Yes, there is no reason to imprison individuals who commit non-violent crimes. This is unnecessary, expensive, and in most cases, completely contradictory to any rehabilitative goals of the penal system. For example, when an individual is imprisoned for failure to pay child support, they are ultimately much less likely to be able to provide financial support for a child.
Prison is the harshest punishment the Criminal Justice system can dish out without taking the offenders life. Prison is not an uncommon punishment for crimes throughout history and the world. Non-violent crimes that should still maintain a prison sentence include all serious variations of theft. Steal a car, or burgle a house, and get jail time. Not using this form of punishment may result in continued activity of this nature. You can't tell a thief to pay a fine. He didn't have money in the first place, which led to the thieving.
There are several ways a criminal can be acting in ways the merit imprisonment. Essentially, when they deem themselves unworthy for act as a normal human in society, they are going to prison. There are several ways you can severely hurt others. Embezzling money, stealing things, etc, and these all merit time served as well.
No, I do not believe that only violent offenders should be imprisoned, because disabling the criminal from committing future crimes is important for both white collar and blue collar crimes. A person who embezzles can be punished by being removed from society for a while. Because they have hurt another person's life, they should have their life hurt, too.
I do not think that the only people who should be in prison are the violent offenders. I think everybody who commits a crime, regardless of the specifics, should be imprisoned if the crime warrants it. I think that thieves should go to prison just as much as somebody who is a murderer.