jhughes4031: What's up guys? Welcome to another episode of the Jesse Hughes show. I'm glad to have you guys here. ⁓ we have a new sponsor now. We are now sponsored by Deus volt lapel pins. If you want a awesome level lapel pin where you can show off your faith, go to Deus volt lapel pins.com and use my promo code Christ family nation to six for a 10 % discount. All right. We've got a great conversation for you guys today. ⁓ We all remember back last at the end of last summer, the incident in Charlotte, North Carolina with Iran, yes, the truth. She was a young woman, a refugee from Ukraine who was here in America and she got brutally murdered by a repeat offender, a criminal who should not have been on our streets, should have been locked up. But because of. Failed policies around the nation, including unfortunately here in North Carolina. He was out on the streets and he took this poor young woman's life. And a question that has been at the forefront of everyone's mind since this incident took place is could this have been prevented? Was this preventable? Here to join us for that is Ken Good. He's an attorney. He works on issues dealing with cash bail. and he is here to have a conversation with us about that topic. Mr. Good, how are you doing today?

Ken W. Good: I'm doing well. Thank you for having me.

jhughes4031: Thank you for coming on. Could you just give our audience a little bit of a background of who you are for some people who might not be familiar with you and what you do?

Ken W. Good: Sure. I am an attorney. I have been an attorney for, I hate to even say, over 35 years. I specialize in bail law. I have written numerous articles across the country on criminal justice reform, bail reform, what is good bail reform, what is bad bail reform. I wrote an article last October about why we should be questioning the FBI statistics that everybody was quoting on why crime was supposedly down. And then 10 days later, the statistics were updated and showing, ⁓ showing that crime was up. So, ⁓ it wasn't because of my article, it was probably just because of timing. ⁓ but it, but I think that underscores that this is an area of the law that I've spent a lot of time in, ⁓ becoming fluent in. and other than that, I'm married and I have two daughters and so I'm a a father of girls, which I think is very different than having a father of boys. ⁓ And looking forward to just having our conversation today.

jhughes4031: there's been, since this incident in Charlotte took place, there's been an increased discussion around bail, around cash bail. There's been debates going back and forth between whether or not we should even abolish it. When it comes to what happened in Charlotte with this young Ukrainian girl and other conversations around the country dealing with how we look at the criminal justice system, where do you think this discussion falls in all of that?

Ken W. Good: Well, think we have, I think that the data shows that about 50, 60, maybe even a little bit more of all crime is being done by a small group of people. You know, it's kind of like a city within a city and it's, you know, a small group of crime city living within amongst us. And I think between the two groups, there's this gray area where people are trying to decide every day about Are we going to be in the crime city or are we going to be in the law and order city? And I think the policies that you're seeing on this is affecting, you know, the crime city, because if we don't hold people accountable, then they're going to see that as a green light to commit more crime, but it also affects the gray area because then those people will say, well, there's not many consequences for these people acting up. So I'm going to join the crime city. So when we hold people accountable, then I think it impacts the crime city, but it impacts the gray area the most. People are like, no, no, if there's going be consequences for it, then I'm going to be in the law and order side of society today. And I think that's where we are missing the boat. These soft on crime policies where we're getting rid of accountability are giving the green light to this city within the city to just wreak havoc on our community. And it also is leading to the gray area, the people between the two law and order people in the crime city going, you know, there's no consequences, so I'm going to join them. And that's how crime increases. And so we can have an impact on that and decrease crime by just doing common sense accountability. And that's what we're not doing with these ⁓ soft on crime policies.

jhughes4031: What would be some examples of some common sense accountability that we can put in place? You know, we hear often about rogue DAs, rogue judges who are soft on crime, but what is it specifically that the average person might not know that they're doing that if we had this accountability in place that we would be able to prevent this?

