I think it more assumes that the police's incentive is to maximize the ratio of accusation to conviction as much as possible, which is a reasonable goal.
If they were simply trying to maximize the total number of convictions, then this wouldn't necessarily help; the police would just make broaden the kind of cases they'd accuse
And ofc, it's the function of the police to maximize the misdemeanor to conviction ratio; it's the function of the court to judge the quality of misdemeanor.
It is the function of whatever social/moral arm of the government to minimize misdemeanors. A police officer minimizing the number of accusations should only be doing so for practical reasons; In the ideal world he shouldn't be trying to interpret the law itself, and if it should exist (because it should in general be explicit what is and is not legal, and in general, it is not the policeman's job to decide what is moral, it is to enforce the standing morals.)
But its not an ideal world, and nobody wants to spend time/effort/money on a trash case, so the general incentive is to successfully convict; not to simply try.
>I think it more assumes that the police's incentive is to maximize the ratio of [conviction to accusation] as much as possible, which is a reasonable goal.
Strictly speaking it's not a very reasonable goal. The best way to achieve it would be to pick, say, the three easiest to prosecute cases every year and only prosecute those.
I mean, illegally obtained evidence is still evidence. I don't think it's absurd to think police want to convict as many guilty criminals as possible, particularly if the crime is heinous enough to justify risking their own jobs by breaking the law to get evidence.
When we no longer have elected police, sherrifs, or district attorneys, then the numbers won't matter as much as the severity or sensationality of the crimes investigated.
But if the numbers = tough on crime, then there is pressure to obtain evidence illegally. If it becomes pervasive, then investigating the misconduct will never be prioritized because it doesn't seem as impressive to the voting public, and furthermore the justice system very rarely goes after their own.
So it's good there's a consequence for not walking a fine line; it's the embarassament of having your work undone.
If they were simply trying to maximize the total number of convictions, then this wouldn't necessarily help; the police would just make broaden the kind of cases they'd accuse
And ofc, it's the function of the police to maximize the misdemeanor to conviction ratio; it's the function of the court to judge the quality of misdemeanor.
It is the function of whatever social/moral arm of the government to minimize misdemeanors. A police officer minimizing the number of accusations should only be doing so for practical reasons; In the ideal world he shouldn't be trying to interpret the law itself, and if it should exist (because it should in general be explicit what is and is not legal, and in general, it is not the policeman's job to decide what is moral, it is to enforce the standing morals.)
But its not an ideal world, and nobody wants to spend time/effort/money on a trash case, so the general incentive is to successfully convict; not to simply try.