Police have limited resources. It would be inefficient of them to spend much time investigating crimes that the DA has clearly stated he will not prosecute. It makes much more sense for them to investigate crimes that might actually lead to prosecutions.
How would the DA even be able to press charges if the police do not investigate at all because they claim that the DA will not press charges? The DA does not go round investigating criminal cases, they rely on the police for that. It was clearly the police who dropped the case, not the DA. Maybe the police have given up because they are correct in that the DA will not do anything, but they could just as well be blaming the DA for their own prioritization issues.
But they do get to decide what they investigate based on the DA's polices. It's a waste of everyone's time to investigate crimes that won't be charged regardless of evidence.
The city affirmatively decided to decriminalize petty crime. Why would you blame the cops for that.
Why is police choosing not to make arrests (at high physical risk to all involved) in cases where the DA has announced intent to not prosecute “not doing their job”?
The public demands that police only focus on the worst offenders, everyone demands that use of force is eliminated, and the DA announced intent not to press charges for victimless crimes like property theft.
How would it be appropriate for police to take action in that scenario? If that chase ends in a tackle and the thief is harmed, and the government would have just let the dude go, how is that in any way consistent with the government’s interest?
Responding to clear direction from political leadership and the public is not “protest”, if anything failing to do so would be.
OK, but that still doesn't explain why it's a "spectacularly bad idea" for police/DA to not bother prosecuting in cases like this. What exactly are they supposed to do when they don't have a cooperative victim? Why is it not-stupid for the victim to avoid the costs of an adversarial court case, but it's stupid for the DA to avoid a case that he or she is guaranteed to lose?
The case can't be too valid if the police aren't confident the person is guilty. It sounds exactly like more detective work would be advised, to avoid harming innocent people.
But yes obviously it would be less efficient to fund the true cost of policing, rather than leaving it the reverse lottery we have now. But not doing so is essentially a violation of due process, as the victims are extrajudicially punished based on mere suspicion.
The police don't prosecute crimes, correct. As long as they're not making arrests it's not even a matter of what the DA or judge does.
And if the DAs are not going to charge these crimes anyways there is no point for the police to catch the criminals.
And there it is. There is absolutely a point in making misdemeanor arrests. Making misdemeanor arrests allows the rest of society to focus on the next step in the process.
If you're a cop, why do your job if the people are just going to be released with no consequences? Police can't do anything if the DA refuses to prosecute.
Yeah, why not have the police just make arrests and have the courts hold hearings? Have people who actually handle criminal investigations handle this!
If I were a cop I wouldn’t expend any effort to chase down a criminal if I know the DA is gonna shirk their responsibility. What’s the point? Law enforcement doesn’t work if the law isn’t enforced.
Same way I’m not gonna do any extra work in the office if I know my manager doesn’t care.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you about the DA, but it seems like in your specific case the problem is more that the police themselves are acting indifferently.
Imho this is about priorities not deciding to not enforce the law. If the cops have nothing to do and a law is broken they should invetigate. They don't get to sit on their buts complaining about the da
The DAs decide whether to pursue a specific case, but it's the police department that starts the case, not the DA. The DA is not out there patrolling the streets finding people in violation and deciding whether to call the cops. The cops patrol, find a person they don't like, take them to the station, and then the DA can decide whether to charge them with a crime or not.
The point is that it's simply not the case that the state tends not to prosecute in cases where "the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime".
Sure, but I think the issue is that even when they are empowered as law enforcement, there's not much they can do if the DA isn't going to prosecute these cases.
My understanding is that they can pursue drug crime or break up organized fencing operations. But at the low level most of these train robberies are happening they probably don't waste their time.
Actually, no, the problem isn't so much with the police as with the district attorney's office. The police can arrest these people, but it's entirely pointless when the DA won't prosecute them and they're back on the street in 24h with no penalty for their crimes whatsoever. I can't blame the police for not even bothering to arrest people they know will be let go immediately.
There are more crimes committed under their purview than they have the resources to investigate. Therefore they should prioritize. They obviously prioritized wrongly here.
reply