Ken W. Good: I think the best example would be ⁓ this policy of ⁓ simple release where it goes by different names in different places. Like in New York, would be release on Nobel, California release on Zero Bell, Texas would be released on a personal bond. Those are all examples of simple release where you're only released on your own promise to come back. New York is a great example of that where they make a list of crimes and says, if you're on this list, the judge has no discretion. He has to release you on this. And this kind of like a cookie cutter. We're going to treat everybody the same. So all the cookies look exactly alike, no matter what. And so our organized crime, our, ⁓ career criminals, our, our gangs figure out ways to make millions of dollars off of this because You know, on these low level offenses, we're just going to treat them all the same. We don't look at your criminal history. So if you get arrested for theft, okay, you're going to get released, simple release. Well, what if you have a long history of theft? What if you've got 10 charges pending on theft? You're going to be treated the same way on every one of them because we have tied the hands of the judges. And that's not the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. We're supposed to treat. We're supposed to put the amount of pressure needed to make somebody to turn around. Well, if they've got a long criminal history, they need more pressure than someone who's a first time offender. And these bad policies, which are based on what we need to treat everybody the same, they're getting taken advantage of by our criminal elements. And I think those are great examples of how... ⁓ the bad seeds are seen a way to make money out of the system. And so, you know, how does that get implemented? So in Harris County and Houston, Texas, there's examples of people who failed to show up for court 17 times and they just get re-release on a simple release and without accountability. There's no consequences for their 17 failures to appear.

jhughes4031: 17 times is ridiculous that no healthy society would be allowing that. I do want to get more into this conversation a little bit, but before we do, kind of want to get into the specifics of this example of what happened in Charlotte. So we hear in the news stories a lot that this was somebody who was a repeat offender that he ⁓ had set a long, long history of crime and

Ken W. Good: Yeah.

jhughes4031: You know, you hear this common refrain, this could have been prevented. He shouldn't have been out on the streets from your experience and from what you've observed from this story is, is that sentiment correct? Could this have been prevented? Is this something that with some of these policies that you're talking about, could have kept this from ever even happening and we wouldn't have even known that this was something that could have.

Ken W. Good: Well, I think there's a false narrative on this discussion of this situation specifically. The person was out on bond, but it was for harassing 911. And that's low level offense. He would have never been held in jail for harassing 911. But his long criminal history, if he had been held accountable for that criminal history, you know, the problem he has some mental health issues. So they kept dismissing his criminal cases. Now, the way we're doing mental health right now and with criminal justice reform is we're using that as the king's axe on the criminal case. And unless they commit a severe crime and then we hold them, we kind of ignore the mental health issue then. And so this gentleman has examples that in his past where he's done a crime severe enough where, ⁓ We over, we, we disregarded his mental health issue and we prosecuted the crime and he spent time in prison. But in between those, he had lower level offenses that just got dismissed because of his mental health issues. ⁓ and so if we had not just, just, ⁓ dismissed those cases and we had held him accountable or there had been consequences for those. Even putting him in the ⁓ jail systems because that's where our mental health treatment is coming from now, he would have been in a better place and this crime would not have been committed. And so while I agree that the reason why he was out on bond, I don't think that would have changed, but because of his criminal history, he would have not been on the streets. So I do think that's a valid argument.

jhughes4031: What do you think is the driving factor behind some of this? know, especially since 2020 with the whole George Floyd situation, we've seen an increase in voices calling for criminal justice reform. And that's where some of these policies have started to come from. And when you listen to some of the arguments, you can say, you know, maybe I don't agree with it, but I think there is a little bit of a legitimate grievance there. However, there's also been accusations that a lot of this is being driven by bad actors, nefarious forces, you hear often about these George Soros funded district attorneys. So what do you think is the driving factor here? Is it legitimate concerns about criminal justice? Is it bad actors like George Soros or do you think there's some sort of combination of the two?

Ken W. Good: Well, I think it's a coalition that's getting these things passed in, know, in legislatures. ⁓ and the coalition is made up of different groups and you know, Soros is a big part of it, but there's also what I call the true believers who, ⁓ the true believers who want to do good, but, the problem is the nefarious people, they don't think we should have prisons. They don't think we should have jails, but they don't think we should have criminal laws. And I think they're the ones that are. once the coalition passes, they're the ones in charge. You cannot discount the Soros impact. mean, they're just too well organized. I mean, they have groups that will recruit ⁓ soft on crime DAs. They have groups that will give them a bunch of money. And then they have groups that after they're elected, they put on seminars and they say, here's the policies that you're going to enact, almost a quid pro quo, ⁓ if not a quid pro quo. And they're all soft on crime. The policies that you and I would agree don't work. But then they also give them ⁓ groups that give them pseudo studies that are just cooking the book saying, these policies will make us safer. And then they have their groups that ⁓ have the press releases that will defend or teach them how to sell these policies. And the problem is they're all just, ⁓ it's all just very well organized and very well orchestrated ⁓ and almost collusive. because it doesn't measure, they disregard whether the policies work and ⁓ if you point out that they're not working, just, they never will admit that.

jhughes4031: when it comes to some of these concerns that people bring up from some of people that are trying to do good, ⁓ we would agree some of these propositions aren't They're probably not going to work. probably not good ideas, but what are some ways that maybe we can look at concerns that might be legitimate that we can address in a way that actually will work, that will uphold law and order, but still make sure that we're addressing some of these concerns, whether it be how people are treated, how the system handles these things that would ⁓ uphold justice while also bringing us together as a society in a way. that will not lead to situations like we saw in Charlotte and across the country.

