In a recent appearance on the "Getting Better" podcast with Jonathan Van Ness, Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett made remarks that have stirred debate across the political spectrum. Crockett, a Democrat representing Texas and a former public defender and civil rights attorney, suggested that the act of committing a crime does not automatically label someone as a criminal. The congresswoman's comments were made public on September 19, 2025, and have since generated a flurry of responses.
Crockett's perspective is rooted in her experience with indigent clients, where she observed that many individuals who engage in illegal activities are often driven by poverty, lack of access to education, or systemic inequities. She argued that understanding these factors is essential for lawmakers who are tasked with crafting policies that effectively address public safety concerns. During the podcast, Crockett underscored the distinction between crimes committed out of necessity and those born from malice, highlighting the importance of intent and mindset in determining criminality.
The congresswoman's statements reflect a broader debate on criminal justice reform, where she advocates for a focus on rehabilitation and addressing root causes of crime, such as systemic social challenges. She pointed to the work of Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot, who has suggested that not all low-level theft cases, like taking food or diapers, necessitate prosecution. Crockett emphasized that legal defenses often mitigate consequences for actions taken under duress, stemming from urgent needs rather than deliberate wrongdoing.
However, her comments have not gone without criticism. Conservative commentator Gunther Eagleman labeled her statements as "unbelievable," questioning her qualifications and the implications of her views on personal responsibility and the legal definition of criminality. Many conservatives argue that the commission of illegal acts, regardless of intent, classifies someone as a criminal under U.S. law.
The conversation on the podcast also delved into broader issues within the criminal justice system. Van Ness and Crockett discussed the contrast between "crimes of survival" and intentional offenses like fraud or tax evasion, with the latter being indicative of a criminal mindset. Crockett also attributed rising crime rates in urban areas to groups she referred to as the "MAGA gang," rather than to illegal immigrants, challenging common narratives around crime and its perpetrators.
Observers note that Crockett's remarks highlight the tension between an empathy-driven approach to justice and more traditional punitive models. While critics argue that her framing of criminality risks normalizing illegal behavior, supporters contend that a deeper understanding of the causes of crime is crucial for meaningful reform. This debate reflects ongoing national conversations about how to balance rehabilitation with law enforcement priorities, a topic that has been extensively covered by outlets such as Fox News.
As a leading Texas Democrat, Crockett's comments have reignited discussions over legislative priorities, the definition of criminality, and public perceptions of justice. The debate continues to unfold, fueling discussions over whether liberal lawmakers are prioritizing leniency and ideology over law, order, and public safety.
