Re: And meanwhile in the real world
That is a fair point.
But....
actually we need some real figures here.
Say the total who mug (and extort the PIN in the Met's recent drive) and steal a phone are X.
The breakdown of X will contain those who are in your list, but the question is, how many?
Whereas you are right that the murder rate is not zero in the US in spite of the Death Penalty, (which personally I am against - I am NOT mandating for people who steal phones, NOR am I mandating 100 years no PAROLE - that was just an absurd example to get an idea across). However, what would the murder rate be, in the US, if the sentence was 10 years. Would it be more or less? What about 5 years?
I am mortified to even be considered a Daily Mailite, my point being that if I was to go out and delibrately take a phone from somebodies open handbag, and I was subsequently caught and convicted, what would my sentence be if
A. No convictions previously
B. known but no convictions.
C. 100th time.
If the sentence at A was the same as C, would the occurence of C reduce considerably?
Stealing is considered by society is set out as morally wrong. If we had NO sanctions, then we would expect the rate to go up. If you had life imprisonment for petty theft, it would go down, though as previously mentioned it is unlikely to go to zero. SO - are the current sentencing for stealing a phone optimum for the middle ground, ie putting chance theft off? Is it the same as stealing a car? The same as stealing a Million quid? (Taking the manner aside for now, ie Armed robbery) If not, there must be a list, either written or unwritten, that states that if your item stolen is less than 10K, then we will not put the same resources in if it was a Million quid, when all other factors are equal. If this is the case, then WHY is it the case?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
