Calling them non-violent is a mistake given the wake of chaos they leave. Sure, they don't personally swing a knife around - instead, they blow away economies, or at a smaller scale they leave people crying in the street next to their piled-up possessions and repossessed house. That's plenty violent.
I'm not trying to downplay their crimes. They are real, and they can be hugely damaging. But when we're talking about throwing people together in a box, it's an important distinction. Someone who destroyed an economy may be amoral, but they are still pretty unlikely to stab their cellmate as compared to a violent criminal.
Thieves? Drug users? Fences? Smugglers? Forgers? Vandals? Illegal immigrants? Heck, do you think being an arsonist makes you particularly likely to stab a guy in prison?
All of your listed crimes are not violent crimes in themselves, although any and all can commit violence in the course of their "profession" in which case, yes, they are now violent criminals.
You folks are trying real hard to put words in my mouth. My parent asked if I thought those were violent crimes; I said no. I also added that if they commit violence in the course of those crimes, then yes they are now violent criminals. Maybe it was unnecessary extra commentary, but do you disagree with either of these statements?
I should try the words-in-mouth game, it seems fun.
Are you trying to say just because they aren't automatically violent, means they can't be violent? How could you say a thing like that? You are such a foolish person.
