There's no reason for any such distinction.
I agree. I was merely describing the situation under current circumstances. I was not trying to defend it.
Again, the punishment should be some form of restitution to the victim (I'm OK with two times, four times, or anything in between), plus payment for any court costs.
In this case its NOT arbitrary. If we require, say, threefold restitution (in other words, thieves must pay three dollars to the victim for every dollar they stole), a thief who steals $500 worth of merchandise would owe $1500, a thief who steals $499 would owe $1497, and a thief who steals $50 would owe $150. No stupid arbitrary amounts of money that make the difference between a short time in a cage and a long time in a cage. Just restitution for the person who was robbed.
Actually, this still contains an element of arbitrariness. Where before the arbitrariness manifested in where the line was drawn between petty larceny and grand larceny, now the arbitrariness would come in at what "multiple" (2x, 3x, 4x, etc.) is to be used to factor the restitution figure. But we do not really need such arbitrarily fixed elements, even under a system that promotes victim restitution.
What we really need is a system that strives first and foremmost to achieve "conciliation" between victim and convict whenever possible. For example, in cases such as theft, when someone has been convicted of stealing, the victim and convict should be allowed to negotiate a figure for restitution that both can agree upon.
If the victim and the convict (or their duly-appointed representatives) are unable to arrive at such an agreement, the matter could be resolved in any number of other ways - the judge or judges who moderated the case could decide - or the jury (if there was one) - or you could even have something like professional "restitution arbitrators" who don't even have any involvement in criminal cases at all unless or until their services are needed. Any or all of these (and other) methods could be available. There is no need for a single "one size fits all" solution.
The only reason we have the "one size fits all" situation we're in today is because the State lusts to control
everything - and
always for its own benefit (NOT for the benefit of the victims of crimes, or of "society" at large, or what-have-you). That's why fines are collected and kept by the State. And it's why convicts are (so often inefficiently, unproductively, and pointlessly) stuffed into buildings filled with cages. The whole system is designed to provide power, money, control, and jobs & career advancement opportunities for police, judges, prosecutors, parole officers, wardens, guards and all the other appurtenances of the "prison-industrial complex" ...
That's not a bad idea. But if the thief didn't have any money and couldn't afford the restitution, then the thief would have to go to prison. The thief would have a choice between paying something like triple restitution, or facing several years in prison.
Not necessarily. Mind you, that may be the last resort. But it wouldn't be necessary simply because he didn't have money. The thief could still work for the money, if he had a job. If he didn't, he could go into debt and look for a job. Or, if necessary, become an indentured servant of the victim (yes, that's illegal in our current society. Our society is so evil that it considers allowing people to go into indentured servitude to pay their debts wrong but it doesn't consider locking people in cages for minor crimes* to be wrong.)
Another possibility is that once a restitution amount is settled upon (by whatever means - see my remarks above), the convict could be taken on as an "inmate" employee at a "restitution company" that specializes in assisting convicts in paying their restitutions. The convict works for the company and his wages are divided among himself, the company, and the victim. This continues until the convict has paid the restitution agreed upon between himself and his victim, at which point he is released from obligation. Entering such a arrangement would be entirely voluntary on the part of the convict, and may or may not involve him being restricted to certain places or areas. Again, there are many possibilities for handling this kind of thing - possibilities that are far better left to the "free market" to sort out and settle, rather than power-lusting State institutions ...
Mind you, if a thief absolutely refused to take any measures to pay his debt, than he may well have to go to prison.
Even then, there would be no need for the use of "prisons" as they are currently conceived or operated ...
For example, if a convict refuses to abide by a sentence of restitution - or agrees to a restitution arrangement and then willfully refuses to hold up his end of the deal - then the he could be duly declared an "outlaw" and will no longer enjoy any legal protections at all. He may then be robbed, beaten, killed, etc. with impunity (and this will have been a consequence of
his own choices - NOT something unilaterally imposed upon him by a fallible and necessarily imperfect legal system). Given such "outlaw" status, the victim may then seek "satisfaction" from the convict by whatever means the victim cares to employ.