Ken W. Good: You know, I think really, ⁓ I mean, the soft on crime policies are stuff that I think are just terrible. And it's kind of hard to find a compromise with the other side when they'll never admit that what they're proposing doesn't work, even after you have all this evidence. So it's kind of hard to come up with a compromise for those people when you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. ⁓ but anything that's good for the criminal justice system is usually good for the bail industry. because they're so intertwined when the criminal justice system is working and working well, it's because they have a strong bail industry. So I'm kind of in favor of anything that is for rehabilitation where you do an individual review and you see that they've ⁓ changed and they're willing to be productive. and become ⁓ good citizens. The problem with that is the government is really bad at ⁓ applying those on a one-on-one basis. They can't do that really well. ⁓ Historically, they do it across the board, and I'm not in favor of that. I think that's one of the reasons why I think Trump's first step back in his first term was a failure because it did not do an individual review of people. He should have outsourced that to some religious groups or some ⁓ private groups. But by doing across the boards, it undercut its whole purpose. in my mind, was not good. ⁓ I think that the better approach for criminal justice reform is really go back to what we know works. I mean, we know how to fight crime. And I would say all the reform is tying the hands of law enforcement in the courts so that they can't fight crime. And so we need to undo that. We need to give judges more discretion. We need to mandate that they have to review criminal histories before setting bail because the best indication of what you're going to do in the future is what you've done in the past. And when people say, no, no, we shouldn't do that because there's more minority groups that have criminal histories, I'm like, no, then those are the groups that need. judges to review criminal histories before setting bail even more so. Because by and large, we commit crime on our same racial group. So if there's a lot of people with criminal histories in one racial group, that means there's a disproportionate amount of crime in that racial community.

jhughes4031: Absolutely. ⁓ I think I know what your answer will probably be, but do you think that there is this is more of a state level fight? This is something that we need to make sure that our state legislatures on our local level are actually, you know, holding up these standards, passing these bills that will strengthen the criminal justice system. ⁓ Personally, primarily, I think that is probably the answer. But is. Within that, is there any room at the federal level for some sort of reform to pass or is this mostly something that should be done? ⁓

Ken W. Good: Well, by and large, crime is regulated by the states. So, I mean, we say regulated, but most criminal law is at the state level. So, bail is a state by state issue. That's why it's called different things in different states, because it's regulated by the states. ⁓ I do think that this is mostly a state by state issue. ⁓ On the federal level, the federal level did reform on its criminal justice system during the 80s, ⁓ Reagan's term. The with that is at the time, ⁓ you they were, ⁓ they detaining about 25 % of the people pre-trial and that was so bad. just thought, thought they needed to reform it. ⁓ And they changed it what they're currently doing. And as a result of those changes, they hold pre-trial approximately 75 % of people arrested for crimes. ⁓ and so their reforms over time have slowly increased the number of people who are being detained. pretrial. We can't have that same type of reform on the state levels because we, know, the states can't afford to hold 75%. And if you're holding ⁓ that large a number, then you can't hold any low level criminals. You can't have any accountability for them because your jails are full of really bad people. And so we can't, we have to find a compromise. We have to find some middle ground. And the middle ground is really the private industry bail system with a strong accountability. I mean, I think our activist friends, where they have really messed up is they've done these soft on crime policies and they have then killed accountability. If they would have put an accountability element on top of their soft on crime policies, those policies probably could have, I mean, they wouldn't have deteriorated as quickly. ⁓ And so they would have looked a lot better on paper than they've turned out to be. I mean, the science on this is just really devastating to them. know, Yolo County in California did a study and they released the data and showed a comparison of two non-violent offenders released on bail. One on simple release, one on the private treaty bail. And the comparison is devastating to the reformers. mean, someone released on simple release on a non-violent offense has a 200 % greater chance of committing a new violent offense in the next 18 months compared to somebody released on a private bail. I mean, if you look at that data and you believe that, I mean, as a parent, would say I don't ever want any of my family members released on ⁓ simple release. I mean, it puts them in a worse position just on their type of release. And that's really what the data is showing.

jhughes4031: Absolutely. I think one thing that does get lost in this conversation is people hear nonviolent offender and just automatically assume that it's something simple like, they were caught with some pot in their ⁓ pocket or they had.

