First, Non-violent criminals does not cause a lot of harm to the society than violent criminals. We can offer them alternative choices like house-arrest, Community service etc. And also sending non-violent criminals does not decrease the crime rate. Because when those criminals come out of prison. They can't find a job because they have a bad record. So, Then the criminals will start commit crimes agian
Well, People in the united states started to go to jail more and more often and they just never stops doing bad things even if they are locked up in the jail, They will come up with more and more ways to do bad things even if they are already punished.
While for non-violent crime i think prison should be only a last resort (i think it is actually? ) there will be occasions when there is simply no alternative. For example what if someone KEEPS stealing, Vandalising property, Fraud, Drug use etc? At some point prison must be an option. Thanks
Take theft for example. If someone has burgled several properties without committing violence, Then they have damaged society and are likely to commit more damage through further theft and should be locked up until properly rehabilitated. Another example would be an adult having sexual relations with someone under the age of consent. While violence may not have been committed as the child may have been willing to engage, It was still an act that is damaging and therefore the adult should be locked up.
Many non-violent crimes are within the category of property crime and economic damage. If only the criminals who convicted violent crimes be sentenced to prison and the non-violent crimes being punished too weak or too heavy, It does not promote justice at all. Plus, Some violent crimes are so unbearable that should be condemned to death.