I don't know what happens in the US but here in the UK fines can be paid in installments relative to the offender's income.

Since they are likely to be on benefits and, technically, on a 'basic minimum income' (another story) this means the amount they have to pay each week/month is negligible and not a real deterrent.

Community service also, here at least, is considered a soft option.

So you have large numbers of young people with nothing to lose in your society, but the "problem" is that they might disrupt the possessions of richer people and the "solution" is to pay to put them in prison? Surely there's a better way.

> "Surely there's a better way."

There is always a better way but we haven't found it yet. They don't just disrupt richer people though, they are a blight on all of society.

> Community service also, here at least, is considered a soft option.

"Is considered" is a weasel phrase. I don't know how you're defining "soft", but statistically community service is far more effective at reducing reoffending than prison is.

> "I don't know how you're defining "soft", but statistically community service is far more effective at reducing reoffending than prison is."

It may well be more effective but what I meant, in terms of being soft, is that it doesn't deter the initial offence in the same way the certainty of a prison sentence would do?

Deterrence generally doesn't work though.

Well, we don't know if does or not since those who have been deterred are not being counted.

We can measure what happens when e.g. sentencing guidelines for some particular crime change to favour prison over community service or vice versa.

Seems like you have superior knowledge of the system so I'll defer to it.

I guess I'm thinking of deterrents on a bigger scale. The kind of person who commits low-level crime probably doesn't weigh up the pros and cons (no pun intended) of getting caught?