They're including everything from traffic violations to felonies. I guess it wouldn't be as interesting of a statistic if they explained what it actually was.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2015...
This is the source of the stat.
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/just-facts-many-americans...
I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is so intuitively wrong that I wonder if you (or the article) is using a non-standard definition of "criminal". If not, is this a change? Has it always been defined this way?
1. I guess this is the origin of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". You can manipulate statistics to paint any picture you want, really.
2. They're probably pulling the information from the number of people who have an FBI number or an SID number. You get one of those if you've ever been so much as charged, regardless of whether or not you get convicted. Here's an example of a source that cares whether or not you even have such a number: when I legally changed my name a few years ago, my court petition had a section that said "Have you ever been charged with a Class A or B misdemeanor or a felony? [] Yes [] No. If yes -- write your FBI or SID numbers, if known: FBI #_______ SID#_______"
Kind of. Speeding tickets are generally under criminal law. However, they are in a procedural limbo where they are treated in many respects as civil. There is a concern that things like speeding cameras would not hold up under criminal law if they were significantly challenged, but to my knowledge, that has not happened at a high enough level yet.
Nope, "crimes" are by definition "criminal".
> In most states, traffic violations are covered by criminal law.
That's...complicated. Minor traffic offenses (often styled as "infractions") are treated in so.e ways as if they were crimes, but are generally not technically criminal (they neither have the kinds of penalties that require them to be crimes nor afford the procedural protections that are constitutionally required for criminal charges.)