What &quot;incentives&quot;/cynical reasons DA/Cops have when prosecuting someone?
<p>I read that many laws are unenforced. What did the DA do to decide what to enforce and what not?</p>

<p>For example. Say some states have laws against cohabitation. Say a DA choose to enforce the normally unenforced laws. What happens? The DA don't get reelected?</p>

<p>Or look at this case</p>

<p><a href="https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/mom-faces-jail-for-secretly-recording-daughters-bullies/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/mom-faces-jail-for-secretly-recording-daughters-bullies/</a></p>

<p>Some kids got bullied. DA don't press charge. Someone record the bullying, and she gets charged.</p>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>Also I've heard that many fraud are simply not enforced by laws. These are samples</p>

<p><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/31197/why-are-some-obvious-fraudster-not-in-jail">Why are some obvious fraudster not in jail?</a></p>

<p>What factors do DA do when deciding when to press charge?</p>

<p>Bribes? I don't think so. Not in US. But that's got to be something and it doesn't look like justice to me.</p>

<p>The result varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In, Indonesia, my guess is</p>

<ol>
<li>Bribe. Before Jokowi it's common for vengeful party to just pay DA to do his job. Defendant often have more incentive to pay DA to look the other way.</li>
<li>Political opinion. Ahok is prosecuted because so many wants him down.</li>
<li>Most fraud is not prosecuted. I don't know why.</li>
</ol>

<p>In US, what happens?</p>

<p>Jurisdiction specific or "in general" answer is fine.</p>

<p>Perhaps, a better more useful version of this question is</p>

<p>How to motivate DA to prosecute or not prosecute a certain case?</p>

<p>Jurisdiction vary. I know.</p>

<p>Note: I've heard in US, DA is an elected office. So it seems that DA's motivation is to pick cases that gets him elected. That's the kind of thing I would like to know. What's the "politic" and "incentive" behind prosecuting a case.</p>

<p>Saying that there is a large backlog of cases is not "clear" enough for me because it's a "collective" problem. The one that makes decisions is the DA. Why should he care about backlog? If prosecuting a case leads to world war that is not HIS problem. It's societies' problem. Because that gets him elected? Now it makes more sense.</p>

<p>I need reasons that's why is it more profitable for a DA/cops to decide one case over another.</p>

<p>Basically I am looking for incentives or cynical reasons those people have when prosecuting someone</p>

<p>Your question has likely been downvoted because it is overly broad, since the correct answer could vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. </p>

<p>However, factors that typically weigh on such decisions include the court docket (meaning, courts are already overscheduled and if prosecutors were charging everybody who went 56 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone, it would be even more so - and yes, I realize prosecutors aren't actually prosecuting traffic fines, it's just an example); whether they think they have enough evidence to bring and win the case; whether they think they can press the potential defendant for information to get an even more important/dangerous alleged criminal (e.g., getting a street drug dealer to possibly flip and testify against someone higher up the drug trade hierarchy); and other things...</p>

<p>The first few pages of <a href="https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2428&amp;context=faculty_scholarship" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> should help shed some more light on this topic for you. </p>

criminal-law