The fact that the system cannot cope with the volume of cases means that the people who are in a position to prioritize which cases move forward is critical. That's the very nature of selective enforcement.
Selective enforcement (law enforcement or prosecutorial discretion) is a larger issue that should be addressed. By unevenly enforcing the law, they are likely exhibiting biases, they will end up eroding what trust there is in the system, and it will allow bad laws to continue to stand (if everyone was being screwed over then they would demand the law change).
Basically, we should be fixing the system, not just shifting priorities based on some individual's preference.
There is a huge variety of potential problems which require the attention of legislators, law enforcement, and the courts, and priorities change all the time. It's not as though the only recourse we have is to increase the system capacity.
Which can and should be handled under civil cases.
You can extend many these problems, health effects, and the thoughts of suicide to many other issues too - victims of rape, assault, harassment, burglary, etc.
So we end up with violent and property crimes which also contain these emotional damages, vs just an emotional crime. You would need to prove that this emotional-only crime is somehow more important and these other crimes that contain those damages plus violent or property damages. It's not that there isn't harm done by revenge porn, but that the damage done by others is objectively worse because it contains additional elements.
"It's not as though the only recourse we have is to increase the system capacity."
Then please, do explain. Because the only logic I see is that you ignore other crimes to pursue these, or you increase capacity. And frankly, ignoring any crimes undermines the entire system due to unequal enforcement and ostricizing some victims but not others by not giving them the recourse due under law.
For example: There's a difference whether the Attorney General is Bill Barr or Merrick Garland — and it does indeed involve choice as to which cases to pursue.
The same holds true for many other offices in law enforcement and the courts. Who the district attorneys are, who the judges are, who sets budgets for police and who decides how those budgets are allocated and law enforcement resources are deployed... all of that matters.
This obviously is a very important issue to you. While massive enforcement that punishes offenders and gives justice to victims would be the ideal, from a technical and legal perspective, that's very hard to do. Why not take the less morally righteous, but infinitely more practical, path of convincing folks to stop making porn movies of themselves? If our main goal here is to alleviate suffering, the discussion should center on how best to prevent this from happening, regardless of what the morally correct solution would be in an ideal world. While there is nothing morally wrong about making a sex video, it's a classic high-risk, low-reward activity. If everything goes perfectly, you have a video that you will likely never watch again. On the other hand, that video may find it's way online and ruin your life.
A ton of reasons[1], including that such preaching is ineffective and so the only impact of doing it is to justify excoriating the victim later and excusing failing institutions.
I wish I were joking.
Suppose I dropped by, tossed you out of your house into the street, and took possession of everything you had.
You'd certainly feel your human rights were violated.
Responsiveness could be improved on just about any crimes if we had the will to do so. Just look at how many murders go unsolved (about 38% unsolved). Then look at the difference in response the system makes when it's some nobody whose murder didn't even make the news vs a cop/judge/[system participant] who was murdered.
Frankly, who the people are that comprise the system are doesn't matter. The system is not appropriately sized to handle current criminal and civil case volumes. In many cases you wait years for trials. A majority of people accept plea deals, including the innocent. There's very little justice in the system. Between 2 and 10 percent if the incarcerated are wrongly convicted. I assume this is even higher for plea deals that avoid jail time.
And on victim blaming, both "sides" do it. It just depends on which issue it is.