Would putting someone to jail considered "violent"? Keep in mind that he can't defend himself with violent means if you're about to arrest him, so there's no real need for you to actually physically harm him in the process... Once the suspect is in jail, what about throwing away the key and/or not providing any food, drink and so on...

The phrase "it's not like I really did any real harm" comes to mind, the effect relies on the belief/awareness of the individual as to the harm caused by their actions. As such if you can convince people that a particular action doesn't do any real harm they're free to take it. Such indoctrination may in fact extend to actually killing people in some circumstances, if presented as the least harmful course of action. I'm not sure that that much would really change humans are pretty good at talking themselves into things.

@Thomas Good question. If you think of throwing someone in a jail cell as nonviolent, that's possible. If you do it with the intent to throw away the key though, that won't work - starvation is physical harm. You have to mean to feed them or let them out when you imprison them. Or be deranged enough to think starvation is harmless.

Does this include people who convince themselves that another person is less than human and therefore I can cause this "thing" harm and morally justify myself? (i.e. the multitude of examples in the real world). The fact that you allow for violent crime and violent acts at all means you have not gotten rid of violence (people can and have justified horrible acts so much that they pass lie detectors with flying colors) so I do not understand this question

You could have simply edited the old question, instead of deleting and reposting.

@JGreenwell If you think of someone as "the worlds worst human" or "barely human" then you can not harm them. If you think of someone as "not human at all" then you can harm them. This a loophole, yes. Do bear in mind that repeating that someone is less than human out loud is not the same as actually thinking it. You have to fully believe they are not human, without any doubt.

I'd post that as an answer then (which is basically nothing would change except violence would actually be worse) but I really don't feel like going through my Holocaust, Sudan, Slavery, Serial Killer, or other files/notes to build that answer today (sometimes my mind is not ready for those dark places) so if anyone else wants to add it - feel free.

The entire point of several of Asimov's novels, e.g., The Caves of Steel or The Naked Sun is to explore how a robot can kill a person despite being subject the the three laws of robotics.

Many fringe cases come to mind. Restraining someone who's about to do something they don't realize will cause harm? What about self-harm? Is the spell countered by any form of mental illness or psychological damage? What about those under the influence of various drugs (or are drugs ended due to self-harm restrictions?)?

Well, thank goodness that wizard didn't notice the myriad of non-violent ways we hurt each other, steal from each other, and coerce each other. As a formerly-brutal dictator, now I cannot be overthrown! This is a great relief to me. I get to keep my stolen billions, and keep stealing more. And I get to keep my propagandists working hard to convince folks that I'm immune, can still be tough, yet none can withstand me. Thank you, wizard!

So if a suspect is running away from the police, would they be able to use non-lethal weapons to stop them, for instance tranquilisers or tasers?

Depending on how you define violence, I doubt there's any need for law enforcement to begin with. What laws do you consider should be implemented that are not violent? And why did the guy not just cast a magic spell in which people can't commit crimes instead?

Oh, @AlexP , there's another Asimov novel that strongly works here too... "Childhood's End". In which visitors from space make pain immediately felt by those in the immediate vicinity. This was demonstrated in Spain in a Bull fight where the spear in the side of the Bull was felt by everyone in the stadium. This might be a more concrete mechanism to build upon, OP.

Your definition of "violence" shifts half way through. You start by defining it as "causing physical harm to other humans," but later the concept of "intent" starts creeping in. Reconciling the two is famously difficult, so your particular approach to this would have a major impact on the final approach to law enforcement.

@kleer001: Childhood's End is Arthur C. Clarke.

@Cort Ammon Do I really shift? It says "however the individual human interprets that" right there in the first sentence. It was always supposed to be about intent. How do I clarify it?

I don't see this query as story based. There's been a change in a fundamental fact of nature: namely, that humans are violent bastards who will spare no effort at hurting one another without cause.

Will doctors be able to examine patients and administer treatment if they know it's hurting them?

So does that definition imply that a paladin can burn someone at the stake if they truly believe that doing so is saving their mortal soul, as doing so is the precise opposite of harming them? And what of chaotic situations where one truly does not know which does more harm: action or inaction.

I like the question, but I think that it is veering between "too broad" and "primarily opinion-based". On one hand, whole books have been written just trying to answer this question (which clearly points to "too broad"); on the other, you don't mention how this limitation works or if there are workarounds about it (if I think black people / jews / homsexuals / infidels aren't real humans, can I hit them?) which makes it primarily opinion based.