We know that the criminal justice system has basically collapsed and given up on actually punishing crime, but where and why did this collapse begin? We ll talk about a document from the DOJ that helps to answer that question, even though most people have never heard about it.
00:00:00.000Today on the Matt Wall Show, we know that the criminal justice system has basically collapsed and given up on actually punishing crime, but where and why did this collapse begin?
00:00:07.640We'll talk about a certain document from the DOJ that helps to answer that question, even though most people have never heard about it.
00:00:12.900Also, the Biden administration is now shutting down Native American museum exhibits for fear that they might be offensive to Native Americans.
00:00:19.480Jay-Z wins an award at the Grammys and spends his thank you speech complaining and giving horrible life advice.
00:00:24.120Plus, a racial justice advocate explains why it's racist to expect black people to show up on time.
00:00:29.540We'll talk about all that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
00:00:32.200So, have you ever browsed an incognito mode?
00:01:00.500It's probably not as incognito as you might think, and why would it be?
00:01:04.040Incognito mode has made big tech companies a fortune by tracking your movements online.
00:01:08.400So, how do you actually make yourself as invisible as possible online?
00:05:57.100The DOJ's manifesto doesn't bother to expand on this point in any way.
00:06:00.680It just, it just says, quote, research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.
00:06:17.220Well, they don't say, at least not in that paragraph.
00:06:18.960Buried in the fine print on the page is a citation to an article by a public policy professor named Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University.
00:06:27.400Now, this is the primary paper the DOJ relies on, along with a couple of others.
00:06:33.340Apparently, Nagin has done the research, and he's realized that criminals don't really care about punishment.
00:09:09.040Apparently, being a professor at Carnegie Mellon, I guess, isn't what it used to be.
00:09:13.480Random people off the street think that your research is incredibly obvious, because it is.
00:09:17.840But, you know, they still get the big research grants and everything to go and compile all this paperwork telling us what everybody already knows.
00:09:23.820But the key part of that segment, for our purposes, is what Daniel Nagin says in the clip.
00:09:28.160He reports that, quote, there's little evidence that making punishments even more severe than they already are has an incremental effect.
00:09:35.680Right away, that's actually a different argument from the one that DOJ is making.
00:09:39.360The DOJ said flat out that, quote, draconian punishments don't deter crime.
00:09:43.300But the argument that this Carnegie Mellon professor is advancing in that clip is that if you make our existing punishments more severe, then they won't deter crime all that much additionally, which are really two different arguments.
00:09:57.180And this little inconsistency confused me enough to look up Nagin's actual paper, the one the DOJ cites in its manifesto on deterrence.
00:10:04.220And in that article, you'll find two claims.
00:10:07.920The first one is the idea he outlines in the video clip that, quote, there's little evidence that increases in the length of the already long prison sentences yield general deterrence effects that are sufficiently large to justify their social and economic costs.
00:10:20.320In other words, he's saying that existing prison sentences are a sufficient deterrent and we don't need to make them longer.
00:10:26.600But afterwards in the paper, Nagin goes on and says pretty much what the DOJ claims.
00:10:30.360He says, quote, I have concluded there is little evidence of a specific deterrent effect arising from the experience of imprisonment compared with the experience of non-custodial sanctions such as probation.
00:10:40.560It's clear that lengthy prison sentences cannot be justified on a deterrence-based crime prevention basis.
00:10:48.320Now, those claims don't follow at all.
00:10:50.000His starting point is that we don't need to make prison sentences longer.
00:10:53.020And somehow, without showing his work, he ends up with a declaration that criminals don't really care about their punishments and whether they're apprehended, as though apprehension without punishment matters to anyone.
00:11:04.640So we might as well just sentence everyone to probation.
00:11:14.800The technical term for this kind of argument from an academic perspective is that it's garbage.
00:11:19.400It's a clearly absurd claim, but it's the basis for the DOJ's entire argument against deterrence.
00:11:28.020This is the document that the DOJ cites to justify its policy of releasing as many criminals as possible, or at least criminals who share the DOJ's politics.
00:11:35.780You know, those are the ones that they tend to prefer.
00:11:39.360So it's hard to overemphasize just how truly bizarre and incredible this is, but it gets weirder.
00:11:44.340So, citing Nagin's research, the DOJ goes on to claim that, quote,
00:11:49.200sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime.
00:11:54.900Again, that's a direct quote from a document produced by the DOJ in 2016.
00:12:00.040Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime.
00:12:05.920And they're saying that because some random Carnegie Mellon professor wrote it down a few years earlier.
