in San Francisco, We're not going to prosecute these certain types of crimes. And once they send that out, boom, all of a sudden, massive rise in those types of crimes, and the population is getting tired of it. The people that it hurts the most, though, are our minority communities, are poorer communities, And that to me is the weaponization of the justice system on a macro level across this country that I sure hope that we're going to reverse. And I'm starting to see some reversals because even some on the left are saying, hey, this is outrageous, we need to stop it.

When the really radical Marxist district attorney in San Francisco became unacceptable. They recalled him with over sixty percent of the vote. You could never have imagined that happening in San Francisco.

When the really radical Marxist district attorney in San Francisco became unacceptable. They recalled him with over sixty percent of the vote. You could never have imagined that happening in San Francisco.

Yeah, that's exactly right. I wish it would have in a few more places.

Yeah, that's exactly right. I wish it would have in a few more places.

I agree.

I agree.

The federal system still has some significant problems in having a system of supervision that isn't working and is actually increasing the rate of people going back to jail. And there is a Safer Supervision Act which is now in Congress. Could you talk a little bit about it, because I think it's a very important concept.

The federal system still has some significant problems in having a system of supervision that isn't working and is actually increasing the rate of people going back to jail. And there is a Safer Supervision Act which is now in Congress. Could you talk a little bit about it, because I think it's a very important concept.

Yeah, it's a remarkable piece, a Safer Supervision Act. There's Bi Parson sponsorship on both the House and the Senate. I mean you have Senator Lee and Senator Cornyan and Senator Coons that are leading the effort. I think Senator Grassley will be a champion of it and a leader of it as well. And then in the House you have Wesley Hunt and Byron Donald's. Why would they be wanting to change criminal justicystem. It's because they absolutely know that you can make improvements and not compromise public safety and the improvements here. What this would do is it says if you get out of prison, if you get a job, and you do what you're supposed to do, and you've served half of your supervision, which is about two years, then we'll give you a presumption you can get off your supervision. And it's interesting, mister speaker, because it's law enforcement that actually brought this to our attention. It's the federal law enforcement officers who said, you know what, we're having to expend an enormous amount of our budget supervising everyone when there are individuals that we know we don't have to supervise that could be off supervision and we could focus on the more dangerous. So we think this bill will actually improve public safety.

Yeah, it's a remarkable piece, a Safer Supervision Act. There's Bi Parson sponsorship on both the House and the Senate. I mean you have Senator Lee and Senator Cornyan and Senator Coons that are leading the effort. I think Senator Grassley will be a champion of it and a leader of it as well. And then in the House you have Wesley Hunt and Byron Donald's. Why would they be wanting to change criminal justicystem. It's because they absolutely know that you can make improvements and not compromise public safety and the improvements here. What this would do is it says if you get out of prison, if you get a job, and you do what you're supposed to do, and you've served half of your supervision, which is about two years, then we'll give you a presumption you can get off your supervision. And it's interesting, mister speaker, because it's law enforcement that actually brought this to our attention. It's the federal law enforcement officers who said, you know what, we're having to expend an enormous amount of our budget supervising everyone when there are individuals that we know we don't have to supervise that could be off supervision and we could focus on the more dangerous. So we think this bill will actually improve public safety.

Well, you know, there's a classic case that someone brought to my attention about dan Niel Lynn Brown, who almost two decades ago, was convicted of drug charges. He served fifteen years and was released under the First Step Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law. He was placed on a ten year of federal supervision, which began in April of twenty twenty. Nearly four years later, Brown has committed zero violations. He's also maintained full time employment as a project manager at a construction company, purchased two homes, and been a devoted father to his five children, but he's still under federal supervision. He's not allowed to travel without approval from his probation officer, which has led him to turn down numerous work opportunities, including what he called a dream job helping ex prisoners turn their lives around, random drug testing and check INDs, with his probation officer taking him away from work and family obligations, even though he poses no public safety risk, Brown remains trapped in an ever expanding government bureaucracy. But under this proposed Safer Supervision Act, he would have a clear path off of supervision. At the halfway point of his term, he would receive guidance on how to request early termination, whether he qualified for presumptive early termination based on his good conduct and compliance, the factors weighed by the court, and the ability to request legal council needed. So you can see in this one human case, how big a difference that the Safer Supervision Act could create. And in your judgment, is this the right direction for the country.

