I think it makes it worse, because of the physical endangerment involved.

But in both cases the theft of property is morally equivalent to the thief enslaving me to produce the stolen items for him.

If it took me a day to work to earn the money to buy my phone, and you steal it, you've just stolen a day of my life.

Consider that if this hypothetical thief were to be put under house arrest instead of in prison, the state could save enough money to buy you a new phone.

Except that the taxpayers would then be forced to pay reparations for the criminal behaviour of another. A.k.a. moral hazard.

Why not do both? Put him under house arrest, and compel him to buy me a new phone.

How about we start with no jail time for victimless crimes? If you don't endanger anyone but yourself, we don't pursue criminal charges. I'm thinking drug users and people who drink unpasteurized milk.

I'm 100% in agreement with you there. The entire idea of a 'victimless crime' is without merit.

We can then extend the logic to ridiculous cases where the law is clearly "wrong".

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/thanks-to-the-mus...