Most states reward prosecutors with raises and advancement based on conviction rates.  The best way to keep those rates high is to avoid charging any case that has a chance of the state losing.

Who cares if letting criminals back on the streets is not in the best interest of the people?  As long as the state's employees are moving up the ladder and getting larger portions from the gravy train, life is good!

A plea deal counts as a conviction, and you only have to appear in court two times -- the bare minimum.  Show up once for the arraignment, and once to have a judge sign off on the plea deal.  Next case!!

There are additional factors that go into that calculus. A lot of people who are actually guilty don't get charged because of aspects about the case. PC for arrest is much easier to prove than proof beyond a reasonable doubt needed to win in court. Prosecutors do have an incentive to take case they think they are going to win but this also serves the effect of not wasting time and money on cases they don't think they can win. Plea deals are part of this efficiency, maybe you can get a 3 year sentence and drug treatment on a crime that should be a 10 year sentence but if you fought it in court and lose then the criminal gets off with nothing.

Another aspect is that they are often dealing with a triage situation. They can only handle so many cases a day, the court can only handle so many hearings, and prisons can only handle so many prisoners. It isn't that they are stupid or lazy, though I am sure some are, rather it is more akin to a medical triage, taking the ones they can win and releasing the ones they don't think they can win so they can focus on the bigger or better cases.

Sometimes it isn't the prosecutors at all, it is judges who make strange rulings that tie the hands of the police and the prosecutors into pursuing good cases that are no longer winnable due to case precedent.

Lastly sometimes you just have idiot juries that will believe the dumbest of stuff. I knew a prosecutor who once told me about a burglary case, that the jury didn't convict the burglar because the witness saw the burglar leave the house but didn't see the burglar enter the house. The reasoning was that the statue talks about entering a building so since no one say him enter they said not guilty.

You've never seen Law Abiding Citizen. 

All of your "additional factors" should be lower priority than doing what's in the best interest of the community.  We've all seen enough cop and lawyer shows to know how the judicial process works.  Law&Order and other such shows use real cases to base their shows on.

We live in a state where people are never shocked to hear that a person arrested for a serious crime had 50, 75 or more prior arrests with few convictions.  That's not a situation where the evidence isn't sufficient to convict.  That shows the state would rather keep repeat offenders on the street under the misguided belief that a conviction and prison sentence does more harm than good.

Hawaii applies the law under a policy of Aloha.  Our top courts have admitted to this recently.

So when someone comments on the military without having been in the military that becomes a problem but you are commenting on the judicial system based on a TV show....

** Bogus argument.  i'm not commenting on the judicial system as if I'm an expert.  I'm saying from a high level perspective, all the factors you listed do not focus on the purpose of a justice system:  Justice 

The additional factors I mentioned are part of doing what is the best interest in the community. Do you think prosecutors should take all the cases to trial regardless of how strong they are? Wasting time and money and attempt ingto convict someone who might not be guilty isn't exactly in the best interest of the community.

** Prosecutors need to take viable cases to court, not just likely winnable ones.  your argument that it would be a waste of time and money and an attempt to convict an innocent person is not a justification for only trying the ones you think you can win.  All that's needed is enough evidence to convince a judge or jury the crime occurred and the accused did it.  If a prosecutor is bringing charges with insufficient evidence to sustain the charges, then the judge has the right and duty to reprimand the prosecutor.  Sometimes judges will dismiss cases from certain prosecutors based on a defense motion that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof, thereby saving the courts and the parties time and money.  So, whining about time and money used for cases that might go either way is not a valid justification.

Most of the time you hear about large numbers of arrests with low conviction rates is because most of those numbers are warrant arrests. So imagine they get arrested for theft and they miss court 3 times and get 3 warrants, their arrest record will show 4 arrests but they only convict them for the theft cases. This is not always the case but it is very often why we hear about numbers like that.

** Really?  Most of the time?  Where is your source for that assertion?  You're trying to make an argument that has no actual cases as examples.  i know for a fact if you get arrested (for example) for DUI, you are issued a summons after being arraigned.  if you don't make that court date and don't bother to ask for a continuance, the judge has several options.  An arrest warrant is only one option.  Courts use bail, incarceration and monitored house arrest along with other measures to pressure defendants' to attend court.

From what I've seen, judges are more likely to dismiss the charges used for a missed court appearance unless it's habitual. My Ex was placed under a domestic order of protection (not against me -- against the co-worker she was living with after moving out).  She violated the order and was arrested and charged with criminal contempt of court.  That was NOT listed as a separate case, but rather another charge recorded under the original case.  So most reports would not list missed court appearances as separate arrests. 

No matter how many warrants you get, they are still part of the same case number, so it's not multiple arrests if you miss court 3 times for the same case.  Now if you want to treat each charge as a separate arrest, that's different.  In my world, actual charges a person is arrested for are more illustrative of the person's criminal character than the number of times they might have been arrested.  That shows there was PC to make the arrest, even if the charges are dropped later.  That would also list any bench warrant arrests like you're trying to quibble over.

Why don't they follow through and get the people who are not showing up in court?

Not enough people and money?

So just sweep it under the rug?  Oh well, he/she/it didn't show up.....let's go lunch.

There's a retail place that has a lot of thefts named Sugar something. They posted on social media that they sent a letter to the Prosecutors office asking why most of their thefts are not charged.  They have video evidence that they mentioned and each police report. They even post the vids on FB SSH so people can help ID the thieves. The reply was basically that the prosecutors are looking for slam dunk cases or they won't waste their time.

