Serious question: if the chance of evidence leading to a convistion is very very small, what would be the benefit of opening an investigation? Just to go through the motions on principle? And what would they even investigate?

▲

j-bos 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One benefit is demonstrating at least a facade of seeking justice. Also, obscuring a crime for personal benefit is itself a crime.

▲

knowitnone3 4 hours ago | parent [-]

so cops driving around is good enough, they don't have to actually catch criminals because it's it facade that really matters.

	▲	happosai 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's security theater, like airport security where red teams succeed in 95% cases https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin...

▲

brianpan 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a cost-benefit analysis like many other things. There are limited resources, they should be spent on investigating cases that have a chance of getting closed.

Cold cases might get reopened because of advances in technology or other changes over time.