|
The objections so far seem to be:
“The cops shouldn’t be wasting time on this when there are robberies and murders needing to be solved.” This can be summarized as the “don’t sweat the small stuff while greater crimes exist” argument.
Following this logic, no one would arrest a jaywalker while there were shoplifters in existence. The shoplifter is safe as long as there are burglars. Burglars need to get in line behind robbers. And who cares about robbers until we have all the murderers?
Expanding to other fields, no one would work on hay fever so long as there was no cure for cancer.
It is possible, indeed necessary, to prosecute lesser crimes as well as greater.
“This is a victimless crime, and should not be a crime at all.” If you do not think this is a crime, that is a point to raise with the legislature. Blaming the police for enforcing the laws is wrong.
“It was entrapment.” If it was entrapment, a lawyer will get the guy off, and there will probably be career repercussions for the officers.
The related argument is “Even if he gets off because of entrapment, his reputation is still damaged.” If his reputation is damaged by the truth coming out, that’s really sad.
|