What are the benefits and drawbacks for trying to target aggressive case prosecutions to those offenders judged to be most dangerous? Is this really feasible in real life?

Description:At the end of each chapter, there are discussion questions. Students will need to choose two discussion questions to answer. As a way to interact with other students, you will need to respond to two other students’ responses. Students will need to answer the questions no later than Wednesday at 11:59 pm to give other students time to respond. Discussion question responses are due at the end of the week on Sunday at 11:59 pm.

Here are the questions from chapter 8 to choose from:

1. To what extent are victim decisions to move forward with case prosecution based on valid criteria? How can prosecutors determine whether their decision is motivated instead by fear?

2. From your own knowledge base, or what you have read, do most victims truly understand the future risks of staying with someone who has battered in the past?

3. Should prosecutors be able to prosecute cases without victim cooperation? If so, how? Should they force victims to testify and penalize those who refuse if the case merits aggressive prosecution? Can sufficient evidence be obtained to ensure victim cooperation is not needed?

4. Is it worth the financial cost to the agency, the victim, and the offender of prosecuting all cases of domestic violence? Can procedures be developed to handle growing caseloads without funding increases?

5. Is there an independent societal value in prosecuting all cases?

6. Is a no-drop policy worth implementing without a jurisdiction agreeing to increase resources to prosecutors’ offices?

7. What are the benefits and drawbacks for trying to target aggressive case prosecutions to those offenders judged to be most dangerous? Is this really feasible in real life?