00:12:10.800Again, they don't really clarify this point.
00:12:14.480Here's the extent of the DOJ's explanation to a point that's like, should be shocking coming from the DOJ.
00:24:53.300So, okay, so you, you can't have the Native American on the butter box, but you can have anybody, like, if it was just a white woman, it'd be fine?
00:26:38.180Like, if there was an arrowhead, a 180-year-old arrowhead from the Comanche tribe that they found on the Great Plains, you can't even show that.
00:27:01.000Well, you've got to get permission from some Native person.
00:27:02.880You've got to find some woman working in a cubicle, some, like, middle-aged woman working in a cubicle in Iowa somewhere with Native ancestry.
00:27:46.040These are artifacts that have been found and they've been given to the museum.
00:27:49.800And now, it's like, we're saying that random people, because they can supposedly trace their heritage back to people related to that, or they get to decide if anyone gets to look at it, okay?
00:28:03.560And aside from the question of ownership, since when do we allow ethnic groups to have absolute say on how their own history is told?
00:28:15.760And I ask that question, and these days, I think the question itself will seem, like, absurd to some very stupid people, because they'll say, well, of course we should have let them decide.
00:28:57.520You don't get to decide what we say about it, or remember about it, or what artifacts we get to look at, just because you had an ancestor 200 years ago tied to that history, supposedly.
00:29:07.220And the really absurd thing is, you know, they usually say, as the saying usually goes, that the winner gets to write the history book, right?
00:29:17.400Well, we have flipped that completely on its head, because the Indian tribes lost.
00:29:34.980And now we've decided that the losers get to have total control over how their own history is told.
00:29:44.540This is the price we're supposed to pay for the unforgivable white sin of bringing civilization to the new world.
00:29:52.500Because we were supposed to be pleading forgiveness for the fact that we don't all currently live in a world that's 3,000 years in the past, that people are still getting scalped, right?
00:30:03.620And your mother and your daughter could be kidnapped and enslaved by a raiding party at any time.
00:30:10.620Because that's the world that the Indians all lived in, every single one of them.
00:30:13.980Every single one of them, okay, lived in a violent, brutal, warfaring society.
00:30:20.260And our great sin is making sure that we don't live in that world anymore.
00:30:28.100Like, the fact that we all live in a world that none of us would want to live in.
00:31:26.540That's what people, that is basically the claim now.
00:31:29.640And it's so crazy that you can't even hardly put it into words, even though I've been putting it into words for a long time.
00:31:37.620So, and now, for that sin, we've lost the right to look at Indian artifacts in museums.
00:31:45.000You know, and the last thing that I'll say here is that if there are artifacts or exhibits that deal with a certain ethnic group,
00:32:02.580and the people in that ethnic group don't want us to see it, that's all the more reason why we should.
00:32:11.500Because, like, not only should we not give ethnic groups, like, the veto power over what museums say about them and their history,
00:32:20.920but actually, if they want to veto it, that's all the more reason why, like, that's the most important thing we should see in the museum, actually.
00:32:27.520So, if there are Indian groups coming in and saying, oh, no, no, we don't want that, you can't show that, that we can't.
00:32:35.060No, everyone needs to see that, whatever it is.
00:32:37.420Like, whatever it is you're embarrassed about, we should all see it.
00:33:41.320And, of course, I say all that with a certain amount of willful naivete because what I actually realize is happening is that they're not just erasing the history and then leaving a blank space.
00:33:53.400No, the point of erasing it and not letting us talk about it or see it or see it in a museum is so that you can then recreate a different history.
00:34:01.840So the whole, like, the noble savage myth, this sort of, like, idea of Natives that you find in the Pocahontas movie in the 90s, right, totally, a total cartoon, no bearing on reality.
00:35:11.760Tens of thousands of pregnancies have resulted from rape in states where abortion is not a legal option, researchers estimated in a new study.
00:35:17.700In the study published Wednesday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers from Planned Parenthood resound research for reproductive health and academic institutions across the U.S.
00:35:26.720used a combination of federal surveys on crime and sexual violence to estimate that there were about 520,000 rapes that led to 64,565 pregnancies in the time since abortion bans have been enacted in 14 states, ranging by state from 4 to 18 months ago.
00:35:42.580So, this is research done in part by Planned Parenthood.
00:35:48.520I mean, right there, you could just stop.
00:35:50.220Like, any news organization that cites as fact a study on abortion done by Planned Parenthood, an organization that has hundreds of millions of dollars on the line.
00:36:04.580Okay, they have, they have, they stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars every year from abortion.
