I get it. I don’t agree.
If it’s illegal to urinate in public, bust those who do for THAT crime.
But that is what I said. Bust ‘em all. But then, when it lands on the prosecutors desk, right now anyway in places like San Francisco they are just dismissing the charge entirely. Maybe in a lot of cases it should be dismissed. But if you got a guy who’s been arrested for armed robbery and assault before... why not put him away for the max? Or revoke his parole/probation?
It shouldn’t be a case where all who are prosecuted for the same crime get the same penalty. Some people actually do deserve a harder penalty. The cops, the prosecutors and the judges all have plenty of discretion. And I will agree with you completely, that opens the door for a lot of potential for abuse.
But, it is also a form of checks and balances. If the cops abuse their discretion, which I think abhorrent, the D.A. and the judge may get a chance to put that in balance. But to handcuff the cops and tell them “don’t even bother arresting anyone for public urination” even if it’s a guy with 3 violent strikes... makes no sense to me. And actually eliminates one layer of checks and balances.