The looting sprees this week have brought to the fore the general problem we have in this society of antisocial behaviour. As my wife puts it, we are suffering from a tsunami of chavs: ineducable louts for whom, in reality, society has nothing to offer, and who offer nothing to society either.

It is well-known that crime is related to many things: unwanted children (of which the chavs have many, and typically are examples of themselves) being a major factor. They grow up as feral children and society is left to pick up the pieces.

We can’t fix that right now (although a start could be made, no doubt, but it takes a generation for the numbers of feral children to decline and crime rates to decline along with them). Right now, what can we do? Well, a lot of people are calling for tougher sentencing, and it is hard to argue against it: if these people are off the streets at least crime would be reduced. However, the state has no policy here. The politicians talk tough and the courts ignore them. Looters are supposed to get 5-10 years, but in fact many are getting a £100 fine and a referral order or some such. The police and politicians claim anyone caught with a knife will get an automatic 5 years, but they often get much less in fact. Parliament hasn’t got any joined-up policy on these matters, clearly.

What sort of tougher sentencing is there that would actually keep the most persistent offenders off the streets? In some parts of the USA they have a “three strikes and you’re out” system, in which someone who has had three convictions gets an automatic life sentence, no matter how minor the crime. And life means life, usually. Well… OK, but it is a bit simplistic. Many kids do in fact grow up, and it has to be admitted that they are not entirely responsible for their poor upbringing and lack of education. It allows no room for reform – and some crooks do reform, after all.

I suggest a system that I call “Recycled Sentencing” instead. In this system, the courts can sentence as they do now, except that each successive offence gets its own sentence, plus all previous sentences as well.

Thus for a first offence a person may well get a £100 fine or whatever.

For a second offence they may get 1 month in prison plus the £100 fine again.

For their third offence maybe they get 6 months in prison, plus one more month, plus another £100 fine.

For their fourth offence they may be fined £500, but they also get 6 months in prison plus the other month, plus the other £100 fine…

For their fifth offence they may simply be bound over to keep the peace – but they still get £500 + 6 months + 1 month + £100 as well.

As you can see, persistent offenders will automatically end up with tougher and tougher sentences, and will, over time, be kept off the streets for longer and longer. And indeed, it should reduce the numbers of feral children in the long run too, as their breeding chances are reduced in prison, after all. Of course the proper way of fixing this is to fix society, but in the meantime, this method would seem humane and proportionate. Obviously the system will have to have substitutions for complex cases like care orders and so on, but these can be thought through and implemented fairly easily.

I’ve put a petition on the UK Government’s e-petitions site – should it get 100,000 signatures, then Parliament has to… er… consider debating it. Hmm.