[Arizhel]

>So yeah, it happens; it's just a spectacularly bad idea for the police to do it. If they hadn't declined to file charges, my friend and another murder victim would probably still be alive today

Sorry about your friend, but why is it a "spectacularly bad idea" for police to do so? What alternative do they have? If the sole victim is unwilling to cooperate with the investigation and subsequent trial, their chances of actually succeeding in imprisoning that scumbag are approximately zero. If you want to blame someone, go find the stupid, selfish woman who wanted to "let it drop" 5 years ago. Remember that old saying about evil flourishing because good people do nothing.

[dang]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14448155 and marked it off-topic.

[xhedley]

Arizhel, I have never been subjected to rape and attempted strangulation myself. But someone that I know well has.

In the country that I live in, the justice system rightly requires that guilt in criminal cases is proved "beyond reasonable doubt". In court, the accused has every reason to allege that the alleged victim was "up for it" and "consenting" and "enjoyed it".

The victim who "lets it drop" in these circumstances may be selfish - but they aren't stupid when they weigh the cost to themselves of an adversarial court case against the gain to themselves of a rape conviction. In an ideal world all women would feel strong enough to testify in a rape case but maybe this isn't an ideal world.

Testifying that someone raped you isn't like testifying that someone stole your wallet. It's way more intimate and personal and dangerous.

To the thread starter - I am so sorry that your friend was raped and killed. Please look after yourself and talk to someone about how you are feeling.

[Arizhel]

OK, but that still doesn't explain why it's a "spectacularly bad idea" for police/DA to not bother prosecuting in cases like this. What exactly are they supposed to do when they don't have a cooperative victim? Why is it not-stupid for the victim to avoid the costs of an adversarial court case, but it's stupid for the DA to avoid a case that he or she is guaranteed to lose?

[hluska]

My Dad was a police officer for 41 years and, by chance, he is visiting me. I read him your comments. Based on his 41 years of extremely high level investigative experience (including lead investigator in more sexual assaults than he cares to remember) , you literally don't know what you're talking about. He laughed at your comment and said, "Wow, another asshole armchair investigator with no experience."

First, the DA in the American system is not guaranteed to lose. Rather, unless the alleged perpetrator is extremely wealthy, the DA has a tremendous advantage. This is unbelievably common knowledge and something he picked up working closely with FBI and DEA agents.

Second, when you don't have a cooperative victim, a skilled investigator will investigate why. Often this happens because either the perpetrator made a very graphic threat and/or the victim suffers from post traumatic stress disorder. In this case, a highly skilled investigator would make sure that the victim had access to the best victim services people around.

Further to that, a skilled investigator/prosecutor combination will take steps to shield and protect the victim from an adversarial system. One common method would be to overcharge, announce they're going for a max sentence and plea down to avoid trial, while still guaranteeing a sentence, probation and sex offender registries.

There is your precious answer. Now, take some time to evaluate what kind of heartless asshole calls a victim 'stupid'.