Do the Crime, Head for the Exit Line—Attackers Who Savaged ‘Big Balls’ Coristine Skate With Slap on Wrist

Washington is supposed to be the seat of law, not the walking papers for criminals. The sentencing in the attack on Edward “Big Balls” Coristine shows how far we’ve drifted, with a violent assault matched by minimal penalties. Two 15-year-olds walk away with probation while their victim recovers.

Two teenagers who jumped former DOGE staffer Edward “Big Balls” Coristine have avoided jail after pleading guilty to simple assault at a Washington, DC, court.

The boy and girl, both 15, from Hyattsville, Maryland, were sentenced to probation at a DC court on Tuesday, just over two months after the pair were arrested for the savage Aug. 3 attack.

The boy was handed a 12-month probation and allowed to return home under strict house arrest, while the girl was given a nine-month probation and remanded to a local youth shelter.

That kind of outcome isn’t an accident; it’s policy. Soft-on-crime prosecutors, no-bail rules and half-baked ‘reform’ priorities have turned too many courts into revolving doors. Cities that embrace the treadmill of leniency pay for it on every street corner.

Coristine was unlucky enough to cross their path roughly a mile from the White House, where a crew tried to seize a car and left him bloodied. The scene was chaotic and cold, a brief run of violence that left a man beaten on public streets. Yet the punishment for two of the alleged attackers amounted to supervised probation and short-term house confinement.

“Let me get your car! Let me get your car,” the group said, according to prosecutors. While the other person was able to get into the vehicle and lock the doors, Coristine remained outside and was pummeled by attackers.

These cases matter because they set expectations. When teenagers are processed and returned to the street with minimal interruption, deterrence evaporates. Victims are left to pay for a system that treats property and person like statistics.

You can trace this to policy choices and the people who benefit politically from them. Soft-on-crime prosecutors and court chambers that prioritize theory over safety encourage repeat offenders. Those incentives have consequences beyond headlines.

President Donald Trump and his allies have been blunt about restoring order and pushing for consequences rather than excuses. Their push for federal support and tougher local standards is part politics and part practical response to rising fear. It will take sustained pressure to change how judges and prosecutors handle violent juveniles.

Reforms that turn criminal courts into social labs must be rethought, and accountability has to start at the ballot box. Voters should demand prosecutors who prioritize public safety and judges who treat assaults with the seriousness they deserve. Changing incentives will make streets safer and restore confidence.

We should also scrutinize the culture in urban policy circles that excuses violence as a symptom instead of punishing it as a crime. If we want to stop the cycle, consequences need to be predictable and meaningful, not ceremonial. Holding crime-loving judges and soft-on-crime officials to account is a starting point.

Communities are watching whether leadership will defend law-abiding citizens or keep making excuses.