Ken W. Good: Well, and that's a really good point. And that's the reason why a lot of states are reclassifying a lot of violent offenses as non-violent. you know, when you get the public ⁓ to change to that, then you just reclassify violent offenses as non-violent. you know, suddenly their crime is going down. And that's the reason why you see Trump at the federal level doing an executive order, encouraging and looking for ways to encourage states to get rid of non-cash bail. or no cash bail, getting rid of those policies.

jhughes4031: Right. And I was just going to ask you, like, when people don't realize when they hear nonviolent, they think it's some low level offense. But oftentimes there's a lot of very serious crimes that are considered quote unquote nonviolent in the system. ⁓ If you can speak on that some more and give some examples, if you'd like. I mean, I did just like what you just said, but, you know, just expand on that a little bit more, like so that people realize what we're actually dealing with here.

Ken W. Good: Well, but you know, I look at this a little bit different, but when you focus only on violent offenses and you are willing to not do anything on nonviolent offenses, I mean, you know, we've already talked about how gangs, ⁓ career criminals and organized crime figure out ways to make millions of dollars out of that. But suddenly your nonviolent offenders become, you know, offenses become the training grounds for tomorrow's violent offenders because they get their feet wet, you know, somebody who gets accused of murder, that's not their first rodeo usually on average, they've committed five or six other crimes. So we're really, I mean, when we let them go, we're letting them go. We're not doing accountability and they're taking that and running with that and then committing violent offenses. and putting themselves in worse positions. I mean, that's really the playbook right now of the activists. We shouldn't be doing this on nonviolent offenders. But look, let's look at California as the example. Prop 47 changed certain felony offenses to misdemeanors, including theft under $950. Then in our urban areas, some of the soft on crime DAs decided, well, we're no longer going to prosecute theft under $950. And so shoplifting, Uh, started increasing and within a short time stores were closing because they couldn't withstand $25,000 a day of shoplifting. Or if your store didn't close, you would go there and you couldn't buy anything without having to go find an employee to unlock something, to give it to you, to take it to a register to pay for, because everything was behind lock and key. And then you, then the corresponding crime from shoplifting, you know, suddenly your commercial property value is just nosedive. so properties are selling for 30 to 50 % of what they were selling for just five years before. And so you can see soft on crime policies on nonviolent offenses that suddenly have devastating impacts on communities just from shoplifting all the way to tax revenues to stores closing. I mean, it just, it's, we call it a death spiral in our commercial real estate. you get a situation in that your property values are dropping and dropping and dropping. And it's the death of a community. And that's what these soft on crime policies are causing is death spirals to our urban communities. the charges are being, you know, the charge, not charges for criminal case, but the charge in the light brigade is being led by the activists.

jhughes4031: Absolutely. We know California is an example of one of the worst, but when it comes to looking at the path ahead, what states or jurisdictions that you know of that you see are actually doing things pretty well that we could maybe use as a blueprint or a foundation for other states to build upon? What are some things that you're seeing across the country that are encouraging that are actually restoring law and order to our communities?

Ken W. Good: I think Texas is leading the way here. The first thing, they have enacted ⁓ SB 6 from three sessions ago, SB 9 this last session. I think some of the major changes, ⁓ number one is requiring judges to review criminal histories before setting bail. We've already talked about that and the importance of that. mean, the public would say, why weren't judges reviewing the criminal history before that? And the case law said they had the discretion, but a lot of times they didn't have a statewide database so that they could look at the criminal history. And so in Texas, now they do. And so I think that's the number one reform that Texas has done to improve the system. And the second thing they've done is they've started limiting the use of simple release for violent offenses. And I think that will grow. That list will continue to grow, especially as new data shows that nobody should be released on simple release except for In very rare and extreme cases, you know, you could say first time offender who's poor, who can't afford anything. But I would say when there's a risk that anybody released on simple release, it's going to be in a worse position. If I'm a judge, I don't want anybody released on that. I mean, only in very, very rare circumstances. And so I think the second thing is the use, the limitation of simple release. The third thing is for certain offenses, we're right, widening the scope that to allow judges to. detain somebody before trial. We have to be careful on that though, because just like soft on crime policies with the pendulum swinging far to the left, that's not sustainable and the public won't stand for more crime. Swinging the pendulum back and to the right to hold everybody in jail until their cases come up for trial, that's too expensive and the public won't pay for that. So we have to find the middle ground and the middle ground is more reliance on the private industry and holding people accountable when they fail to do what they say they're going to

jhughes4031: Absolutely. ⁓ I think one thing I hear commonly when it comes to the private industry, when in the bail conversation is people have this impression that it's just these loan sharks who are charging outrageous interest rates, who are taking advantage of quote unquote marginalized communities. From your experience, what is your impression of that argument and how would you address someone who is bringing that up in the context of this conversation.

