It’s Time For Feds To Give Non-Violent Offenders A Second Chance 69%

By Rachel Wright0%

7/10/2026, 8:59:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Hasty Generalization, and False Dilemma, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 25% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 1,424 faulty-reasoning hits from 675 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.2% and a BS Rank of 69% (6,839 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.80% of the article peer group.

July 10, 2026 4:59 PM ET 
When President Donald Trump appointed Alice Marie Johnson as his pardon czar, he sent a clear message to the nation: Accountability and second chances are not mutually exclusive. 
Our Founders understood this principle, and as America celebrates its 250th birthday, Congress has an opportunity to put it into action. 
Congress should advance legislation creating an earned pathway to federal expungement. 
The current system offers deserving individuals very few opportunities to move beyond their past mistakes, but by rewarding rehabilitation, we can create a more effective justice system and strengthen public safety. 
Every crime has consequences, but the question is not whether offenders should be held accountable. 
The question is whether punishment for nonviolent offenses should last forever. 
A pathway to expungement is about much more than clearing a record. 
It is an investment in safer communities. 
Criminal records create barriers to employment, housing and education. 
These are the biggest stabilizing forces for someone exiting prison. 
Without those opportunities, the likelihood of returning to crime increases, undermining communities in the long run. 
Public safety does not end when an offender is sentenced, especially considering that 95 % of incarcerated individuals will eventually return to their communities. 
It ultimately depends on whether people who have demonstrated that they no longer pose a threat to public safety are given the opportunity to become productive citizens. 
Critics often suggest that expungement amounts to blanket forgiveness, but that argument ignores reality. 
Proper safeguards ensure that the process is rarely automatic. 
Instead, earned relief requires demonstrated rehabilitation, judicial review, waiting periods and the exclusion of certain serious offenses. 
A federal pathway to expungement recognizes two truths at once: justice requires consequences, and people are capable of a crime-free life. 
Nor does such a framework push victims aside. 
Every crime leaves behind a victim who deserves justice, and accountability matters now more than ever. 
But after a sentence has been served and rehabilitation has been demonstrated, endless punishment does little to help those victims. 
Preventing future crime does. 
Our nation must recognize that justice should not be measured by how long we can continue to punish someone, but by whether our policies make communities safer. 
Developing a federal pathway to expungement is the natural next step in preventing future victimization. 
Nearly every state has adopted some form of expungement or automated record sealing, but federal law has fallen behind. 
Led by Republicans and Democrats alike, states across the country have recognized that people can change and, when they do, they should have a meaningful opportunity to successfully reintegrate into society. 
Conservative states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Utah and Georgia have embraced mechanisms that provide earned relief. 
Their example sends a clear message to Congress: If leaders across the political spectrum have concluded that perpetual punishment does little to enhance public safety, Washington should follow suit. 
As Americans gather to celebrate 250 years of freedom and excellence, we should remember that our history has been defined by accountability, hope and redemption. 
Those ideals have long challenged us to build a justice system that protects the public while recognizing the power of earned second chances. 
While Congress has spent years debating what happens inside prison walls, it is time to give equal attention to what happens after individuals have earned their way out. 
Rachel Wright serves as National Policy Director for Right On Crime, bringing nearly a decade of experience in prosecution, appellate advocacy and criminal justice policy at the state and federal levels. 
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation. 
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. 
All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter's byline and their DCNF affiliation. 
For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.2%Rachel Wright: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Rachel Wright: 1.8%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic4.9%This article: 3.9%Rachel Wright: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Rachel Wright: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias2.8%This article: 25.0%Rachel Wright: 15.7%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect25.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.6%Rachel Wright: 2.9%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.3%Rachel Wright: 8.1%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias11.3%This article: 5.3%Rachel Wright: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias5.3%This article: 4.4%Rachel Wright: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Rachel Wright: 2.9%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Rachel Wright: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Rachel Wright: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias4.1%This article: 6.8%Rachel Wright: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.1%Rachel Wright: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man2.1%This article: 16.1%Rachel Wright: 9.5%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority16.1%This article: 13.2%Rachel Wright: 6.9%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma13.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 4.0%Rachel Wright: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning4.0%This article: 14.8%Rachel Wright: 5.8%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization14.8%This article: 4.1%Rachel Wright: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring4.1%This article: 7.1%Rachel Wright: 8.6%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon7.1%This article: 3.7%Rachel Wright: 4.0%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion3.7%This article: 6.7%Rachel Wright: 2.6%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 5.6%Rachel Wright: 2.3%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.6%Rachel Wright: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Rachel Wright: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground3.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.5%Rachel Wright: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading2.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Rachel Wright: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote2.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.1%Rachel Wright: 3.9%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice11.1%This article: 8.7%Rachel Wright: 11.1%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination8.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Wright: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Rachel Wright: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.4%

675 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers17%attributed speech561writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageRachel Wright • 31 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Caller News Foundation • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Caller News Foundation • 30 words • 100.0% coverageDaily Caller News Foundation • 14 words • 100.0% coverageDaily Caller News Foundation • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rachel Wright

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words27% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.4 ptsWriter: 13.4%Rachel Wright: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.5 ptsWriter: 10.5%Rachel Wright: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Rachel Wright: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.