There is also a question of whether the crimes defendants are in fact guilty of should even be on the books.
There has been a trend in legislation. X is bad but is already illegal, and some people who do X use Y, so Y is made illegal too. Some gangsters use large sums of cash so let's ban large sums of cash. Some terrorists use strong encryption so let's ban strong encryption. Some spammers use whois privacy so let's ban whois privacy. Some drug dealers use scales so let's ban scales. Some bootleggers break DRM so let's ban breaking DRM.
This happens many times over until most of the people who are not gangsters or terrorists or spammers or drug dealers or bootleggers can nonetheless be charged because they harmlessly use cash or strong encryption or privacy services or digital scales or DeCSS. And charged with "money laundering" or "arms dealing" or other incredibly serious crimes.
Which may at least partially explain why so many people are locked up for "violent crime" -- it isn't that so many people (outside of gangs) are spilling blood, it's that we've allowed "violent crime" to encompass things like weapons possession that don't inherently involve violence or harm to anyone.
I do not believe unlawful possession of a firearm is classified as a "violent crime"; for instance:
"Crime of violence" does not include the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (US code).
Possessing a firearm while committing a robbery is a violent crime, whether you use it or not. But the robbery itself is also classified as a violent crime, with or without the gun.
> "Crime of violence" does not include the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (US code).
That's at the federal level, which constitutes a smaller percentage of total inmates, more of which are in for non-violent drug offenses, than the states. And for example:
"Although the statutes allow for varying degrees and punishments, the crime [Criminal Possession of a Weapon] is generally considered a violent offense in New York with mandatory minimum terms of incarceration."
But we don't need to get into the whole gun control debate, it's only one example. The problem of criminal laws expanding to encompass more than what a normal person would consider to be criminal behavior is prolific and by no means limited to nonviolent offenses. The instance elsewhere in the comments of someone being arrested for "kidnapping" for refusing to allow someone else to abscond with his phone, for example.
There has been a trend in legislation. X is bad but is already illegal, and some people who do X use Y, so Y is made illegal too. Some gangsters use large sums of cash so let's ban large sums of cash. Some terrorists use strong encryption so let's ban strong encryption. Some spammers use whois privacy so let's ban whois privacy. Some drug dealers use scales so let's ban scales. Some bootleggers break DRM so let's ban breaking DRM.
This happens many times over until most of the people who are not gangsters or terrorists or spammers or drug dealers or bootleggers can nonetheless be charged because they harmlessly use cash or strong encryption or privacy services or digital scales or DeCSS. And charged with "money laundering" or "arms dealing" or other incredibly serious crimes.
Which may at least partially explain why so many people are locked up for "violent crime" -- it isn't that so many people (outside of gangs) are spilling blood, it's that we've allowed "violent crime" to encompass things like weapons possession that don't inherently involve violence or harm to anyone.