body: <https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/mom-faces-jail-for-secretly-recording-daughters-bullies/>
  
  
  In this case, some kid bully another. I am not sure if bullying is a crime or not. It seems that some violence is involved. I think we have a crime for that, called battery or something.
  
  
  Yet, despite the complain of the mom, nothing was done.
  
  
  So the mom collect evidences for bullying. 
  
  
  And she got charged instead.
  
  
  To me, the result is not "intuitive". To me, what should have happened is that the Mom shouldn't even bother doing the recording. She reports to school. School reports to cops. Cops do investigating and do the recording. We have evidence. The bully sent to jail. I think that "should have been" what happened. It's not.
  
  
  It's as if the society as a whole "approve" and "promote" the bullying by making sure there is no way the bully faced justice. The cops don't get involved. And the only way to get evidence is criminalized.
  
  
  If I were a DA, and say I want to get elected, I would throw the bully in jail. And if a bully is thrown in jail, then the "recording" event wouldn't have happened in the first place.
  
  
  I understand that DA does not have obligation to prosecute any crime. However, repeated battery seems like a reasonably obvious crime. If that's not crime, what is?
  
  
  Now, usually, if people have a few legal options, they pick the one that's the most profitable.
  
  
  What "profit" does DA have in prosecuting the mom instead of the bullies.
  
  
  As someone beaten up when I was a kid, I am wondering about this for a long time. Why do society more interested in protecting something I perceive as more trivial, like recording, compared to something far more substantial, like beating.
  
  
  
title: Why did the DA choose to prosecute the mother instead of the bully?