Please don't assume that anyone with a different view hasn't considered the significance of their position.
There's a difference between non-violent crimes (white collar crimes usually) and victimless crimes (possessing a small amount of controlled substances).
If someone breaks their spouse's ribs through domestic abuse, you'd apparently agree they need to be imprisoned.
But if someone steals someone else's identity and entire savings, ruins their identity, robs them of the ability to get another job or take out loans, which then results in them being unable to pay for medical treatment for their child, who dies, followed by their own suicide, I'd argue that's a far more tragic outcome, resulting from what you're categorizing as a "nonviolent crime". I'd argue that the latter crime is much more damaging, and should perhaps be treated as such in the justice system.
What you're saying is closer to an utopian ideal or who knows, something at least 50 years from now, in the future? :-)
White collar crime kills more people than violent crime by multiple orders of magnitude.
"White Collar" crimes absolutely could entail jail time if the offender has proven themselves to be untrustworthy and would continue to commit said crimes if allowed to be free
Jail should be used to protect the population from offenders, far too often however it is used for many other purposes including to punish people for "victimless" crimes or for being poor (like the inability to pay parking ticket)
