Whenever possible, courts should turn to video conferencing, just as many colleges and universities now are doing for classes. In Australia, the Supreme Court of New South Wales on Thursday announced it would send lawyers and clients to online courts, with video and teleconferencing, to “minimize the need for parties to come to the court.” An emergency law proposed in Britain includes a provision for virtual courts for criminal and civil cases. A few years ago, I watched judges in Newark seamlessly conduct bail hearings by video conference. The technology is there. Courts should also explore increasing access for people to pay fines for traffic offenses or violations of municipal ordinances by mail or online. They should not simply close, stranding people in jail.

Instead, the pandemic is an opportunity to rethink how the system treats low-level offenses, which account for more than 60 percent of arrests nationally. Police officers often have the discretion to issue tickets and summonses for many misdemeanors, and that’s what they should do, rather than booking people on such charges. That would reduce the potential of spreading the virus in police stations and to the families and friends of officers. Judges and prosecutors should suspend bail for defendants who are arraigned (rather than ticketed) for nonviolent crimes.

Jails and prisons, with crowded and sometimes dirty conditions, are known vessels of infection. The extra risk outweighs any benefit from setting bail for defendants accused of nonviolent crimes who can’t post it. Judges can also delay court appearances for misdemeanor defendants.

“It’s nuts to force people to choose between their health and an added fine or bench warrant,” as Radley Balko, an opinion writer for The Washington Post, pointed out this week, “especially for alleged offenses that, by definition, aren’t comparatively serious.” He added that he’s not advocating lawlessness: “Make rolling decisions as public health picture evolves, so public knows that any misdemeanors committed going forward could still be punished.”

It also makes sense to stop arresting and incarcerating people for technical — that is, noncriminal — violations of parole and probation. About 4.5 million people live under court supervision around the country. In 2017, they made up 25 percent of new admissions to state prisons, not because they committed new crimes, but for infractions like missed curfew or unauthorized travel. This practice often makes little sense in terms of public safety; it is particularly hard to justify now.

There are limits to what justice officials should do in response to the pandemic. They should not release people accused of violent acts who are likely to pose a threat, a group that can include those charged with misdemeanors relating to domestic violence. They should reduce the call for jury service but not violate a defendant’s right to a speedy trial with lengthy postponements for those who have already been waiting for long periods in jail.

But right now, local and federal justice systems aren’t at risk of doing too much too soon. They’re at risk of doing too little, too late, and missing a chance to show that the government is working to protect everyone.

Emily Bazelon is the author of “Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution. and End Mass Incarceration.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.