00:36:13.420And any news organization that uncritically reports on a study from them should be ignored forever.
00:36:20.580And of course, we already know that CNN should be ignored for a lot of other reasons, but, but it gets worse than that, right?
00:36:27.560So, but that's the story, 65,000 pregnancies from rape in states that have outlawed abortion, according to the study.
00:36:33.840And you know what I say about studies.
00:36:36.600Basically, at this point, I would say that nearly every study that makes it into a mainstream media headline is bogus.
00:36:43.760There might be exceptions to that, but it's pretty safe to assume that if you see any headline that ends with the words, study says, or according to new study, just ignore it.
00:37:39.540They simply did something they call a study and the study consisted of inventing numbers and using those invented numbers to invent more numbers.
00:37:52.000And a number of people have looked at, looked into this and exposed the hoax, which again, has been reported by every major media outlet.
00:37:58.620Michael J. New in the National Review has a very good write-up about it.
00:38:01.640So you could go read his piece if you want.
00:38:03.360But the basic point is this, first, the author of this study isn't basing it on actual hard data about rapes and conceptions in those states.
00:38:13.960Instead, he's looking at general figures and just extrapolating how many rapes and conceptions probably took place in those states during this time, theoretically.
00:38:24.200But in order to get to 65,000, he needs to use the highest estimates possible.
00:38:28.620So he starts by using a CDC survey from 2016 that said that 1.4 million women were forcibly raped in that 12-month time span.
00:38:38.220Now, the problem is that that number is 10 times higher than FBI statistics and three or four times higher than the DOJ's statistics on that same subject.
00:38:50.340And as the National Review explains, you know, you have a number of different estimates.
00:39:57.300So you've got your estimate of the number of rapes.
00:40:00.260We need to know how many of these theoretical rapes resulted in conception.
00:40:03.320So the study takes this 1.4 million figure, which is a very high estimate from the CDC in 2016, contradicts what other government agencies have estimated.
00:40:15.180And from there, the study estimates that 12.5% of rapes result in conception, which is also the highest available estimate.
00:40:25.360It's about more than twice as high as what other research has said.
00:40:30.520The other research has put the figure at about 5%, which is also probably high.
00:40:36.440And so from these two arbitrarily chosen, very high estimates, he then declares that 65,000 pregnancies from rape have happened in states with abortions.
00:40:46.860Which, by the way, if these numbers are true, that would mean, as this debunking article explains,
00:40:54.500it would mean that if you extrapolate from there, and you have that many rapes and that many result in conception,
00:41:01.420it would mean that 10% of all abortions nationwide prior to Roe were due to rape.
00:41:07.780But the Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-abortion institute, says that only 1% of all abortions are due to rape.
00:41:14.040So according to the Guttmacher Institute's own figures, this study has multiplied the number of pregnancies from rape by about 10 times.
00:41:51.700Okay, finally I wanted to mention this.
00:41:52.880The Grammys happened a couple nights ago.
00:41:54.880And apparently, all things considered, I guess, I didn't watch it, but it looks like it wasn't a bad,
00:42:01.680wasn't a terrible show as these things go.
00:42:03.880They actually had some real musical performances, I think.
00:42:06.520And as far as I saw on the clip circulating, it actually was like a relatively decent display of actual musical talent at the Grammys, it seems like.
00:47:45.760Not just people in front of the camera, either.
00:47:47.300I mean, at every level of the business, you run into this.
00:47:49.660And naturally, any kind of business where you are around cameras and TVs and stuff, it's going to attract that kind of mentality even more.
00:49:06.760But not a key to success for most people.
00:49:10.040And the thing is, even if you do succeed with that mentality, as Jay-Z has just showed you, you still won't be happy.
00:49:17.620So you might be an exception, and maybe this obsessive need to be recognized does actually.
00:49:23.760Because the other thing is, if on top of that you also have enormous skill and talent and all that, and an ability to focus obsessively on what you want in life, you might still succeed.
00:49:36.300But you'll just, you'll never be happy.
00:50:42.780If the implication of your statement is that we should vote for Trump, but there's no point in voting for him, then I think that's very stupid.
00:51:17.520Because although there's reason to have low confidence that it will get done if Trump is reelected.
00:51:26.900If he's not, and Biden is elected, and those are the only two options, there's zero chance that happens.
00:51:33.680In fact, in fact, with Biden, it's the opposite, where he will go, as we've seen, and tear down existing border structures and not replace them with anything.
00:51:42.320So Biden will actively prevent the border from being enforced.