Ken W. Good: Well, I would start by saying, shame on you. I mean, shame on you. The private industry, well, the bail system is not, ⁓ I mean, it does, it's not something that people like. It's an easy target. And so when you hear arguments like that, they're going straight for the low hanging fruit in the criminal justice debate. mean, there's a reason why there's been these attempts. to get rid of the bail industry multiple times in our history. And there's a reason why the bail industry has been around for 200 years. I mean, it does one thing. It does one thing very, very well. It does one thing to the level that nobody else, no other release does, and that's get people to court. I mean, when you're comparing a thousand people and the private industry has a failure to appear rate of 10 % versus the simple release mechanisms which have a failure to appear rate of 50, 60, or 80%. You're talking about the difference between being able to hold court or not. And if you look at a 50 % failure to period, that means you're going to have to have twice as many courts to resolve the same number of cases, just based on the release mechanism system that you're using. And the problem is, know, when the numbers are that high, 50, 80%, you're like, those just can't be correct. I mean, the problem is we have a large body of data supporting that now. We've got stuff from Harris County. where they use simple release for misdemeanors or for most misdemeanors. We've got two years with the data showing an 83 % failure to appear rate on average. We have a one week review of the docket from the Houston police officer union showing a 75 % failure to appear rate. You go to Cook County in the last six months, the clerk released data showing at least a 75 % failure to appear rate. I did a podcast with a DA from California saying they use simple release for all misdemeanors across the state and their failure to appear rate is about 80%. And you know, courts can't go forward or cases can't go forward when you fail to appear. The case is put on hold. And then in California, you've got the Speedy Trial Act. And so they fail to show up, but the courts have a deadline to get the case resolved. And so it's kind of like you can play a game in misdemeanor court in New York, I mean, in California, where you go fail to show up and then you go hiding. And if you don't come back and the the deadline passes, they're going to dismiss your case. mean, we can't have a functioning court system doing that. ⁓ so when people are criticizing the private shirty bail system, that's the low hanging fruit. They're making those arguments. They're playing to everybody's fears when they should be looking at what's the alternative. Everything we're doing in the last four or five years where we're we're enacting bail form, these are experiments with no data and they don't work. And the data is showing that they don't work. The activists won't admit it. And so I'm actually personally offended when I hear things like that because where I deal with bail in Texas, I'm dealing with second generation bondsmen and third generation bondsmen for small time, small family businesses. These are ⁓ I mean, a shyster wouldn't be able to be a second generation business. A shyster wouldn't be a third generation business. And, you know, I did a podcast with a couple of bondsmen and the episode's called Meet the Coopers. And they're the example of what bondsmen do. what they did was, you know, they had somebody out on bond and they got a new charge and the police were doing house to house searches. expecting this to be a shootout to the death. And the bondsman called the family and they talked to them for a couple of days and then they negotiated with them. And in the end, they met the defendant at the jail and walked them in to the jail without incident. No, no shots fired. Nobody was killed. And that was the safest thing that could happen for the community, for the police. And the bondsmen did that at great risk themselves. And that's what I'm used to seeing. I mean, the bondsmen provide ⁓ more safety and security because people have to check in with them. And if they aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing, we report that to the court. And so when these activist groups say these things about the bonding communities, because they don't know them, they don't know all the things we do to provide public safety. And so it's just attacks and it's just slander usually.

jhughes4031: All right, well, we've got a couple minutes here left, so I'm going to I'm going to slightly take the conversation in a different direction. ⁓ I am a 2L at Liberty University School of Law, and you are someone who has been in this career for a long time. I've got a lot of my friends watch this show. A lot of people I know in other law schools like to tune into the show every now and again. So what would be something, a piece of advice or something that you've learned in your career that you would If you were going back to your former self as a 2L in law school, that you would tell yourself that you would tell 2Ls or those just starting out or wanting to go to law school, what's something ⁓ that you would give them as advice as they're starting and looking to start their legal career?

