That's not what I said. I said that pursuing relatively minor cases (which I would not include in your example) more aggressively than we already do will serve only to tie up the justice system and make it more difficult to prosecute more serious offenses because all of the resources will be expended on a massive influx of first time DUI's and minor drug possession cases.
You said "dangerous fugitives". I suppose it depends on your definition (and obviously we vary), but I wouldn't consider a burglar to be a dangerous fugitive.
Why not? Just because a successful burglar hasn't used force before doesn't mean they won't if something goes wrong on a job. Anybody actively breaking in to other people's homes is providing the potential for a violent situation (even if its just "self defense" against a surprised homeowner).
I'm not saying that all burglars are violent thugs, but from a law enforcement perspective, the time to make that distinction is after apprehension, not before. (The obvious exception being criminals with a known history of violence, in which case additional precautions can and should be taken.)
I don't really want to get into an argument about semantics, but I feel there is a standard English definition of the term "dangerous fugitive", and it does not include a basic burglar. Googling for "dangerous fugitive" (not the perfect method, I know) shows multiple pages of people who are all suspected of already having committed a violent crime.