Well, you know, there's a classic case that someone brought to my attention about dan Niel Lynn Brown, who almost two decades ago, was convicted of drug charges. He served fifteen years and was released under the First Step Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law. He was placed on a ten year of federal supervision, which began in April of twenty twenty. Nearly four years later, Brown has committed zero violations. He's also maintained full time employment as a project manager at a construction company, purchased two homes, and been a devoted father to his five children, but he's still under federal supervision. He's not allowed to travel without approval from his probation officer, which has led him to turn down numerous work opportunities, including what he called a dream job helping ex prisoners turn their lives around, random drug testing and check INDs, with his probation officer taking him away from work and family obligations, even though he poses no public safety risk, Brown remains trapped in an ever expanding government bureaucracy. But under this proposed Safer Supervision Act, he would have a clear path off of supervision. At the halfway point of his term, he would receive guidance on how to request early termination, whether he qualified for presumptive early termination based on his good conduct and compliance, the factors weighed by the court, and the ability to request legal council needed. So you can see in this one human case, how big a difference that the Safer Supervision Act could create. And in your judgment, is this the right direction for the country.

Yeah, I think that's a perfect example. Now people come back and they say, well, what about the ones that are really violent? Well, the Safer Supervision Act carves out the exceptions for individuals who are violent, or individuals who need lengthy supervision, those that have victimized children, for example. So this will really get at the heart. And if you ask any prosecutor like myself who spent almost a decade as a federal prosecut or, I did well over a thousand felony cases, I can tell you I know every single one of those defendants that could have taken advantage of this, and I would predict, you know, zero recidivism on many, many, many of those and every prosecutor knows who they are, knows that they wouldn't need to be supervised for three, five, seven, ten years, which is what happens. So it is the right direction because and the First Step AAC proved it. Those that have been receiving programming under the First Step Act. The federal recidivism statistic right now general is forty six percent recidivism rate in the federal system, but under this first step back it falls below ten percent. That is phenomenal. It teaches us that in giving them the right programming, giving them incentive to better themselves actually works.

Yeah, I think that's a perfect example. Now people come back and they say, well, what about the ones that are really violent? Well, the Safer Supervision Act carves out the exceptions for individuals who are violent, or individuals who need lengthy supervision, those that have victimized children, for example. So this will really get at the heart. And if you ask any prosecutor like myself who spent almost a decade as a federal prosecut or, I did well over a thousand felony cases, I can tell you I know every single one of those defendants that could have taken advantage of this, and I would predict, you know, zero recidivism on many, many, many of those and every prosecutor knows who they are, knows that they wouldn't need to be supervised for three, five, seven, ten years, which is what happens. So it is the right direction because and the First Step AAC proved it. Those that have been receiving programming under the First Step Act. The federal recidivism statistic right now general is forty six percent recidivism rate in the federal system, but under this first step back it falls below ten percent. That is phenomenal. It teaches us that in giving them the right programming, giving them incentive to better themselves actually works.

Think about that at a human level. Not only is this saving money for the taxpayer, but that's an enormous number of people who are real acquiring the right to be a free American in a way that is healthy for the whole country. And I think that out of that whole long term effort that Right on Crime really emerged as a national campaign of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Can you take just a minute first and tell us about the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which I've worked with for I think two decades and is an astonishing institution in general, and then let's talk a little bit about Right on Crime.

Think about that at a human level. Not only is this saving money for the taxpayer, but that's an enormous number of people who are real acquiring the right to be a free American in a way that is healthy for the whole country. And I think that out of that whole long term effort that Right on Crime really emerged as a national campaign of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Can you take just a minute first and tell us about the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which I've worked with for I think two decades and is an astonishing institution in general, and then let's talk a little bit about Right on Crime.

