Knowledge of prosecution is part of the prevention though - some would say it is the most important part, since police can’t physically be everywhere preventing crime.
If you just remove prosecution from the equation of policing, without making any other changes, you won’t be left with a better system but a worse one.
> Knowledge of prosecution is part of the prevention though
Agreed. To be clear, I think a blanket refusal to prosecute is a terrible idea. I was responding to a specific question - "why bother arresting" - in a context where arrest would have been easy and at least locally beneficial.
> If you just remove prosecution from the equation
Nowhere close to anything I suggested or implied. I was merely pointing out that successful prosecution is not the only or even primary purpose of policing. My interlocutor's implication that we can only continue policing with a focus on prosecution or give up on policing at all is a pernicious false dichotomy. We can police differently. Prosecution is a part of that, but only when alternatives have been tried and failed.
>Prosecution is a part of that, but only when alternatives have been tried and failed.
We don’t disagree, but so far humanity as a whole has been unable to find as efficient prevention method as prosecution. Indeed it would be a better society which could abandon the measure without negative repercussions.
If you just remove prosecution from the equation of policing, without making any other changes, you won’t be left with a better system but a worse one.