[jakublangr]

While I agree with most of what you've said, there is an issue of (a) what level of economic damage does this crime need to cause before it gets investigated—both for individual cases and for London overall (b) any efficiency gain would hopefully decrease the cost of investigation (in terms of hours spent), hence the assistance them with details (e.g. transactions) which they have completely ignored.

[usgroup]

Except once they catch him they have to charge him and then prosecute him and then house him in prison and then release him with even worse prospects then he started with, so that he can go back to stealing.

I think that there is no economic gains, and there is no efficiency to be had in catching petty criminals. It is a symptom of a bigger social problem which needs to be dealt with .

[ghettoCoder]

Since when is law enforcement about money? Laws exists to ensure a reasonably ordered society and level playing field for everyone. There as to be an attempt at enforcement, even a half-hearted one, to ensure the genereal population follow and believe others follow the rules. Or you have vigilantes rising to deal with issues the police can’t bother with.

Unenforced laws are pointless and will be used at the discretion of the police to mess up someone’s day. That’s what gave use expressions like “driving while black”, “sitting while homeless”, and so on.

I’m not necessarily advocating for jailtime but maybe catching them and giving trade school as their sentence would be time and money well spent.

[postgeographic]

so where does the line between a crime being small enough not to warrant police attention and being big enough to warrant it get drawn? seems pretty arbitrary to me

[usgroup]

well that's easy; start at the worst crimes and make your way down until you run out of resources. The line will draw itself for you.