I think they mean that just passing laws that make it punishable by say 30 years in prison to steal a phone would be regressive, since the punishment is in no proportion to the crime.

However, what would actually be nice if, like people here have suggested, is that the police would actually bum off to retrieve stolen phones, bikes, etc and then deliver whatever appropriate penalties to the perpetrators if found.

Doesn’t matter if it’s only a small punishment so long as people get their stuff back and the thieves learn they’ll be sought after.

So basically, we don’t need better laws here, simply enforcement of them.

Since rich people are less likely to steal phones, increasing the punishment for phone theft affects rich people less, which means it's regressive.

(I think using this argument to justify being soft on crime is ridiculous. I'm just pointing out what the argument is.)

> Losing a smartphone today can have a profound impact on people’s lives.

This is the actual problem. Theft is also a problem, but not all that relevant.

"Tough on crime" doesn't really prevent crime when the incentive to commit it is still probably higher than the disincentive no matter how "tough" and getting caught is still unlikely.

A trivial, but more relatable, example of this line of (criminal) reasoning is that people are more likely to enjoy extreme sports vs a high paying "dangerous job" despite working the job being less lethal, less accident prone, and a much greater net positive.

Anyway the regression is adding unnecessary laws.