The false distinction between “violent” and “non-violent” crime  Distinctions between violent and non-violent offences are not useful when deciding which offenders should be imprisoned and which should receive more lenient, rehabilitative sentences. The severity of a crime can only be defined by its context and consequences, not by semi-arbitrary labels such as violent and non-violent.  All forms of criminality, and not just violent crimes, can have disturbing and traumatic consequences. The effect of a robbery on the physical health and psychological stability of an elderly person can be as pronounced as the effects of a violent assault on a healthy young man.  It is disingenuous to claim that the nature of a criminal act can be separated from that act’s effects on a victim. As the widely known common law maxim states, a victim should be taken as he is found. A reasonable adult citizen will not be excused from responsibility for what he knew to be a harmful criminal act simply because he did not foresee the extent or type of harm he would do.  A judicial system that takes the concept of proportionality seriously should be free to decide that the consequences of a robbery committed against an impoverished, frail widow should result in a more severe sentence than a teenager’s impulsive attempt to shop-lift alcohol.  Similarly, the outcome of a wide ranging financial fraud is likely to be more harmful than the outcome of a fist fight between two drunken football fans.  Judges are allowed to exercise discretion so that they can adapt the broad rules and objectives of sentencing to the nuances of each case brought before them. The context and consequences of criminal activity should inform sentencing decisions, not an artificially narrow definition of “violence”.