Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) is facing ridicule after comments she made on the “Getting Better” podcast with Jonathan Van Ness, where she suggested that committing a crime does not automatically define someone as a criminal.
Crockett emphasized that intent and mindset, rather than the act itself, determine criminality. She argued that understanding the reasons behind criminal actions is crucial for lawmakers aiming to craft effective policies.
The congresswoman, who previously served as a public defender and civil rights attorney, explained that her work with indigent clients shaped her understanding of why individuals engage in illegal behavior.
She highlighted that many people she represented faced circumstances such as poverty, lack of access to education or systemic inequities, which can push them into criminal activity.
Recognizing these factors informs her legislative decisions and helps guide policies aimed at improving public safety.
Asked what she wished the public understood about crime, Crockett pointed to acts born out of necessity rather than malice.
She said, “Just because someone has committed a crime doesn’t mean they are a criminal.”
Crockett stressed that policymakers and the public should differentiate between opportunistic wrongdoing and actions taken under duress or extreme circumstances.
Crockett referenced instances of low-level theft, such as taking food or diapers, noting that Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot has suggested such cases might not require prosecution.
She argued that legal defenses often reduce consequences and emphasized that these situations typically stem from urgent needs rather than deliberate wrongdoing.
This perspective, she said, is informed by her direct experience interacting with individuals navigating systemic hardship.
Her comments drew sharp criticism from conservatives online.
Conservative commentator Gunther Eagleman labeled her statements “unbelievable” on X, questioning her qualifications, while others criticized her for appearing to minimize personal responsibility and the legal definition of criminality.
Many commenters argued that regardless of intent, committing illegal acts classifies someone as a criminal under U.S. law.
The conversation also touched on broader criminal justice issues.
Van Ness contrasted “crimes of survival” with repeated intentional offenses like fraud or tax evasion, which Crockett described as reflective of a criminal mindset.
She emphasized that her legislative approach seeks to address root causes and promote rehabilitation, rather than focusing solely on punishment, stressing the importance of programs that prevent recidivism.
Crockett further attributed rising crime rates in urban areas to groups she refers to as the “MAGA gang,” rather than to illegal immigrants.
Drawing from her public defender experience, she questioned whether law enforcement should concentrate on crime prevention or addressing systemic social challenges contributing to criminal behavior.
Observers have noted that Crockett’s remarks underscore the tension between an empathy-driven approach to justice and traditional punitive models.
Critics argue that framing criminality around mindset risks normalizing illegal behavior, while supporters contend that understanding underlying causes is key to effective reform.
The debate reflects ongoing national conversations about balancing rehabilitation with law enforcement priorities, Fox News highlights.
Her statements have reignited discussion over legislative priorities, the definition of criminality and public perceptions of justice.
As a leading Texas Democrat, Crockett’s remarks are fueling debate over whether liberal lawmakers prioritize leniency and ideology over law, order and public safety.
WATCH:
