Non-violent is a big category. If I'm smoking a joint alone on a boat on the lake, I'm breaking a federal law, so I'm a non-violent criminal. My crime has liter

Non-violent is a big category. If I'm smoking a joint alone on a boat on the lake, I'm breaking a federal law, so I'm a non-violent criminal. My crime has literally zero impact on others. If I steal millions of dollars from my customers via financial crime, causing people, families, and businesses to go under, leading to marked decrease in their standard of living, including potential impact on housing, healthcare, and other critical components of survival, then I've caused real harm to others, violent or not. Do you see how those two non-violent crimes are materially different? I'm all for reducing the use of prisons, and though both contribute value to society, I'm generally more interested in using prisons and the threat of prisons for rehabilitation and reintegration than for punishment and deterrence. Having said that, non-violent isn't as interesting a measure to me as scope of impact. A CEO of a company that decides to externalize some costs by poisoning the water or air supply making the local population demonstrably sicker may not have carried a knife, but the scope of his impact could be far greater than some homeless guy who stabbed someone in the arm. The first is clearly non-violent while the second is clearly violent, but the truth is, I'd far rather see the poisoning CEO in prison than the stabby homeless guy.