Even when my car was broken into and my neighbor ID'd the get away driver and the guy he saw inside my car, he also ID'd a UC who was thrown into the line up.  The detective told me that the prosecutors office wanted an easy slam dunk case, so no charges will be brought.  They also crashed a stolen car, which is how the police caught them.  No charges for that either as none were admitting who was driving the car.


So the point of this and the thread is it pays to be a criminal.  Just don't do big enough crimes. Or rob the wrong person.  "It's not the crime you do, it's who you do it to that matters".

** Bogus argument.  i'm not commenting on the judicial system as if I'm an expert.  I'm saying from a high level perspective, all the factors you listed do not focus on the purpose of a justice system:  Justice

** Prosecutors need to take viable cases to court, not just likely winnable ones.  your argument that it would be a waste of time and money and an attempt to convict an innocent person is not a justification for only trying the ones you think you can win.  All that's needed is enough evidence to convince a judge or jury the crime occurred and the accused did it.  If a prosecutor is bringing charges with insufficient evidence to sustain the charges, then the judge has the right and duty to reprimand the prosecutor.  Sometimes judges will dismiss cases from certain prosecutors based on a defense motion that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof, thereby saving the courts and the parties time and money.  So, whining about time and money used for cases that might go either way is not a valid justification.

** Really?  Most of the time?  Where is your source for that assertion?  You're trying to make an argument that has no actual cases as examples.  i know for a fact if you get arrested (for example) for DUI, you are issued a summons after being arraigned.  if you don't make that court date and don't bother to ask for a continuance, the judge has several options.  An arrest warrant is only one option.  Courts use bail, incarceration and monitored house arrest along with other measures to pressure defendants' to attend court.

From what I've seen, judges are more likely to dismiss the charges used for a missed court appearance unless it's habitual. My Ex was placed under a domestic order of protection (not against me -- against the co-worker she was living with after moving out).  She violated the order and was arrested and charged with criminal contempt of court.  That was NOT listed as a separate case, but rather another charge recorded under the original case.  So most reports would not list missed court appearances as separate arrests.

No matter how many warrants you get, they are still part of the same case number, so it's not multiple arrests if you miss court 3 times for the same case.  Now if you want to treat each charge as a separate arrest, that's different.  In my world, actual charges a person is arrested for are more illustrative of the person's criminal character than the number of times they might have been arrested.  That shows there was PC to make the arrest, even if the charges are dropped later.  That would also list any bench warrant arrests like you're trying to quibble over.

Prosecutors must take long lunches.

"Let's go eat there today...."

"But they're super busy....."

"How's your work load?  Yeah, that's what I thought...we get plenty time."

Why don't they follow through and get the people who are not showing up in court?

Not enough people and money?

So just sweep it under the rug?  Oh well, he/she/it didn't show up.....let's go lunch.

Justice is not a science, it is not a paper target where you can tell whether you hit the bullseye. Is it justice if prosecutors takes a case that looks like justified self defense and charges it as a murder even though the will probably lose? Justice for the family of the dead person looks a lot different than justice for the person who was trying to defend himself.


It isn't merely prosecutors wanting easy wins to make them look good. Now I am not saying that isn't ever a factor, a merit based system can create the incentive to juts take the easy wins. Again, in a triage system you have to pick the best ones that you think you can win because you could not physically take them all. It isn't a perfect system, god knows they make mistakes sometimes but it isn't the system you paint of lazy prosecutors only looking for easy wins. An experienced prosecutor knows what tends to work in court in front of a judge and a jury. For example whether a confession will be tossed out or admitted and the whole case hinges on the confession.


I have no idea why judges don't bother to convict people for contempt when they don't show up for court, I assume it is because it would take time to prepare a prosecution and then a jury trial for everyone who demanded one. The main goal is to have the person back in court.  No offense but I am not going to give you a source. Trust me or don't that's fine but next time you meet a cop try ask them how true that is in their experience.


If you skipped court 3 times on the same case that would be 3 separate warrants and 3 separate offenses for the purposes of counting the arrests even if those 3 are all stemming from the same initial case.

I would caution against arrests as a reliable indicator of PC that the person committed the crime in question. Now if someone has been arrested for theft 10 times there is no way I am believing they are all wrong but it is not that rare to have someone arrested for a crime where PC existed to justify the arrest but it turns out later that they didn't commit a crime (misidentification, misjudgment, false claims, etc)

Unless that cop is a mind reader, and there's only one of those i'm aware of.

There is no money in prosecution vs. passing anti 2a laws.
Contrary to #immadoctor Hawaii doesn't have a gun problem we have a judicial problem. All these lobbyists and greedy politicians don't do the will of the people or are bound by strong morals.

Check out this fine citizen
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2025/04/15/man-charged-crash-that-killed-15-year-old-girl/

16 priors...

You pretend to lecture me on the definition of justice?  I suppose you're the expert on that?

As for asking a cop -- unless that cop has a law degree and years of experience in the courtroom prosecuting and/or defending the accused, your average cop is NOT an expert in the law.  They memorize (or look up on their phones and cruiser computers) the code under which a person is suspected of a crime.  Beyond having probable cause and department policies, they are NOT the person who knows what a judge wants when issuing warrants.

Unless that cop is a mind reader, and there's only one of those i'm aware of.

In before our legal SMEgle pipes in that traffic convictions are different from criminal convictions -- a totally irrelevant point to make.

Same pattern of escalation allowed by the courts.  Why is that person still allowed to drive?

If it is an irrelevant point, why are you making it? You sure seem bothered to come out throwing mud when we were having a cordial conversation.

Driving without a license is a criminal violation BTW.
Why was he still allowed to drive? What kind of question is that, do you think cops are standing around approving every time a person starts a car? You think criminals are going to follow the laws?

you are not nice person