And my argument is against turning the dial up on punishment as a result of people in prison not being able to steal. The logic you've put forward, at the very least, suggests that people who steal should therefore have life sentences, and that already sounds a little absurd. If we should imprison people more, to prevent crime, why not you and me? I assume we've both jaywalked.
You could add that the price for having a single person in jail is more than people steal. A prisoner costs, in California, $106000 per year.
It would literally be cheaper (and obviously far more efficient for the economy) to offer anyone who steals $50 000 per year as long as they don't steal again. I mean you'd be paying criminals more than police officers, so I get that there would be revolution, but perhaps there are a LOT of cheap possibilities. If you offer someone $10k and what you ask in return keeps them out of prison for 3 months, that's a LARGE profit for the economy ...
The "prevent economic loss, by preventing stealing" argument is pretty strongly against prisons, doubly so in California.