And that, kids, is why you should always have a passcode lock on your cellphone.

Nah. A vandal recently smashed in my mum's door, and she had the option of prosecuting the little bastard or accepting a written apology and money to cover the damages. She went for the apology option and got £60 to "cover" the £400 cost of replacing the door and a three-sentence apology covered in correction fluid because the tossbag who smashed her door in couldn't spell "sorry".

If it ever happens again, the little shit is getting a criminal record.

I'm pretty much with you, but to be fair, the woman that found this particular little shit's phone had/has the option of going to the police at any time.

If his mother sounded defensive or laissez faire when confronted with the information about her son, she could have just called the police instead. If she didn't get back ALL of her missing stuff upon confronting the kid (and mother) at their house, she could have called the police. If there was any damage to the car, she could have asked that to be covered IN FULL, and go to the police if it wasn't forthcoming.

Heck, any of the other people he stole from still have the option of going to the police if they aren't satisfied with just getting their stuff back and an apology.

But in this particular instance, I bet that keeping police involvement as a last resort was win/win for every party. If she had gone to the police first the kid would have a record (which he perhaps deserves), the people he stole from likely wouldn't get all of their stuff back and probably wouldn't get any money to cover any damages he may have done (or at best 60 out of 400 as in your Mom's situation).

So for the time being, maybe this was their best option. I'm in easy agreement with the spirit of your last line though -- if it ever happens again no benefit of the doubt need be given.

At least they didn't make the old surprise visit for laughs and lashings of the old ultra violent.

Certainly wouldn't be for the old in-out in-out.