Prosecutors have (at least) two roles in the justice system. We are advocates, and also the repositories of prosecutorial discretion. As advocates, we will use whatever is available(within the bounds of ethics and appellate court pronouncements) to support our position. If that includes mentioning that the victim is supportive, or mad as hell, then the defense will hear about it.
As repositories of prosecutorial discretion, we necessarily make policy judgments. We have to look at the bigger picture than is apparent from one case. We know about the "cycle of violence", and the economic and emotional pressure that can be brought on a victim in a domestic violence situation. A prosecutor dismissing a domestic violence case has to ask whether he or she wants to dismiss all cases where the victim can be bullied or wheedled into signing an affidavit of non-prosecution. Would we be doing Justice if we prosecute only those domestic violence cases where the victim is not economically or emotionally dependent on the defendant?
My shorthand rendition of the above is: The attitude of the victim is important, but not controlling in any given case.

Having handled the cases for our office which are the general subject of this post for about five years, I am singularly unimpressed with thinly-veneered potshots at prosecutorial ethics based on how we assess the wishes of a victim. I have been presented with plenty of ANPs and requests to drop protective/magistrate's orders. MAYBE one out of fifty is borne out of a genuine belief that the occurrence was a one-time lapse in judgment and that the relationship is back on a arguably proper track. Fear, threats and beatings account for the remainder (I have had victims come into my office with black eyes sustained AFTER we accepted a case and plead with me to drop it). As for consistency, the argument for treating all victims alike may have some initial, superficial appeal, but it fails based on the same reasoning that an argument that all witnesses should be treated alike does. We're dealing with people, not inanimate objects. Some are trustworthy, some are not. Some are fickle, some are not. Some are subject to coercion, some are not. I don't ask to control defense strategy. The adversarial system of justice ensures that I don't have to worry about the converse.

And, lest it be assumed that it evaded my attention, article 2.01 requires me to consider the interests of all parties concerned, not just the victim or the defendant.

While I continue to urge consistency, I do appreciate the responses to my last post. Reasoned dialogue is the only way to handle these issues that we all face, albeit from different perspectives.

And, since I am new to this site, and don't know everyone who posts, let me just say that my previous post was never intended as a "potshot" at anyone's ethics, "thinly-veneered" or otherwise. Those who know me will tell you: If I think I need to take a shot at your ethics, I'll say it outright (and, if possible, in a private email, rather than this public forum).

Thanks again, and I look forward to many interesting discussions here.

The laws are designed to protect the victim from the assault, not their view of how the law should be enforced. There are legitimate reasons assaultive conduct should not be prosecuted, and occasionally the genuine desire of the victim can be one of them. But, it must be well-founded. The police get in trouble if they do not answer a domestic disturbance call and the prosecutors get in trouble if they do just because the victim had time to develop a new perspective?

What you are failing to recognize is that in one instance the victim is changing their mind/testimony, in the other there is no change, just high intensity. That alone may justify a discrimination in how much attention is paid or "consistency" achieved. Face it, while he may get it, your client does not deserve any "break" just because the victim may think so.

I agree that the laws are designed to protect actual victims. I also agree that there are legitimate reasons that alleged assaultive conduct should not be prosecuted.

I disagree that the genuine desire of the alleged victim should only be one of those legitimate reasons.

The genuine, legitimate desire of the alleged victim should trump any other consideration. If the desire is genuine -- that is, if the alleged victim really doesn't want the prosecution to proceed -- then it should be incumbent upon the prosecutor to dismiss the charges.

I wouldn't even talk about this, were it not for the fact that the first argument I get from prosecutors, when I put forth this argument, is that they can't dismiss the charges because of "office policy." "Office policy" is the last refuge of scoundrels.

I agree that the police should ALWAYS answer a domestic disturbance call. What they SHOULD NOT ALWAYS do is arrest someone. Not every "domestic disturbance" is an assault, or a case of "family violence." (Yes, I am aware of the faction which promotes any type of anger as violence against the person to whom it is directed.) Soimetimes, domestic partners argue. Sometimes, it gets loud. Sometimes, one partner lays hands upon the other. But is it assault? Or is it self defense? Or is it just the normal course of two people working their problem out at top volume?

I try very hard not to "fail[] to recognize" the interpersonal dynamics involved in domestic disputes. I have been married for over 27 years, and I know how issues can escalate (although neither my wife nor I have ever laid hands on each other in anger).

However, just because an alleged victim later "changed their mind/testimony" does not necessarily mean that what they said to begin with -- in the heat of the moment -- was the truth, and what they are trying to tell the prosecution now is merely, at best, a coercion, or, at worst, an outright lie.

The trap of assuming that everything an alleged victim tells the police to be true is one to which only rookie prosecutors, cops -- and legislators -- will fall prey. The reality is never so cut-and-dried, and all I advocate is that, somewhere along the way, some reason should be injected into the system, preferably before anyone is arrested; but, failing that, before formal charges are filed, and anyone's life is ruined as a result.

So, if we are to proceed in accordance with the wishes of the victim, would we ever prosecute murderers? Ultimately, there has to be more to the decision to prosecute than what the victim desires. After all, a crime is a violation of the law for which a penalty may be imposed. It is only in civil law that the victim controls the extent to which the wrongdoer is pursued.

Duer, you almost had me until you came out with that old defense chestnut about criminal charges "ruining someone's life." What a cliche.

Life is not ruined by a criminal charge. It may be changed. It may be challenged. It may even take in a different direction than anyone ever anticipated. But what ruins a person's life is generally the person's own attitude and reaction to those charges.

The person who claims that criminal charges ruined his life is usually a very selfish person. They believe that life is unfair when it creates any obstacles to their complete comfort. They often fail to take advantage of the danger signals going off around them that suggests their life decisions are poor and could use some adjusting.

Hey, Bradley:

I disagree that the "ruining someone's life" is a cliche, because bogus criminal charges can do just that -- ruin someone's life.

I agree that "Life is not ruined by a [legally appropriate]criminal charge." But unfounded criminal charges DO ruin people's lives, and, unfortunately, our police officers often fail to distinguish between real and imagined criminal offenses, when faced with family disturbances.

As for your "psychological profile" of "person[s] who claim[] that criminal charges ruined [their]life" as being persons who are "usually ... very selfish," well, show me your psychology degree, and I'll try to reevaluate my position.

Later.