Why the term “Non-Violent” Neuters Criminal Justice Reform

Politically easy language creates predictably pedestrian results

I don’t want to get too deep in the weeds here because we did an entire podcast episode on this topic, but it is important to remind people to beware of legislators adding the term “non-violent” into criminal justice reform legislation.

The short form:

1. Violent crimes are almost always a representation of a moment in time not of inherent criminality. As a result, people who committed violent crimes often have the lowest rates of recidivism.
2. Violent is a politically defined term. An ever-expanding list of crimes that are non-contact are being coded as violent. Which suggests both that many criminals we consider to be violent never physically interacted with anyone inappropriately and that lawmakers can circumvent reform by simply coding more crimes as violent (Prosecutor’s can use non-contact violent crimes in charging documents to circumvent reform as well).
3. People age out of violent crime and long-sentences result in counter-productive outcomes.
4. Prisons and Jails are not a productive way to fix violent crime (or any crime).

Investigate all the research behind these claims by reading John Pfaff’s book “Locked In” or by checking the resources I cited during the podcast episode linked above here in our show notes:

Decarceration Nation (with Josh and Joel): Episode Two "Dealing With Violence"

Josh is the co-host of the Decarceration Nation podcast, a blogger, and a freelance writer. Please consider following him on Twitter, throwing a tip into his hat on Patreon, showing your appreciation using Paypal.me, or adding OnPirateSatellite to your feeds.