Disorderly conduct, possession of marijuana, and trespassing. Crimes of the century, they are not. Yet their impact on those who commit them—including everything from employment barriers to the social stigma of a criminal record—may well last that long. Even a victimless misdemeanor can derail the life of a transgressor.

But it doesn’t have to. And we know this because we’ve already devised a way of addressing offenses that eschews excessive criminalization and mass incarceration: the U.S. traffic code.

Traffic infractions such as speeding and running red lights cause more than 32,000 fatalities and two million injuries every year, whereas nonviolent misdemeanors, by definition, do not. Yet we punish the latter much more aggressively than the former on the flawed assumption that nonviolent misdemeanors are exceptional acts, meriting heavier sanctions and higher levels of enforcement. But this is false—and what’s more, few of us make it to middle age without at least one potentially criminal misstep. All too often, the dividing line between those with a record and those without is not moral desert but a combination of luck and systemic bias. A points-based system, not unlike the one we use for traffic violations, could begin to change that.

The Traffic Code

The unforgiving skew of our criminal system translates into a panoply of collateral consequences that attach to even minor offenses. Depending on the particular offense, thousands of legal prohibitions and constraints can snap into place the instant a person is convicted, covering everything from professional and business licenses to parental rights and volunteer opportunities. Often, a mere brush with the justice system is all it takes to start pushing a life off course; researchers have found that even a single arrest for disorderly conduct reduces the odds of securing employment.

These effects are, in most instances, extremely difficult to outrun. Expungement may require lengthy waiting periods or involve byzantine procedures and hefty fees that make it a practical impossibility. As a result, the vast majority of eligible individuals never have their records expunged. Then again, even “successful” expungement may not actually help many people; the background checks employers rely on are rife with errors, and the routine publication of booking photos and arrest reports ensures that many alleged crimes remain a permanent stain on an individual’s reputation, regardless of expungement.

The traffic code eschews this kind of “one strike and you’re out” approach in favor of what is known as a demerit point system. While the details vary, generally it involves drivers accumulating demerit points based on the severity of any traffic infractions they commit. As these points build up on a person’s record, he or she will face a series of escalating sanctions.

Unlike most entries on a criminal record, these points are not permanent. Over time, they will automatically drop off a person’s driving record. Usually, drivers can accelerate this process and knock points off their record early by completing driver’s education or other safety courses. Only for very serious infractions can authorities circumvent the system and file criminal charges.

While few of us like racking up demerits, the fact that no one is seriously protesting it shows, at a minimum, that the system is fairly widely accepted—probably because it works. In California, for example, each stage of the state’s escalating point-based sanctions has repeatedly been found to significantly reduce crashes and driver citations.

Applying a Demerit System to Misdemeanors

With this blueprint in hand, it’s not hard to envision a demerit system for misdemeanors; it would simply be a matter of picking eligible misdemeanors, weighing them to determine points, and then selecting relevant sanctions. Just as traffic law leaves particularly egregious violations to the criminal system, a misdemeanor demerit system would likely exclude violent and other, more serious misdemeanors. This would leave a mix of relatively benign offenses—such as disorderly conduct, trespassing, shoplifting, simple drug possession, and public intoxication—subject to points.

Initial sanctions might include official notices or warning hearings, with higher point totals entailing mandatory treatment or programming. Rather than a loss of a driver’s license, the ultimate sanction might be a criminal prosecution at the tipping-point offense. Individuals could avoid this result by proactively reducing point totals through activities like community service, voluntary programming, or paying restitution. Finally, just as with the traffic code, states could maintain police authority to directly file criminal charges for especially flagrant violations.

By introducing a greater degree of forgiveness, a demerit system would better reflect both an imperfect citizenry and a flawed justice system. Practically speaking, it would reduce the number of individuals laboring under the inordinate weight of an unnecessary criminal record. Equally important, treating records as malleable and offenses as lapses in judgment (rather than irreversible descents into deviancy) could counteract the destructive “othering” of our current system, eroding the stigma attached to petty crime.

A demerit system is also a fairer way of dealing with minor breaches of public trust that are too prevalent to be constantly policed. Whereas now, a single brush with the law can easily initiate destructive feedback loop within the justice system, a point system would have a built-in pressure release, requiring multiple police interactions for heightened sanctions and providing opportunities for people to remedy past errors. On its own, a demerit system would not be able to overcome all the effects of over-policing or law enforcement bias; it would guarantee, however, that all individuals received some measure of reprieve, thereby alleviating some of the unequally shared pain other elements of our justice system dole out.

Any fears that reducing punishments in this manner will encourage a new wave of criminality are misplaced. Research has suggested that swift and certain sanctions, but not necessarily severe ones, can be highly effective. Additionally, by eliminating the need to arrest, book, and prosecute people for misdemeanors, it would free up law enforcement and the courts to spend time pursuing justice for serious felonies and violent crime.

Poll after poll shows overwhelming public support for a justice system that is less punitive and more rehabilitative. Boston just elected a District Attorney who campaigned on a promise not to charge people for committing any one of 15 misdemeanor offenses. District attorneys in Philadelphia, New York, and elsewhere have similarly declined to prosecute or have downgraded various minor offenses. A misdemeanor demerit system simply codifies these positions into law.

Public intoxication, shoplifting, and disturbing the peace are not desirable behaviors. Yet that does not mean they warrant incarceration or lifelong labels. Indeed, the moral opprobrium associated with these acts is closer to that of speeding or running a red light than misdemeanor assault or burglary. It’s time we started treating them more like the former than the latter.