[setr]

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.

[foldr]

>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.

[setr]

Well shit

Maximize ratio and minimize unaccounted (unaccused?) crime

[ScottBurson]

> maximize the ratio of accusation to conviction

Um -- I think you meant that the other way around :-)

[setr]

yes