This thread may end up in Great Debates, but let’s start it here…
According to USA Today… “Prosecutors say they will not file domestic violence charges against George Zimmerman, who was arrested last month after his girlfriend made accusations against him. She said she did not wish to pursue the case.”
So if the alleged victim refuses to cooperate there is no prosecution possible? What if the victim is in fear of their life, knowing the perpetrator is going to get out of jail eventually, but doesn’t want to say so publically?
I guess a crime is only a crime if the victim says so. How does this make any sense in our great criminal justice system?
Whether a crime was committed is independent of whether a victim wishes to pursue it, and the state can pursue charges whether the victim wants to or not (and a good thing, too, or murder would be impossible to address). But having a live victim who chooses not to press charges makes it much harder to get a conviction, and so the prosecutor will often choose not to make the attempt.
When most if not all of the evidence in a particular case comes from victim/witness testimony the case falls apart without their cooperation. It does not make sense to go forward if there is no way to get a conviction. You still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of who the suspect is.
Well, people regularly try that, and sometimes succeed.
And, in a domestic assault case, if the victim/principal witness indicates that they do not want the case to proceed, the police will generally talk to them to try and get a sense of whether this is a factor, will refer them to agencies which can support them, etc. to try and get them to change their mind.
But the bottom line is you don’t prosecute unless you can get a conviction. And you can’t get a conviction if you don’t have the evidence. And if your principal witness is uncooperative or even hostile, unless you have other witnesses who can prove all the elements of the charge you’re not likely to get a conviction.
Well the threatening and witness tampering is probably going to be a bigger crime than an assault.
What do you think the alternative is? How well do you think a trial will go without the cooperation of the victim? And what do you think they should do to compell the victim? Believe me they are talked to and and the prosecutor tries to talk them into going forward. But there is a line of cases behind them.
This is part of the protection of “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” If the prosecutors don’t think they have enough evidence to convince a jury, there is little point in going ahead with the case.
It’s a consequence of the motto, “It is better to let ten guilty people go free, than convict one innocent person.”
So, yeah: sucks when a bad guy walks free… But it’s the price we pay for not having to fear being wrongly locked away ourselves.
(I think this is a factual answer as well as an opinion.)
Are you under the impression that this a new or worsening situation? It has been like this since time time immemorial, except that things are almost certainly gradually improving (and have been, gradually, for a long time).
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
From what I hear, you dolphins are even worse than us humans. (See especially items 1 and 5.)
Some cases can still be prosecuted. If the police get a 911 call, show up, and the woman is beaten to a bloody pulp, and the man has scratches on his fists, then a case can be made notwithstanding the victim.
The problem with that is that the defense will then call the victim to perjure herself, forcing the prosecution to cross examine the victim and basically call her a liar. So, you might get a conviction, but the state is now putting the victim through MORE trauma.
So a lack of victim cooperation is still a high hurdle, but it’s not an automatic dismissal like it used to be before the early 90s.
YMMV depending on the state. But here in Wisconsin I’ve made zillions of arrests in domestic cases, and in many of them the victim has later came to the DA’s office and stated they didn’t want the case pressed.
Tough shit!
Most of those cases still got pressed because the “victim” is the state, not the partner. That’s the way the domestic violence law works here and it’s a good thing.
The arrest was based on what I observed and/or the evidence I collected at the time of arrest. The partner can refuse to testify in court and we still get a conviction.
I have no idea how things work in Florida or any of the other cheeseless 49.
I’ve seen the state force a woman to testify. They call her to the stand and basically treat her as a hostile witness using her statements to the police against her if she says anything contradictory. She wasn’t so much perjuring herself as just not being overly helpful.
I’ve also seen a woman invoke spousal privilege. One weird thing I didn’t realize until I saw it in court - is apparently - in Maryland at least - if I was understanding the questions from the judge correctly - it is a one time thing. I don’t get why that would be. If she uses it - can she then use it for a different husband in the future? What about the same husband, but he is accused with a drug charge and not beating her - can she still invoke?
Anyway - in the case I saw it done (questioning - not privilege - it was a girlfriend) - it almost looked like the prosecutor was being sensitive to any retribution the victim might face and seemed to phrase a lot of the questions like “and did you tell officer so and so that your boyfriend hit you?”. She was kinda caught between a rock and a hard place - and I don’t really remember exactly what happened - or why the guy didn’t take a plea.
It may have looked sensitive, but he was actually treating her as a hostile witness, by putting leading questions to her. (Normally you’re not allowed to put leading questions to your own witness.)
He fears that if he asks “did your BF hit you?” she may answer “no”. If he says “did you tell the officer that your boyfriend hit you?”, she’s more likely to answer “yes” because she knows not only that she did tell him that but that it can be proven (by the officer’s evidence) and while she might be willing to lie, she might be less willing to lie if exposure of the lie is inevitable.
Plus, if she starts out by testifying that she wasn’t hit, that creates a certain impression which the prosecutor then has to try and break down by cross-examination or further evidence. Whereas if she starts out by conceding that she said she was hit, it’s then up to her to dissipate the impression created by going on to say “. . . but I didn’t mean it” or “. . . but I was confused”. Tactically, a much better position for the prosecutor.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. First she wanted to press charges, then she didn’t, but now the state should press them anyways in case she wants to change her mind and press them again?
I sympathize with women who are domestic violence victims, but the state has limited resources and can’t play ping pong with someone, or waste taxpayers funds by going forward with a case that the prosecutor knows will be lost on a directed verdict. I don’t believe it is even ethical for a prosecutor to file a case he knows does not have evidence to survive a directed verdict.
Further, this being GQ, I think that it is factual to say that many people have abused the system by alleging domestic violence where none occurred, or where the “victim” was just as culpable. It seems to be common knowledge that a 911 call, a chant of the familiar mantra “reasonable fear of harm,” and a few tears will get an emergency protective order where you get to jab the other party by seeing him pack his stuff and sleep at his buddies for a few days. If he owns guns, you get to see the police seize all of those as well. Then tax payer funded groups send “advocates” to your aid and take your side in the dispute regardless of the evidence.
As I said, I sympathize, but the whole system would be better with a reboot and some consequences for frivolous complaints.
I think the point was that if you go ahead with a weak case because of no victim cooperation and lose you can’t re-prosecute due to double jeopardy. If you hold off and wait until she cooperates you still get a good bite at the apple.
I think he’s saying the exact opposite of what you got from that statement.