Yes, I am against jail for non-violent crimes. I'm open to modern non-medieval ideas even for violent crimes. I don't have the answers there, but I wish there were more people caring about this. So far it seems to be only the far left (I don't consider that an insult) and anarcho-capitalists, but I wish more people that fall into the middle somewhere (like myself) would think about this. Usually people don't think about stuff that affects strangers all that much until it affects them or a loved one. That's a people problem in general and I don't know how to solve it either.
Let's say someone steal a billion dollars through fraud and hide it. What should be done? Should they just walk free?
There's a difference between non-violent crimes (white collar crimes usually) and victimless crimes (possessing a small amount of controlled substances).
First of all, that's not a deterrent, though. If I can steal your money and all I have to do is return it if you catch me, I'll keep doing it. So you need some sort of punishment on top.
Which brings us to the second point... At minimum you should be fined, at least to cover interest gained while you held the money, probably more to cover emotional distress and otherwise.
Plus, at those kinds of sums, we're somewhere into "stole pension money territory" where we're only a few minutes away from "old lady took her own life after losing life savings".
I also expected the money is hidden away, such that the the legal system cannot get it back. Money can be laundered away. These are smarter criminals, not ones that just robbed a bank for cash and have it under their beds.
I'm generally supportive of more understanding sentencing, but I do think you're failing to consider how theft can be as damaging as violence (sometimes worse).
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.
Not even the most liberal societies on Earth, usually the Scandinavian ones, go as far as you describe. And they do have a prison system meant for prevention of recidivism and reintegration into society.
What you're saying is closer to an utopian ideal or who knows, something at least 50 years from now, in the future? :-)
Less utopian than people who cannot imagine themselves committing a violent crime (either because they are not physically imposing, or because the tiny gains of violent crime wouldn't make a dent in their monthly nut) thinking that the people who actually commit the crimes that they themselves consider committing might not be all bad.
White collar crime kills more people than violent crime by multiple orders of magnitude.
