That is not how the legal system works in the US. Criminal charges are brought by the State, not the victim. The only exception is in 6 states (Kansas, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, and Oklahoma) where a sufficiently large group of civilians can compel the courts to form a grand jury (think a couple hundred people). Still isn't the victim bringing charges.

▲

triceratops 2 days ago | parent [-]

Typically you need the victim's cooperation. The victim isn't obligated to provide logs or other forensic information to help the prosecution.

(I mean I guess the prosecution could subpoena them. But then the defence could use that fact to sway the jury "See? Even the alleged victim doesn't care, so was there even really a crime?" IANAL just a fan of legal thrillers)

When people say "press charges" that's what they actually mean.

▲

watwut a day ago | parent [-]

> The victim isn't obligated to provide logs or other forensic information to help the prosecution.

Yes they are, just like in any other criminal case.

▲

triceratops a day ago | parent [-]

How does the prosecutor make the victim do it if they don't want to?

▲

vrighter a day ago | parent | next [-]

a crime is investigated by law enforcement. If you do decide to withhold evidence as the victim, you could still be charged with obstruction of justice. In a criminal case, the victim is not the prosecution, but just a witness. It is not up to any witness whether the case should proceed or not.

▲

triceratops a day ago | parent [-]

> If you do decide to withhold evidence as the victim, you could still be charged with obstruction of justice

Do you have examples of this happening? I'm very skeptical. Prosecutors are political animals. Prosecuting a crime victim just feels like a losing position. If "testify or jail" worked you wouldn't need witness protection programs.

> It is not up to any witness whether the case should proceed or not.

No doubt. Best example: homicide. Always investigated and prosecuted even though the victim isn't around.

But say your house is burgled. Your neighbor, a cop, knows it happened. If you refuse to let investigators in to dust for fingerprints, will the case go anywhere? Will the DA really charge you with obstruction?

▲

teeray a day ago | parent [-]

> If you refuse to let investigators in to dust for fingerprints

…then they will just go get a warrant to do it.

	▲	triceratops a day ago \| parent [-]
		Refer back to my original comment for what's likely to happen after they do that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49367459 I'm not saying it never happens. I'm just saying it's an uphill task for the prosecution. Prosecutors like easy wins. Everything else being equal, they'd rather prosecute crimes where the alleged victim cooperates. With obvious exceptions like homicide, or serious assault where the victim is unable to cooperate. Or where the victim is being coerced into not testifying - even here without other witnesses or corroborating evidence there's little possibility of a conviction.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]