MANY motorists who, like Home Secretary Jack Straw, are among the millions of drivers who have been victims of car crime, will share his view that the soft sentences given to young offenders are much to blame for its extent.

Indeed, at the introduction of the Consumers' Association guide to car security, we find Mr Straw complaining about the lad who stole his car from outside his home in Blackburn being given only a conditional discharge.

"That's the youth courts for you," he moans - after saying that many youngsters do not care about being caught because they were often not punished severely enough by the youth justice system.

But while there will be much agreement with Mr Straw's view on lenient sentencing, there will also be considerable impatience over his laments. He is, after all, the law and order minister of a government elected on a strong anti-crime ticket and is, therefore, the main politician to whom we look for the tide to be turned.

True, he speaks of the youth courts being made faster and tougher.

But plagued motorists will expect him to get on swiftly with this task - and to ensure that there is a credible emphasis on the "tougher" aspect of it.

That said, there are other elements needed to beef up car crime deterrence.

Car manufacturers could, as the Consumers' Association complains, do more to stop people stealing from cars - in line with the steps they have taken to make newer cars more difficult to steal.

And car owners themselves could prevent a considerable number of crimes if they took more trouble to ensure their vehicles were locked and that possessions were not left on show in them.

But, in view of the astronomic level of car crime, they cannot be blamed for wanting the law and the courts to get far tougher so that their vehicles are made much more inviolable to begin with.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.