If a house was burgled and a few months later the owner said they didn't want to prosecute the person should they get away with it?

No. It is a crime against ‘the people’, not just the victim.

I did not know this decision was in the hands of a victim—but that once police were brought in, they pretty much decided whether they would prosecute or not.

Some states have made certain crimes prosecutable without a complainant. Many states, for example, will now prosecute a domestic violence case, even if the victim recants, because it is part of “Battered Spouse Syndrome” to regret prosecuting an abuser.

Rape is difficult, because it requires a witness to testify as to the act, unless it was observed. This means that generally there can be no prosecution without a willing complainant, except under certain special circumstances.

However, in general, it is the DA who decides whether to prosecute or not, and remember that the DA can compel testimony before a Grand Jury.

@augustlan nailed it. It is not, merely, a civil matter. It’s a crime against the state or ‘people.’

It’s my understanding that the homeowner is not the one who decides, but the District Attorney or the grand jury.

I think most people are answering ”...will they get away with it?” rather than ”...should they get away with it?”

Depends… there may be good reasons to leave this decision to the owner in very specific cases. For instance, if it is the owner’s own troubled son.

In general, it should not be up to the owner, since there is also an element of a public interest – other potential targets for instance. In The Netherlands there are different types of offenses that either need or do not need the victim to file charges.

Violence, rape and murder for instance are prosecutable whether the victim files or not.

Actually, I think there are no countries where a murder victim needs to file a complaint or request prosecution, what do you think?

I hate to tell you this, but the perp will get away with it even if the victim does want him prosecuted. What passes for criminal justice in this country is a joke.

I had a bike stolen out of my garage. The thief had followed me home and snatched the bike as soon as I went into the house. The cops knew who did it, made one attempt to arrest him, and gave up when he got away. I guess burglary is not a serious enough crime for them to expend the resources on. The insurance company takes the bite for the stolen property, and that’s the end of it.

I am a Christian, so I will say that I believe, in the end, no one gets away with anything.
Welcome to Fluther. Lurve.

I often wondered what it meant when someone doesn’t want to “press charges”. Does it mean the person who committed the crime gets of scott-free? If that is the case then I don’t think it is right for the reason that @augustlan gave. If it is a crime that they could easily go and commit against another person then I think they should definately be punished regardless of whether the original victim presses charges or not. I can understand though that in certain cases it would be hard to do much without the victims say so as they wouldn’t have the witness’s acount of the situation.

Once the police are called in, basically they decide whether to pass things on to the DA. Then the DA decides whether there is enough evidence to try for an indictment. In the “old days” crimes such as domestic abuse could be prosecuted successfully only if the primary witness, aka “the victim,” was willing to testify. Even then, there was a strong societal belief that somehow the abused person caused what happened to them. This has changed a lot, especially now that so many women work. When the abuser shows up at the workplace, there are plenty of witnesses.

Typically, crimes against property are given lower priority than crimes against people. Thus, rape, assault or murder would be more likely to be prosecuted than theft or burglary.

“should they get away with it?”

No, but this isn’t a perfect world. Even if a case does go to court, there are many reasons why the defendant “gets away with it.” This includes everything from the quality of the testimony and the evidence to the quality of the lawyers involved and the jury. However, it was decided when the United States and other culturally British countries were set up, that it is better to assume innocence and prove guilt, than to assume guilt and prove innocence.

@IchtheosaurusRex The local Chief of Police said on a TV interview that with the huge budget cuts, they won’t even investigate home burglaries anymore. The crooks are literally cruising the streets in pickup trucks and taking anything they want from houses that are easy to break into.

hell no they should not get away with it. It sends a bad message that it is a slight gamble and chances are nothing will come of it next time. It is bad to further embolden those who wish to do us harm by giving them a pass. It is bothersome to hear that there are some places that give the offender the benefit of the doubt and ignore the fact that once someone’s home, their castle, has been breached that person will never again feel secure there. Of all the places in the world, the home should be the one place a person should feel secure in even if everything is going to hell in a handbasket all around them.

Another thought: In general, prosecution of violent crimes (as is burglary) should never be lelft up to the decision of the victim. Otherwise it would just invite criminals to pressure their victim in not pressing charges.

I realize that in some US states the pressing charges might be mandatory for the persecution of some violent types of crimes, such as rape, but it should not be.

Sure, it’s all about them. They can do what they want.

@augustlan Who are these “people’ you speak of? This is only a matter between the burgler and the house owner.

@cbloom8 Your ignorance of the law is showing. I suggest you pay attention in civics class.

@cbloom8 You know… We, the people? Have you never seen a court document for a case that reads “The people vs. John Doe”?