Episode summary / Segments

Opening: The Case That Sparked Outrage

Recap of the hit-and-run that killed Nathaniel Baker, a 21-year-old USC junior.

The defendant (identified in the segment) pleaded guilty; projected release date discussed as March 2, 2026.

Reaction: shock and anger that a fatality resulted in a one-year sentence.

Why People Are Furious

Perception that the sentence is a “slap on the wrist.”

Coverage and national attention: why this one made headlines.

The host rails against what they call a pattern of light sentences and repeat tragedies.

How the System Works (and Why It’s Broken, According to the Host)

Deep dive into South Carolina’s judge-selection process: legislative appointment, political and law-firm influence.

Claims that big law firms and legislators effectively pick judges and influence outcomes.

Examples of how this allegedly affects criminal and family courts.

Politics, Promises, and Accountability

Preview of expected reactions from state figures (mentions of Nancy Mace, Alan Wilson, Pam Evette) and what the host will demand from gubernatorial candidates.

Proposed fixes discussed on the show: constitutional change, statutory limits on judicial leniency, and an 80% minimum-of-max sentencing idea.

The Human Cost & Call to Action

Emotional weight of victims’ families and how the host plans to make this a campaign issue.

Practical steps listeners can expect: pressing candidates, legislative proposals, and keeping the story in the spotlight.

Who should listen

Listeners who want a hard-line critique of sentencing practices in South Carolina, people following statewide politics and the governor’s race, and anyone concerned with victims’ rights and judicial accountability.

Final note (tone of episode)

Angry, uncompromising, and mobilizing — this episode isn’t a neutral legal primer. It’s a call to action: change how judges are chosen and how sentences are handed down, or accept that tragedies will keep repeating.