Ken W. Good: Well, first of all, would say congratulations. I mean, what an achievement to be into law school. And, you know, I go back to where I was in your position. I mean, it was a long time ago and I've learned so much. But I would kind of start with summarizing, you know, where I've been, you know. When I went to law school, I was coming from a farming community, so I really didn't know anything about law school. I just always wanted to go to law school. And I was the type of person that did really, really well after the first test. Well, as you know, in law school, your first test is the end of your first semester. So when I finished my first semester of law school, I was like right in the middle of the class and was very disappointed. But then in my, but I didn't, I didn't let it get me down. I mean, I had goals for law school. And so in my second semester and you your second semester of your first year of law school, you can, they have first year competitions, one for moot court, one for mock trial. And so I was in both competitions and I was in the finals of both competitions and we won one and we lost one. And then because I, learn from my experiences of the finals of the first semester. I was top 10 % of my in my second semester. ⁓ just because you don't do well in one semester, I mean, you learn from it and you move forward. First year of law school, it seems like it's the hardest because you're learning a whole new language, but second year of law school is actually harder. But since you've accomplished the learning of the language, it seems easier. And then Usually in third year, except in Baylor probably, third year ⁓ is usually the easiest year. ⁓ I would say though, what advice would I give you from 35 years looking back? ⁓ It's a great experience. mean, there's a lot of things that you're going to learn ⁓ not from law school. And I would say, ⁓ Okay, so my plan when I graduated from law school was to be an attorney for school law because I was ⁓ a teacher for a couple years before I went to law school. And I came out and you just get a job and then you start working with people. And I started working with someone who trained me how to practice law. And I thought he was one of the best attorneys in the state. And we had a trial team that was just devastating. I don't think we lost for... for a long time. mean, we represent doctors and hospitals when they got sued. We were on court TV. I argued my first case at the Supreme Court of Texas as a four-year lawyer. I was board certified in civil appellate law as a five-year lawyer. And you had to be an attorney for five years before you were eligible to take the test. So here's probably the best advice I could give you. I became an expert on issues before the Supreme Court of Texas at that time. And when I say expert, I use the term loosely. But what I would do was I read every case released from the Supreme Court of Texas. Now, you know, a lot of cases you would read the summary and go, okay, this doesn't apply. But I took that knowledge. And then when we were a trial team, I knew what were the hot issues from the Supreme Court on the area of law that we were practicing. And so when we were in trial, if I thought there was an issue that was hot at the Supreme Court, I would be sure and figure out a way to preserve that so that if the case went bad, we could go up on appeal and we would have an argument to make at the appellate court. And so after we'd been doing that for a while and having a lot of success, ⁓ we went to a seminar on ⁓ medical malpractice. practice cases and they had a section on new and important cases from the court of appeals. Three of the six cases were my cases and that's how we did that. So I would think that I would say that's some really good advice. If you want to become an expert in an area or ⁓ really really proficient in an area of law, you can do it. It just takes study.

jhughes4031: Absolutely. Thank you so much. That is really good advice and probably will be really, it'll be really helpful for me and I know for a lot of my friends as well with the different areas that they want to go into. Well, thank you so much for your time today. Where can people find you, find your work? And also how can we as an audience be praying for

Ken W. Good: Well, first, if you want more information about our group, you can go to PBTX.com, the professional bondsman of Texas PBTX.com. We have a blog where we highlight important criminal justice stories. We also have our own podcast. There's a link on the menu, but you can also go to the bailpost.com. ⁓ All we talk about are criminal justice issues. What works, what doesn't work. We've been, I think we're in season five. of our podcast. We're ranked in the top 10 of criminal justice podcasts. And so, you know, it takes a lot of time. It's a boring subject to a lot of people, but it's a good resource for a lot of legislatures, a lot of elected officials. And it's a way to get through all the crap when activists are saying, let's just defend the police and we'll be safer. When the studies actually say, if you defend the police, the first thing that happened is you're murder rate will go up and crime will go up ⁓ very quickly.

jhughes4031: Awesome. Well, thank you so much. Thank you for joining once again. And we really appreciate it. Guys, if you like this episode, make sure you like, share, subscribe, share it with your friends. Share it to someone who, if you know someone who works in this field, who ⁓ has influence in this field, share this with them, let them hear it. God loves you and so do I. Thank you all so much for watching.