In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
Democratic policies in multiple states have created a criminal “justice” system where judges let violent career criminals free to continue to terrorize neighborhoods.
There are now two possible solutions: Either legislators must remove discretion from judges in criminal sentencing, or we must start removing from office the judges who are placing these criminals back out on the streets.
THE POLITICS OF ERASING IRYNA ZARUTSKA
The first example of this comes from Wisconsin, where 18-year-old Deonta Harmon is accused of shooting and killing a man. When he was 15, Harmon was given a 60-day sentence for fleeing and eluding, but the sentence was stayed and he was put on probation. Despite being given that opportunity, Harmon violated that probation.
Harmon ended up in front of a court again on felony battery charges, to which he pleaded guilty. Despite this, Judge Jessica Fehrenbach gave Harmon a mere two-year probation, even though he had clearly proven through previous probation violations and his felony battery that he is not someone who respects the law or his fellow citizens. It took a four days for Harmon to be arrested for allegedly shooting and killing Dylan Jackson. Harmon is now facing the following charges, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree reckless injury and being a felon in possession of a firearm.”
Of note here is Fehrenbach’s view of the criminal justice system. Before becoming a judge, she was a public defense attorney. She outright said after becoming a judge that her new position “allows me to reform the system from within.” In other words, she is not a judge; she is a defense attorney wielding the powers of a judge, which explains why Harmon was given probation despite proving that he did not deserve the leniency. Fehrenbach was elected in April 2025, having run unopposed.
Chicago has had a similar problem, as judges have been a major part of keeping the Windy City’s crime reputation going strong. A 12-year-old was left temporarily paralyzed after being shot in the head, allegedly by 16-year-old Nasir Pitts. According to prosecutors, Pitts simply walked up to a family sitting in their car and began shooting. Pitts was already on probation for an armed robbery in 2024, where he stole a woman’s phone at gunpoint while wearing a ski mask.
Then there is the case of Emile Hobson. Last year, Hobson allegedly robbed a woman while threatening to harm her if she resisted. One judge, John Hock, said that Hobson was “a clear threat to any person he might have an opportunity to rob” because of his documented criminal history and “willingness to prey on vulnerable people in public.” This is how the system should work.
But, six weeks later, Judge Tyria Walton decided that Hock was wrong, releasing Hobson on an ankle monitor instead. Hobson recorded an ankle monitor violation the very next day. He was brought in on an arrest warrant, and Walton released him again on an ankle monitor. And then, believe it or not, Hobson allegedly robbed another person four days later, allegedly brandishing “what appeared to be the handle of a firearm,” according to CWB Chicago.
Then there is the case of Richard Cox in Virginia. Cox, you may recall, is a “transgender woman” who does not even pretend to try to be a woman. He is obviously a man, abusing Virginia Democrats’ love of the transgender movement to manipulate the justice system. It has worked for him fairly well thus far: As I wrote last October, Fairfax County prosecutors “have repeatedly refused to prosecute Richard Cox, a man who has allegedly regularly exposed himself to women and girls in the girls’ locker rooms at two high schools and a recreation center.” Cox is a registered Tier III sex offender, which is the “most serious” classification under Virginia law.
It was left to Arlington County to prosecute Cox, who was facing charges including “indecent exposure, indecent liberties with a child, and loitering.” Cox is accused of, among other things, masturbating in front of a child in the women’s locker room of a recreational facility. Witnesses claim that Cox would walk around the locker room in the nude for hours, hence the loitering charge. Judge Daniel Lopez refused to even allow the prosecutors to make that case to a jury, dismissing the loitering charge and effectively freezing the trial for months.
The glaring issue here is the wide discretion that these judges have when it comes to these criminal matters. There are two solutions to that, and it is likely that both should be pursued rather than just one or another. The first is that, if this is how judges use their discretion, they should see it removed. It should become a top priority among state-level Republicans to push for stricter laws that chip away at the latitude these judges enjoy.
For example, someone with a criminal record like that of Emile Hobson should not be given the possibility of being released on an ankle monitor, and someone who violates the conditions of their release on an ankle monitor (like Hobson did) should absolutely not be given the possibility of being released on an ankle monitor again. If judges such as Tyria Walton have such horrendous judgement, then their ability to exercise that judgement should be removed. Make state-level Democrats answer for why criminals such as Hobson are released and exert that pressure to change sentencing and pre-trial release laws.
The second part of this solution is that there must be a concerted effort by Republicans to shape the courts to better protect people from judges in the cases mentioned above. The importance of local elections has been put on display over the past half-decade, thanks to Democratic megadonor George Soros pouring massive funds into district attorney elections to twist the criminal justice system in favor of criminals (in the name of “reform” and “antiracism”).
Republicans were late on the pick-up when it came to that strategy, but they and moderate Democrat voters have begun to turn course, throwing out pro-criminal “prosecutors” through recall elections or (in the case of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis) the powers of the governor’s office. That same mindset of removing pro-criminal judges through any legal means necessary should be the priority when it comes to judges.
Jessica Fehrenbach, for example, was a defense attorney who was always going to serve the same purpose as pro-criminal district attorneys in warping the justice system. And yet, she ran unopposed in her election, and now will remain in office for six years. But Fehrenbach could also be subject to recall elections, if Wisconsin Republicans could whip up a public appetite for that. Judge Walton, another defense attorney who has found herself with the powers of a judge, was appointed to her office and then won an election to keep it. She is not subject to any kind of recall, but her term will expire this December, unless voters choose to keep her in office.
Just as Republicans and conservatives created and utilized the Federalist Society to reshape the federal judiciary, Republicans must make a concerted effort to reshape state and local courts to better protect Americans from the defense attorneys moonlighting as judges to give criminals more breaks than they deserve. The corruption of the criminal justice system in favor of criminals must be a top priority of the Republican Party if it wants to keep people safe and to win over voters with controversial opinions such as thinking career criminals shouldn’t be given unlimited chances by weak judges.
