The Curious Case of Crimes Without Criminals

Image by Martin Foskett / Knelstrom Media

By Martin Foskett | Dispatches | Knelstrom Media

​There it was in black and white, like some holy decree scrawled by a tipsy philosopher in a Wetherspoons bathroom: "Just because someone has committed a crime, doesn't make them a criminal." You couldn't write it, except someone did. And now it's plastered across the internet like an inspirational poster for degeneracy, the sort of thing you'd expect to see stitched on a cushion in the waiting room of a parole officer.

The words came not from a backstreet stand-up comic, nor from a character in some half-forgotten sitcom, but from Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett herself. She delivered the gem while appearing on Jonathan Van Ness's Getting Better podcast, remarks which first surfaced publicly around 18–19 September 2025, when Fox News and others seized on the line, replaying it with the glee of a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat that nobody particularly wanted. Crockett's discussion was framed within a broader conversation on criminal justice reform, systemic bias, and rehabilitation. Still, this one line broke free from its context and became the meme of the week.
Now, forgive me, but my old Essex brain's spinning here. If you've committed a crime, what does that make you? A part-time wizard? A misunderstood pastry chef? Perhaps a reluctant participant in society's elaborate game of Monopoly, where you just happen to pocket the wrong Community Chest card marked "armed robbery". The language has been bent so far out of shape that you could mistake it for a rubber chicken at a student union protest.
This isn't about compassion. No, it's a word game, bureaucratic origami dressed up as philosophy. We've entered an age where the dictionary has been mugged in broad daylight, and the copper taking notes says, "Well, the word 'criminal' didn't consent to being used that way." It's like a Monty Python sketch with worse acting.
The scene: polished suit, Instagram-worthy brooch, big eyes of sincerity staring down the barrel of the camera. The statement, delivered as if Moses had come down from the mountain with a third tablet that said: "Thou shalt not judge." It's all very noble, of course, until you apply it to real life. Tell that to the shopkeeper who's been cleaned out of scratch cards by some "non-criminal" in a hoodie. Tell it to the old lady who's had her handbag liberated by a gentleman of "alternative morality."
The whole charade reeks of a deeper disease: a society terrified of labels. Don't call thieves thieves. Don't call liars liars. Don't even call clowns clowns, just "alternative jesters." We've abandoned truth for the dopamine hit of sounding profound on social media. If Orwell were alive today, he'd need three extra packs of cigarettes to cope.
And yet, there's a grim hilarity in it. Imagine the courtrooms of tomorrow:
"Your Honour, my client may have stabbed seven people, but does that really make him a criminal? Surely he's just a man exploring unconventional cutlery techniques?"
Bang the gavel, acquit him, and hand him a Michelin star while you're at it.
It's not compassion. It's denial dressed in sequins. The actual cruelty is pretending reality doesn't exist, leaving victims to rot while the culprits are rebranded as misunderstood dreamers. It's the sort of thinking that sends a nation skidding down the slope from civilisation into a carnival of excuses. And somewhere in the distance, the band plays on, out of tune, naturally.
Compliance Note: This piece has been fact-checked for accuracy under UK media standards. Jasmine Crockett's statement was verified as authentic and delivered on the Getting Better podcast with Jonathan Van Ness, and it was publicly reported on September 18–19, 2025, by Fox News. Context: Crockett was discussing broader issues of criminal justice reform and systemic bias. The article is a satirical commentary on how the remark has been publicly interpreted, rather than on her personal intent or character. Care has been taken to avoid defamation or privacy intrusion. The tone is satirical, but within the bounds of fair comment.