Should our prosecutors offer a "no questions asked" option for alleged victims to drop all charges prior to prosecution?

[Anonymous]

I've seen a ton of talk about false accusations, and even saw one post today on the topic. One possible solution would be to give the accuser an option to drop all accusations prior to the case going to trial. It could be the accuser going alone into a room with a form that says "do you want to continue with the case" and if they decline, no questions will be asked, and they would also be exempted from charges for false reporting. Does this seem like a good solution?

One reasonable risk I see would be with legitimate victims being intimidated into dropping charges. But it also offers a good ''out" for false accusers to stand down and save the actual victim from having their lives destroyed.

Good idea

Bad idea

It could work with some extra details (comment below please)

View results

[NaultD]

That's already how it works at all times. At least crimealy the district attorney being the state is pressing the charges also only able to press criminal charges. While the victim is critical to the case they are not getting anything for the case. If they lie that's pugury.

Now there is civil charges and you can settle and it goes away. There also slapp rulings for legal fees.

https://youtu.be/UN8bJb8biZU?si=_tRflng7-_OlomAg

Or even on judge Judy or tv cases is basically a tv contract signing with a tv arbitration. The loser pays the processing fees. What you're saying is how it is on every level.

[Asker]

Your reply doesn't mention them going into a room with a form that gives them the power to drop charges, and no questions being asked. I've sat in hundreds, maybe even thousands, of victim interviews with the DDA and/or DA investigator and the conversation definitely comes up, but there was never a "no question asked" opt-out and, like you mentioned, we would still pursue charges regardless of the victim's wishes. Unless the victim could convince us it would significantly harm them to continue with the case, but that appeal was rarely accepted.

My suggestion would effectively trump the prosecutor's wishes, would be a written form that's completed under zero duress, and would require the prosecutor side, including LE, to not be allowed to bother the accuser if they withdraw.

[NaultD]

Someone who would do this isn't cooperative with the DA. That's a self destructing case. Is that the person who hurt you or is it not?

I'd agree the DA could pressure to follow through but the issue is with the DA not the victim.

[Anonymous]

Prosecutors build their careers on cases actually prosecuted, Althou honest ones will tell you from the start if they think you have a case and urge you not to take it. The less than honest ones will be inclined to take it regardless as long as they think they can worm their way to victory.

[Asker]

That's part of the problem tbh

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

This just seems like a roundabout way to ensure no justice is taken for the false accusations.

[Asker]

I see your point, and it's a fair one. But there still would be charges for anyone that goes beyond this point, or who is caught prior to it.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

That’s not really a counterpoint to me tbh

[Asker]

You mean it's not a good enough counterpoint?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Yeah

[Asker]

Okay, fair enough