Yeah. Absolutely, it's one of the high points of my career, my long career working in the criminal justice system, to work with the Texas Public Policy Foundation. This is men and women of incredible faith and intelligence and work ethic that really just want a better place for their families and for the communities across this country, and so they get involved in all the big issues. But about fifteen years ago they started an organization called Right on Crime. And they started that because they started to recognize that we could make policy changes, we could start to redeem people. And so they started out very humble in a few states and working on a few issues, and then they started working on the national issues like the First Step Act, when I was persuaded by a very persuasive text and to take the helm of right on crime. We've now gone from five states that were in fifteen states. Now we are growing and expanding, and the reason is that we are an organization that can make changes to the criminal justice system without forgetting victims of crime and without compromising public safety. And it's interesting, mister Speaker, we're now seeing I'm getting members of Congress calling me or reaching out and texting me weekly. I'm getting governors across the country that they want to know what are our thoughts, what changes can be made so that we can better our criminal justice system. And it's not just the system we're trying to make better. We're trying to do as you outlined, we're trying to save families. Ninety five percent of everyone that is incarcerated gets out of prison, and we've forgotten that they get out and they've been in worse shape most of the time when they get out than when they went in, and so they recommit crimes and we can do better. We can make them better and part of our community by using faith, by using education and training and really remembering that that's our obligation as brothers and sisters on this earth.

Yeah. Absolutely, it's one of the high points of my career, my long career working in the criminal justice system, to work with the Texas Public Policy Foundation. This is men and women of incredible faith and intelligence and work ethic that really just want a better place for their families and for the communities across this country, and so they get involved in all the big issues. But about fifteen years ago they started an organization called Right on Crime. And they started that because they started to recognize that we could make policy changes, we could start to redeem people. And so they started out very humble in a few states and working on a few issues, and then they started working on the national issues like the First Step Act, when I was persuaded by a very persuasive text and to take the helm of right on crime. We've now gone from five states that were in fifteen states. Now we are growing and expanding, and the reason is that we are an organization that can make changes to the criminal justice system without forgetting victims of crime and without compromising public safety. And it's interesting, mister Speaker, we're now seeing I'm getting members of Congress calling me or reaching out and texting me weekly. I'm getting governors across the country that they want to know what are our thoughts, what changes can be made so that we can better our criminal justice system. And it's not just the system we're trying to make better. We're trying to do as you outlined, we're trying to save families. Ninety five percent of everyone that is incarcerated gets out of prison, and we've forgotten that they get out and they've been in worse shape most of the time when they get out than when they went in, and so they recommit crimes and we can do better. We can make them better and part of our community by using faith, by using education and training and really remembering that that's our obligation as brothers and sisters on this earth.

We know when Chuck ultimately we're tired and then passed away. Pat Nolan, who himself had ended up in prison as an Assembly leader in California, picked up the flag. And I've worked closely with Pat, and part of the reason is the human side. The more people we can help continue to lead a full life, the better. It's stunning to realize that prison systems today cost the States over fifty billion dollars a year, which is up from eleven billion in the mid nineteen eighties. Prisons have been the second fastest growing area of state budgets, trailing only Medicaid, and consumes one in every fourteen general fund dollars. So there's both a practical taxpayer conservative reason to do this, and there's an extraordinarily powerful human reason to do this. And I think that it's really important for us to recognize both sides of that. And I think that the kind of things that you're doing really make the case for a conservative criminal justice reform.

We know when Chuck ultimately we're tired and then passed away. Pat Nolan, who himself had ended up in prison as an Assembly leader in California, picked up the flag. And I've worked closely with Pat, and part of the reason is the human side. The more people we can help continue to lead a full life, the better. It's stunning to realize that prison systems today cost the States over fifty billion dollars a year, which is up from eleven billion in the mid nineteen eighties. Prisons have been the second fastest growing area of state budgets, trailing only Medicaid, and consumes one in every fourteen general fund dollars. So there's both a practical taxpayer conservative reason to do this, and there's an extraordinarily powerful human reason to do this. And I think that it's really important for us to recognize both sides of that. And I think that the kind of things that you're doing really make the case for a conservative criminal justice reform.

And thank you for that in pointing out we have so much work to do, but think about this. One in three Americans has a criminal record now that's one in three you have a criminal record. You know, we went from during the Reagan years there were roughly four to five thousand criminal statutes. There's now well over three hundred thousand criminal statutes and regulations with criminal penalties. And so we give all this money to the criminal justice system, and there is no accountability and virtually no transparency. We need to start holding our criminal justice system accountable so that we can save the fabrics of our community, these individuals. And if we're getting one in three right now with criminal history, that means we need to do better. We can do better, and I want Conservatives to lead on it.

