Yeah, or the police in my state capital, who, when I got confirmation that my stolen phone was being sold on eBay, by a seller who lived near me, whose eBay profile contained nearly 100 phones, and 50-60 laptops, all 'without chargers/accessories", some "activation locked", etc., as well as the strong implication of theft on eBay (I was actually contacted by someone who'd bought my phone from him, and when he discovered it was locked, with my info on the screen, contacted the seller who initially refused a return/refund on it, until the buyer said "So you know, if you don't, the phone is actually telling me who the real owner was, and how to contact them, and I can send them and/or the police your info..."), the police said:
Police: "Well, he probably didn't steal it himself."
Me: "Isn't selling known stolen property a crime in itself?"
This is why I never understand the expansion of surveillance tech and how people believe it will make us safer. So many people have these types of stories and how does expanded surveillance solve those problems? The police already know a crime has been committed, who did it, where they are, and we need more surveillance?!
I would agree with that, but then you have the situation of "how?" - I volunteered for an organization that had a large part of their funds embezzled by the Treasurer. When they were arrested and charged with theft, the prosecutor came to an association meeting and asked what our thoughts were. The person had sufficient income that they could reasonably pay back the money in a (relatively) quick time frame, and the prosecutor noted that "in these types of cases, often the victim has to choose between retribution/punishment, and recompense" - not that we were choosing his punishment, but he was asking our input.
As in - he could afford to pay if his job was kept, etc. But charge him with the felony, he would likely lose that job and the ability to repay anything in any meaningful manner.
Then you have the State of Florida, who charges you $75/day if you are in jail at all, regardless of the outcome of your case, charges being dropped or dismissed. You could be arrested for a BS traffic stop on Friday, the prosecutor drops it on Monday morning, three days incarceration. Or a not guilty finding. Doesn't matter.
And then, failure to pay this is a Class B Felony.
You could let the victims decide, or make it (depending on the type of crime) that they first pay off the debt and then go to prison (perhaps with reduced sentence) or the other way around.
I think you're oversimplifying. Those are hard questions to answer and have the impacts extend beyond the victim and perpetrator. There are social costs to each of those decisions. Part of the legal system is to ensure there is that balance. That is the social contract. Determining if this is done effectively (or even at all) is a different question, but one that can only be answered through answering a million smaller questions like this one.
Of course it’s difficult. But simply not holding them responsible at all for the costs they incur on society, and not making police and judges at least partially responsible for actually solving cases or ensuring recidivism is reduced is also not an option.
Police: "Well, he probably didn't steal it himself."
Me: "Isn't selling known stolen property a crime in itself?"
Police: ...
Me: ...
Police: "We're not going to pursue this further."
Thank you for your service?