Imprisoned for mobile phone theft

Adrian Lobban sentenced to 3.5 years on Tuesday Christopher Sawyers sentenced to 2.5 years on Tuesday Dean Healey sentenced to four years on Wednesday

Now Lord Woolf, who as Lord Chief Justice is the most senior judge in the land, has laid down a tougher sentencing policy for those convicted of mobile phone theft.

In future, mobile phone muggers should be locked up for at least 18 months, he said. Up to three years would be imposed for offences involving no weapons and up to five years or more if weapons or violence are involved.

But will this more robust attitude deter mobile phone thieves in future?

Many law and order experts believe not.

Direct correlation?

There is no evidence to support the "dimmer switch" theory of a direct correlation between sentencing and crime, says criminologist and former prison governor David Wilson.

Lord Woolf: "This will apply irrespective of the offender's age"

"This is not a new thing. We used to have what were called 'exemplary sentences', whereby a judge would seek to make an example of a criminal by handing out a harsh term.

"The last one I can remember was in the 1980s when a mugger in Birmingham got 12 years. But these clearly had no effect and went out of fashion."

Studies show other factors can be much more influential.

Indeed, the likelihood of being caught and concern about how their parents would react were named by young people as what chiefly deterred them from committing crime, according to a Mori poll.

Fear of being caught

The poll, carried out last year for the Youth Justice Board, found 41% of young people cited both these factors as deterrents. The fear of being punished or type of punishment figured among significantly fewer: 24% and 25% respectively for schoolchildren.

The government has pledged to crack down on mobile phone muggings

"If people thought they would get caught they wouldn't commit crime. The fact is the vast majority of offenders know they won't get caught," says Mr Wilson.

In California, the "three strikes" law, which came into effect in the mid-1990s, dictates that repeat offenders should get tougher sentences. Prison terms are doubled for those who commit any offence after they have been convicted of a prior, serious crime.

Those who go on to commit a third offence can expect a sentence of 25 years to life.

By 1999, 50,000 criminals had been locked up under the statute's terms. Yet a report that year by the University of California found it had hardly any influence on crime levels.

Re-offenders?

It noted the percentage of arrests of criminals facing "three strikes" sentences dropped by only 1% in the two years after the law took effect.

550,000 mobiles were stolen from children aged 11-15

Yet in the UK, some might point to the overall fall in crime levels in the mid-90s under Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard - someone who passionately believed in tough sentencing.

Mr Wilson says there are complicating factors, including evidence that some police forces "under reported" crime figures at the time.

And aside from the deterrence argument, there are questions as to whether jailing young offenders will only harden them to commit more crime later.

"Eight-nine percent of under 18s will, on release, be convicted of a fresh offence within two years," says Richard Garside, of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.

"As [former Tory Home Secretary] David Waddington said: 'Prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse'."