Posts: 2,645
Threads: 161
Joined: Mar 2014
I saw the LAPD statement that they would be available to take a report if the "other individual" wanted to pursue it. I would be interested to hear from folks here who might be familiar with criminal law proceedings on the county level in California. Is it the norm for the DA to forego assault charges whenever the victim declines to file a report, even if other evidence besides the victim's testimony would be sufficient to obtain a conviction?
In the DV context, I understand that the police want to encourage victims to seek help in the moment, and a policy of pursuing charges might discourage that. A victim of DV might be worried about losing a financial provider or might be worried about retaliation. Again, for the criminal law folks, or maybe for the family law folks, is that logic sound, or is it now outdated?
In any event, outside the DV context, that logic would not seem to apply. And allowing the victim to decide whether to pursue criminal charges might have a number of negative consequences. For example, the perp might avoid a criminal record (reducing the ability of the justice system to account for the incident in the event of future acts of violence), but the perp also might be subject to extortion (which financially benefits an unscrupulous victim, but does nothing for an honest victim or for society).
Here, if Smith were charged, wouldn't he be able to enter a diversion program and get his record clean by taking anger management and not doing anything stupid for a while? Why would that not be just result and the best example for others in our society to see?
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...