And thank you for that in pointing out we have so much work to do, but think about this. One in three Americans has a criminal record now that's one in three you have a criminal record. You know, we went from during the Reagan years there were roughly four to five thousand criminal statutes. There's now well over three hundred thousand criminal statutes and regulations with criminal penalties. And so we give all this money to the criminal justice system, and there is no accountability and virtually no transparency. We need to start holding our criminal justice system accountable so that we can save the fabrics of our community, these individuals. And if we're getting one in three right now with criminal history, that means we need to do better. We can do better, and I want Conservatives to lead on it.

I had worked with Pat Nolan, with Van Jones, and we organized in the Obama years a national conference on criminal justice reform. And to my delight, my home state governor from Georgia, Governor Nathan Deal, gave the keynoted his son had become a drug judge in Georgia and from his experience in the courts, he said to his father, We're gone about this the wrong way. We're taking people who could be saved and who could spend the rest of their life as good citizens, taking care of their family, working, being taxpayers, and the way we mishandle it, we are now turning them into being isolated from the society and having no future and being a constant drain on the taxpayer while breaking up their ability to take care of and relate to their family. And I was so proud of Nathan Deal for this speech, which I am sure from the standpoint of a typical national liberal was a great shock because here you had this very solid conservative Georgia Republican making the case for compassion, for an intelligent approach for real reform. And I think that's how we have to approach this. And I think that one of the reasons I was so excited to have you join me to talk about this is that I think that right on crime is one of the most important from a human standpoint. The number of lives you will help save is so dramatic that it's really a big deal. That people need to realize that they should contact their House and Senate member and should encourage them to be actively involved and to help pass the Safer Supervision Act. But in addition, they should check in with their state legislators and with their governor and see how their state is dealing with prisoners as they get out, and whether we are maximizing the chance for them to have good lives or we are, in fact putting ourselves in a position where they're going to go right back to jail and continue to be a burden on society. So I think what you're doing is really really important, and I think it's a very important topic for all Amricans to be involved in.

I had worked with Pat Nolan, with Van Jones, and we organized in the Obama years a national conference on criminal justice reform. And to my delight, my home state governor from Georgia, Governor Nathan Deal, gave the keynoted his son had become a drug judge in Georgia and from his experience in the courts, he said to his father, We're gone about this the wrong way. We're taking people who could be saved and who could spend the rest of their life as good citizens, taking care of their family, working, being taxpayers, and the way we mishandle it, we are now turning them into being isolated from the society and having no future and being a constant drain on the taxpayer while breaking up their ability to take care of and relate to their family. And I was so proud of Nathan Deal for this speech, which I am sure from the standpoint of a typical national liberal was a great shock because here you had this very solid conservative Georgia Republican making the case for compassion, for an intelligent approach for real reform. And I think that's how we have to approach this. And I think that one of the reasons I was so excited to have you join me to talk about this is that I think that right on crime is one of the most important from a human standpoint. The number of lives you will help save is so dramatic that it's really a big deal. That people need to realize that they should contact their House and Senate member and should encourage them to be actively involved and to help pass the Safer Supervision Act. But in addition, they should check in with their state legislators and with their governor and see how their state is dealing with prisoners as they get out, and whether we are maximizing the chance for them to have good lives or we are, in fact putting ourselves in a position where they're going to go right back to jail and continue to be a burden on society. So I think what you're doing is really really important, and I think it's a very important topic for all Amricans to be involved in.

Well, thank you, mister speaker. I couldn't have said it better. And I loved watching you, know, your powerful voice and your thoughts on it. And it really takes leaders like yourselves. And you know, I remember Doug Collins and some of the effort that he made, and I now look at Governor Stitt in Oklahoma who said we're going to make changes and we're going to fix this broken criminal justice system, and that to me is heartening because we can comfort ourselves. The politicians, legislators can comfort themselves and pass longer mandatory minimums and think that they're doing something, but in reality, they're not reducing crime, they're not reducing recidivism, and they're certainly not redeeming members of our community. And so let's do that. Let's let the conservatives lead, So we don't have bad policies like no bail and no prosecution prosecutors out there. Let's punish criminals, but let's also save human beings well.

