The issue with shifting to "soft" enforcement is that the softer enforcement allows the punishments to be extended for much longer than a jail sentence. Instead

The issue with shifting to "soft" enforcement is that the softer enforcement allows the punishments to be extended for much longer than a jail sentence. Instead of 3 days for public intox it might be a year of ankle monitoring at $350 a month, and because the city wants the year to look attractive they either take away the incarceration option or increase the sentence. So the very poor get incarcerated for longer, and the less poor end up with a fairly massive chunk out of their income. Also because the city isn't paying they have a lessened interest in reducing the fees. If you look close you can see some hidden pernicious issues with it. Fundamentally it means that the state can be really mean to the poor and not impact the better off. Penalties that one can buy their way out of can even to an extent encourage lawbreaking.