Well in your case a fine and paying for damages. Repeat offenses maybe could constitute jail time. But wouldn't non violent crimes be better served by keeping t

Well in your case a fine and paying for damages. Repeat offenses maybe could constitute jail time. But wouldn't non violent crimes be better served by keeping the person out of the prison system with hardened criminals, further preventing a life of crime. In the end, is that better for taxes and society in general? I don't have all the answers, but in many cases prison for non-violent crimes (i.e. this JSTOR case or drug cases) are misguided and perpetuate the problem. Would you be happy if that person that stole your car was a first time offender and later found out he got caught up in a gang in prison and entered a life of crime? Or would you just collect your insurance, buy another car, and hope that there is some non-violent offender programs that could stop that, or that over time he could repay that to insurance? We have to change that I believe, or we can expect many more situations like the recent events. I hate even talking about the private prison system we have here that profits off of incarceration of non-violent crimes. In Swartz's case, putting someone in prison that is contributing to society in exchange for locking them up for 30+k per year seems completely backwards, cruel and ancient thinking. A system that can create larger criminals easily from imprisonment of minor or non-violent actions. We should at least differentiate them better.