Rep. Crockett—-remember, she’s considered a “rising star” in the reeling Democratic Party—actually said this:
“And so I do want people to know that just because someone has committed a crime, it doesn’t make them a criminal.”
Interesting. The definition of “criminal” is literally “a person who has committed a crime” or the equivalent in every dictionary in existence, but never mind: this is the totalitarian Left of 2025, for which Big Brotherish denial of reality—you know, like “War is Peace” “or “Biden is as sharp as a tack” or “Harris ran a flawless campaign” is foundational.
Lest you think I have pulled Crockett’s latest nonsense out of a context where it is defensible (I can’t imagine what that would be, though), here is her whole rant, from an appearance on the podcast “Getting Better with Jonathan Van Ness.” Incidentally, you know everything you need to know about Van Ness to avoid him and his podcast like the plague by the fact that her statement didn’t prompt him to say, “What? What the hell are you talking about?”
Here’s Crockett’s whole statement:
“[U]nderstanding what ends up having people become criminally impacted really informs so much of what I do legislatively, right? So, when people are like, ‘Oh, you know, crime is terrible.’ And yes, it is, right? Like, because when somebody goes out and commits a crime, they don’t typically, you know, say, ‘Well, I’m a D or I’m an R or I’m an I.’ Literally, like it’s about, well, how do you fix it? How do you make communities safer? And I do think that I’m in a unique situation because I was having the conversations with people that were going out and committing crimes. And so I understood what was kind of pushing them there. And so I do want people to know that just because someone has committed a crime, it doesn’t make them a criminal. That is completely different. Being a criminal is more so about your mindset. Committing a crime can come for a lot of different reasons.”
We are making a mistake if we mark Crockett’s weird definition of “criminal” as just more evidence of the terrible people ignorant voters are electing to Congress now. For she is not unusual among progressives and Democrats, and this distortion is now central to progressive thought. This week, the mayor of Chicago said, “Jails and incarceration and law enforcement is a sickness that has not led to safe communities.” Believing that you’re not a criminal when you break laws because you really, really want to isn’t the sickness; punishing you for doing it is. Breaking laws because you feel you need something the system isn’t giving you means that it is cruel and unjust for society to punish you for it. Society is at fault, not the lawbreaker.
This is how a critical mass within the Left now embraces decriminalization of crimes, demonization of law enforcement, and the movement to minimize incarceration. If you have a good reason to commit a crime, then in the Left’s fantasy land, you can’t be called a criminal, and shouldn’t be treated as one. If you thought ethical relativism was bad, wait until you experience legal relativism.
Ethics Alarms 
What would be their attitude toward White male conservatives who violate “common sense”, “sensible” gun reform?
I have read a few times that in America there are so many laws that the average American commits two felonies a day. If that is true then everyone who is more than a few years old is a criminal, so Rep. Crockett is definitely wrong.
Also recently, I read somewhere that the government needs a third house in Congress devoted solely to eliminating laws or parts of laws that are no longer needed.
That seems a bit exaggerated, and there still has to be the element of mens rea: an intent to do that which is illegal.
There is a book called “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target The Innocent” by Harvey Silverglate, with a foreword by Alan Dershowitz.
One part of her statement that stood out for me was where she said she was “in a unique situation because I was having the conversations with people that were going out and committing crimes.”
I’m curious in what context she was having those conversations. She seems to be saying it so casually that it sounds like they’re friends of hers, discussing crimes they’ve either already committed or perhaps were about to commit.
She was a defense attorney, so she probably heard all sorts of excuses and sob stories and probably took them all at face value (unless they were white supremacists).
Great point. I also don’t understand why she thinks she is in a unique position by virtue of her role as a defense attorney. I would say that there are plenty of people in Congress that were defense attorneys and their job was to help the client avoid culpability and punishment. It was not their job to make communities safer for if they did they would be out of a job if there were no defendants. Her argument rings hollow.
Sounds like the usual progressive trend of avoiding negative labels. Slaves are “enslaved persons”, “at risk” youth instead are “at hope” youth.
They are not even cobsistent about it; they would otherwise extend this same courtesy to Dylann Roof.
I spent a lot of time talking to men who had committed crimes and were incarcerated. Most committed crimes because committing crime was perceived to be the least costly to them at the time in terms of opportunity cost. In short, offenders believed the reward exceeded the potential cost. Sometimes they were right and got away with it and when they didn’t they found out just how costly the choice was.
Lowering the opportunity cost of crime creates more crime. We decrease the expected potential costs with cashless bail, short periods of incarceration after multiple offenses via plea deals or lenient judges, and far too often some victims just don’t report it because the offender knows the police will simply take the report and do little else unless it was a serious crime forcing insurers to pick up the tab.
Crockett is an idiot. Her desire to mitigate the behavior of criminals probably reflects the racial characteristics of those she defended. I doubt that she is talking about white defendants.
I should have included something that came to mind later when I wrote the above comment. People who commit crimes want instant gratification. Finding ways to satisfy the need for more and more gratification prevents investment. Chronic poverty occurs when the populace either must focus solely on finding food or fails to invest when resources are available. Given that spending every waking moment looking for something to eat is not the problem, the problem lies in lack of investment because the goal is to satisfy wants and not needs.
Investment does not need to be in terms of money it can mean investing in ones self by acquiring talents that create value for others who in turn will give you resources to use to satisfy the persons wants. If we think in terms of financial investment no one will save without the promise of a higher return in the future. The same can be said when we speak of investing in human capital. If the individual believes that he or she will not obtain greater benefits in the future it makes sense to focus on current happiness or gratification.
So I ask what lesson is being taught when we tell young black kids that the system is rigged against them or the society is racist toward black and brown people and that getting an education is somehow trying to be white? Who is teaching that lesson?
Maybe the key to reducing crime is changing the message that every kid is capable to achieve is some area in which they have a passion or at least great interest and working to be the best at something is the fastest road to wealth and security because people will voluntarily trade their dollars when you gratify their wants and needs.
“people will voluntarily trade their dollars when you gratify their wants and needs.”
IMO, you can get everything you want out of life…if you help enough other people get what they want.
PWS
This is not surprising.
I am sure Bernie Madoff thought he would be able to get away with it, especially as he used his financial resources to hide his misdeeds.
Maybe this isn’t fair of me, but I’m really annoyed of the use of her word “like.” It reads more high school teenager than member one one of the most important groups in our society.
It is fair, and I feel the same way.
I’d say it deserves an article on ‘confronting my biases’, except that it feels like a fully justified bias. People who can’t or don’t bother to speak properly can be reasonably assumed to not think much before they speak, and I have low expectations of what they are saying. I find other options, even ‘umm…’ better than ‘like’.
“Maybe this isn’t fair of me, but I’m really annoyed of the use of her word ‘like.’ “
Entirely fair; WE_THE_PEOPLE deserve a basal level of intellectual coherence from our elected officials, a level which Crockett spectacularly fails to meet.
PWS
This is an example of the current progressive thought, not just a one-off, random person popping off. The black underclass can’t conform to basic societal strictures (such as, “don’t steal other people’s stuff and don’t kill other people”), so, recast the society to allow these people to run wild with impunity. The black underclass’s continued failure to thrive has turned their advocates into idiots. And they are dangerous.
How do you deduce that they want the underclass to run wild with impunity?