Savage criminal sentences were handed down by the courts in the days after the London riots in 2011.
- Nicholas Robinson (aged 23) was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for stealing bottles of water (worth £3.50) from a looted shop in Brixton. His previous good character and early plea of guilty to a non-dwelling burglary, as well as the low value of goods stolen, the fact he was in education, and his remorse, were in his favour. These meant the magistrate decided to not send him up to the Crown Court where he would face a possible higher sentence.
- Danielle Corns (19) was sentenced to 10 months for stealing two left-footed trainers in Wolverhampton and leaving them outside the shop.
- Two 20-year olds were sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for creating a Facebook riot event in Northwich (which didn’t occur and to which no one attended).
7 out of 10 of sentences issued in the aftermath of the London riots were upheld in full in the Court of Appeal. Any reductions were modest. The longer sentence handed out was 23 years for conspiracy to murder to the leader of a gang who planned to drive to the riots carrying guns to attack the police.
Brian Bell, Laura Jaitman and Stephen Machin (2014) used this sudden change in the judicial wind to measure the impact of tough sentences on crime.
Across London, they found a significant drop in “riot crimes” – burglary, criminal damage and violence against the person – over the six months following the riots.
Other crimes showed a tendency to increase, as though criminals were substituting away from these “expensive” crimes and towards the “cheaper” ones.
Crime is occupation choice: criminals commit crime because they find that profitable to do so. When criminals anticipate that crime will be less profitable and more likely to be accompanied by the prison experience, less crimes are committed.
HT: timharford.com
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments