Violence is not Defined by Physical Harm – No

The answer to this question is dependent on our definition of what “non-violent crimes” means. If we define violence as being only physical, body-damaging, harm to the victim, then any person who has ever suffered severe emotional or financial harm at the hands of another, unless a far more forgiving soul than myself, would be quite justified in stating loudly, “YES.” While a physical wound might heal within a few weeks, how long might it take someone to recover from psychological trauma, if they can, or recoup the loss of moneys they have been saving up for 30 years?

In today’s hard economic circumstances, we see far too many people losing their homes, their savings, their future well-being, to mega-rich financiers who not only avoid anything worse than home detention, if that, but not even a modest lowering in their lifestyles. Our laws allow them to hide away the wealth they have ethically, though apparently not legally, stolen from people, hiding it away under trust funds, the names of other family members and anywhere else they might find where the multitude of laws that protect ONLY the rich allow them to hide it. Laws that only protect the rich, because they are the only ones who can afford the parasitic lawyers capable of manipulating our legal system to do so.

That the violent criminal that invades a home; tortures, rapes and often kills the owners and residents for a relative pittance of material wealth should be incarcerated for as long as possible, if not outright executed, should be obvious. The primary reason should NOT be social vengeance or retribution for their acts, but to protect others from becoming their future victims! And to discourage others to follow their example, although sadly in this day and age, that is less likely than even 20 years ago. But it cannot be said strongly enough, only as long as we can be certain they are truly guilty, rather than a convenient scapegoat for authorities needing a quick resolution to a horrendous crime.

The simple fact is, however, that despite the devestation and pain their crimes inflict on not only their immediate victims, but all those people who cared for those victims, the number of their victims are quite small in comparison to the victims of many of the so-called non-violent, white collar criminals. And even more, the rich and powerful decision-makers that our laws, primarily written by other rich and powerful decision-makers, say have committed no crime at all when they have “legally” conned and deprived decent, ethical people from money that they have earned through hard work and diligence, saving for their retirement.

Should the man or woman who drives thousands into hardship and despair through the callous and uncaring manipulation of legal terms, primarily written by the lobby-bribed politicians in the first place, suffer little or no punishment when their greed actually pushes them over the line of legality? In what way is the evil harm they do to many not violence?

There are crimes on our legal books where the perpetrator causes no harm to any other person, for example the illegal drug user who endulges solely for their personal pleasure. As long as they cause no harm, physically violent or not, to their families, why should they be imprisoned? Especially when doing so would actually cause more harm, both emotional and financial, to their dependents?

We live in an unequal society, this should be platently obvious to all of us. As long as the rich and powerful that sink below the laws that are the ethical bottom of our society, severely harming hundreds if not thousands, are “punished” by a year or two of home detention in their servant-laden mansions, we also live in an unjust one.

It so often seems that most of our law-makers have no concept of ethical behavior or justice. They seem incapable of understanding that the laws and regulations that govern our society represent the lowest level of acceptable ethical behavior within society. So many of our powerful decision-makers appear to believe that if they can manipulate their circumstances so that the manage to squeeze within the letter of the laws and regulations, no matter how difficult it is for them squirm those technicalities about, that that means they have acted ethically.

Physically violent criminals MUST receive custodial sentences so that other members of society can be protected from their violence. Financially violent criminals, especially those that inflict their harm on vastly larger numbers of victims, also need custodial sentences. The reason is the same, the victims of both have already been harmed; imprisonment is necessary to stop them doing it AGAIN!

Our prison systems are overburdened. We need to define violence as harm to others and not limit the concept to only physical violence. High-powered white collar criminals cause harm to far more people than even the worst serial killer, not as severe on the physical front obviously, but often far more devestating in the long term to far more people.

Those who commit damaging violence of any sort should and need to be imprisoned, no matter what their previous station in life, especially when they were in positions of power and influence. For those who harm noone besides themselves, what is the point? Where is the freedom of the society we supposedly live in, when someone is incarcerated for doing something that causes no harm to anyone else? What justice is there in our society when we imprison someone for giving themselves pleasure through smoking a marijuana cigarette, harming noone else, while we supply millions of tax dollars to bankers who have destroyed the hopes, dreams and well-being of thousands if not millions of decent citizens?