> the only effect of laws like that is to make things too easy for prosecutors No question that judicial and prosecutor efficiency are important factors in dec

> the only effect of laws like that is to make things too easy for prosecutors No question that judicial and prosecutor efficiency are important factors in deciding to prosecute, but they are not the only ones. Prosecutors often take on difficult cases when there is strong political support for it. For example, after years of dragging their feet, NYC prosecutors tried to convict someone (anyone) involved in the 2008 financial crisis. They got a few people on the sides, but their effort was mostly seen as a failure. Still, it was probably better that they tried and failed rather than not tried at all. Another example is the war on drugs in the 1990s. As far as efficiency and resources, it was a horrible program, not easy or efficient by any measure, but the country was terrified of drug use and it's related crime. The goal was based more in societal norms than efficiency. Last example, Mayor Guiliani's tactics of removing small crimes (illegal street vendors, minor trespassing, graffiti) was based in the theory that you can improve entire neighborhoods and reduce major crimes by eliminating the smaller ones. Again, unclear if this tactic really worked, but it's clear that his aim was not purely judicial efficiency, it was economic development. These cases were not efficient at all, but there was strong demand to