Should laws be enforced despite a victim's wishes?

[BoomerFan]

This came up elsewhere on the boards. The question is, if a guy beats his wife but the wife doesn't want him to be arrested, should LEOs arrest/prosecute him anyways?

My gut response (and I admit it is probably the wrong one) is no. If the victim doesn't want to prosecute, you have to respect that. Otherwise you're violating her wishes again. Yes I understand there are things like Battered Wife Syndrome where people are basically pathologically making the worst decision possible for themselves, but I feel uncomfortable taking that decision away from them.

I think the response is going to be pretty one sided (people will say we should prosecute regardless of the victim's wishes) but can people convince me (preferably without attacking me) of their position? I'm honestly asking.

[StLucieBengal]

This is a big issue for me. I think we need tougher sentencing. But DV goes both ways.

It's really a tough deal. Maybe someone with a legal background can weigh in on the options to toughen it up.

I know most of my charitable donations/time go to a women's home for DV survivors. It's amazing what these victims go through.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-15-2015, 11:51 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This is a big issue for me.   I think we need tougher sentencing.    But DV goes both ways.

It's really a tough deal.  Maybe someone with a legal background can weigh in on the options to toughen it up.    

I know most of my charitable donations/time go to a women's home for DV survivors.    It's amazing what these victims go through.

I totally agree with this.  As well DV is where my wife and I place the majority of our time and donations.  Every cell phone I have ever had has ended up at a shelter for abused women.  I get my kids involved by shopping for toys and clothing for children that are at the shelters as well.

[*michaelsean*]

While I have no problem with a prosecutor taking the victim's opinion into account, in no way should the victim be the major decision maker on who to prosecute. Do we let a rapist go if we have evidence beyond what the victim can supply if the victim doesn't want charges to be filed? You violated the victim's rights, but you also broke the state's law.

[Benton]

(09-15-2015, 12:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: While I have no problem with a prosecutor taking the victim's opinion into account, in no way should the victim be the major decision maker on who to prosecute.  Do we let a rapist go if we have evidence beyond what the victim can supply if the victim doesn't want charges to be filed?  You violated the victim's rights, but you also broke the state's law.

Every day.

I get your point, but that's a bad analogy. Every day in this country a rapist is not charged/not arraigned/found innocent because the victim declined to press charges or testify. Part of the problem is the obscene delay in getting rape kits tested. But even when they are and even when there are witnesses, a victim's willingness to say it was not consensual sex is most often necessary.

[fredtoast]

The criminal justice system is designed to protect everyone in the general public. So you don't let a child rapist go free to rape another child just because the first victim does not want to prosecute.

Of course this issue is very common to domestic violence. And if you let a guy beat the hell out of one woman repeatedly then I can almost guarantee that down the road there will be a new victim.

Another place where this is a big issue is when people steal from their own friends and/or family. This is VERY common. In fact most people that steal start out by stealing from the friends and family. And if they are not prosecuted for those first crimes then they eventually move on to new victims.

[fredtoast]

Also police do not like being called to the same domestic abuse situation a dozen times without anyone ever being convicted of anything. I realize that many times the victim does not even call the police, but when they do invlove the police then the state should have right to prosecute.

[Au165]

You let them beat on them and one day the beating goes just a bit too far and they are dead. Many like to think these things are one time occurrences, but stats show that in many cases they are not. Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves.

[*Nately120*]

(09-15-2015, 12:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Another place where this is a big issue is when people steal from their own friends and/or family.  This is VERY common.  In fact most people that steal start out by stealing from the friends and family.  And if they are not prosecuted for those first crimes then they eventually move on to new victims.

I'm familiar with this, unfortunately.  My no good cousin by marriage was living with my aunt and uncle and cousin when my cousin and I were in our 20's or so and my younger cousin was a teenager.  He had stolen from everyone there and my older cousin told me to not leave my wallet lying around.  Meh, basically I told my younger cousin that I wasn't going to just let him steal stuff from me and he should just stick to everyone else if he wanted to avoid an issue.  I never had a problem with him, but he's stolen and/or assaulted many people since then.

It's not my house so I can't throw him out or press charges, but I never directly addressed him, never made eye contact with him, and he tends to find somewhere else to go when I'm there.  I can't make anyone else stand up to him, but I can just point out that taking stuff from, or taking a swing at me is going to be a harder road. Unlike everyone else there I'm just not able to let someone wrong me and then NOT be as petty and vindictive in exacting revenge. Seriously, there is something wrong with me because if I've been wronged first I can become absolutely obsessed with getting even and/or going way overboard.

[Blutarsky]

(09-15-2015, 11:03 AM)BoomerFan Wrote: This came up elsewhere on the boards. The question is, if a guy beats his wife but the wife doesn't want him to be arrested, should LEOs arrest/prosecute him anyways?

My gut response (and I admit it is probably the wrong one) is no. If the victim doesn't want to prosecute, you have to respect that. Otherwise you're violating her wishes again. Yes I understand there are things like Battered Wife Syndrome where people are basically pathologically making the worst decision possible for themselves, but I feel uncomfortable taking that decision away from them.

I think the response is going to be pretty one sided (people will say we should prosecute regardless of the victim's wishes) but can people convince me (preferably without attacking me) of their position? I'm honestly asking.

Really? If that doesn't do it for you then nothing anyone could say would change your mind.

[BoomerFan]

Actually some of the responses here have been pretty persuasive - the argument that they may go on to commit other crimes is something I hadn't really thought about.

[CKwi88]

It should depend entirely on the crime.

Crimes of violence and repeat offenders should always be enforced in my mind.

For first-time offenders of lesser crimes I can see it as a possibility.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

I'm the one that originally brought up the thread topic. It was regarding the incident with Pacman Jones on the football field this week, and Amari Cooper subsequently saying that he shouldn't get in any trouble. The thing is, it should not be up to Amari Cooper as to whether a player should be punished for his "crimes" on the football field....just as it shouldn't be up to the victim in DV cases.

We have a duty to uphold the laws of the country regardless of whether or not individual people think that it's ok to break the law. Someone that abuses their spouse should be charged for their crimes. If not, they keep doing it, and possibly even branch off into doing it to others. By not prosecuting, you're enabling the negative behavior.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(09-15-2015, 06:13 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It should depend entirely on the crime.

Crimes of violence and repeat offenders should always be enforced in my mind.

For first-time offenders of lesser crimes I can see it as a possibility.

First time offenders are usually offered a much lighter sentence.  I'm all for second chances, and giving someone charged with assault a lowered sentence on their first offense is a good way to show mercy and promote the idea of second chances.  Give them a disorderly conduct, 180 days of probation and some community service and hope it works for them.  I'm not so much for 3rd and 4th chances though......

[Belsnickel]

So, the whole idea of they could do it to someone else is a big point for all of this. Right now we have the Jesse Matthew case going on here in Virginia. We don't know how many women he has raped and killed over the years, but we know he exhibited these behaviors years ago and charges were not filed. Now he is on trial for murdering two young women that may still be alive had those charges been filed years ago.

[BmorePat87]

Yes.