On the contrary: the issue is that we are being encouraged to see this case as a moral injustice not based on any principle or law, but because the protagonist is portrayed sympathetically. If this were reported in a neutral tone of voice the story would be simple: guy breaks law, fails to pay fine, goes to jail.

I wasn't trying to make any argument, but if you want one, I guess it's this: that in a nation ruled by law, adults who vote for laws and punishments in the abstract ought to be mature enough to face the fact that there are hard consequences.

The writer wants to denounce the lawful punishment, but imply that it's caused by racism or something, so that he doesn't have to stake his credibility on arguing for a change to the law. This kind of sob-story approach is used by those who do not respect the danger of law, are willing to vote for anything that sounds "nice", and want someone else to be blamed for the downsides.