Well, thank you, mister speaker. I couldn't have said it better. And I loved watching you, know, your powerful voice and your thoughts on it. And it really takes leaders like yourselves. And you know, I remember Doug Collins and some of the effort that he made, and I now look at Governor Stitt in Oklahoma who said we're going to make changes and we're going to fix this broken criminal justice system, and that to me is heartening because we can comfort ourselves. The politicians, legislators can comfort themselves and pass longer mandatory minimums and think that they're doing something, but in reality, they're not reducing crime, they're not reducing recidivism, and they're certainly not redeeming members of our community. And so let's do that. Let's let the conservatives lead, So we don't have bad policies like no bail and no prosecution prosecutors out there. Let's punish criminals, but let's also save human beings well.

And if people come to your site right on crime dot Com, learn what you're doing, they can learn about the kind of practical, common sense, proven to work reforms that they can then take to their state, make sure that their state gets in line too, and we could, over the next few years, have a genuine revolution that saves lives, saves families, gives us healthy citizens who've learned their lesson and who are committed to spending the rest of their life being a part of our community in a way that is so much better than the kind of prison centric model that we currently have that's today.

And if people come to your site right on crime dot Com, learn what you're doing, they can learn about the kind of practical, common sense, proven to work reforms that they can then take to their state, make sure that their state gets in line too, and we could, over the next few years, have a genuine revolution that saves lives, saves families, gives us healthy citizens who've learned their lesson and who are committed to spending the rest of their life being a part of our community in a way that is so much better than the kind of prison centric model that we currently have that's today.

I hope they will come to the website right on crime dot com and they'll start to see that it sometimes it doesn't have to be monumental. It doesn't have to be a first step back that gets past. In one jurisdiction, we simply got the prisons to change one policy, one simple policy, and that was to allow individuals that are incarcerated longer phone privileges to talk to their family to reduce recidivism immediately. So sometimes it's the simplest changes that can be made that can improve it. And that's what we look for is good, solid, conservative best practices that are proven to help the criminal just system improve.

I hope they will come to the website right on crime dot com and they'll start to see that it sometimes it doesn't have to be monumental. It doesn't have to be a first step back that gets past. In one jurisdiction, we simply got the prisons to change one policy, one simple policy, and that was to allow individuals that are incarcerated longer phone privileges to talk to their family to reduce recidivism immediately. So sometimes it's the simplest changes that can be made that can improve it. And that's what we look for is good, solid, conservative best practices that are proven to help the criminal just system improve.

At Right on Crime, you have fourteen policy analysts, researchers and legal experts who are working on these things, and you've actually been active already in thirty eight states, so people can turn to you as a real resource in helping them ensure that their stite does the right thing by their citizens and the right thing both for safety and for reintegrating people back to have a full life.

At Right on Crime, you have fourteen policy analysts, researchers and legal experts who are working on these things, and you've actually been active already in thirty eight states, so people can turn to you as a real resource in helping them ensure that their stite does the right thing by their citizens and the right thing both for safety and for reintegrating people back to have a full life.

Yep, perfectly said Brett.

Yep, perfectly said Brett.

I want to thank you for joining me. The work you and your team at Right on Crime are doing is really amazing, and I want to encourage our listeners to learn more about Right on Crime and your efforts by visiting your website at rightoncrime dot com.

I want to thank you for joining me. The work you and your team at Right on Crime are doing is really amazing, and I want to encourage our listeners to learn more about Right on Crime and your efforts by visiting your website at rightoncrime dot com.

Thank you, mister speaker, Thank.

Thank you, mister speaker, Thank.

You to my guests. Brett Tolman. You can learn more about his organization Right on Crime on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtsworld is produced by Gingers three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingrid three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of Newtsworld can sign up for my three free weekly columns at gingisthree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I am Newt Gingrich.

You to my guests. Brett Tolman. You can learn more about his organization Right on Crime on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtsworld is produced by Gingers three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingrid three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of Newtsworld can sign up for my three free weekly columns at gingisthree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I am Newt Gingrich.

This is newts world

This is newts world

Y

Y