Responding to elder abuse when the victim opposes prosecution

Abstract This article explores the complexities of responding to elder abuse cases when victims oppose the prosecution of their abusers. What little published guidance there is for prosecutors and others involved in responding to elder abuse through the criminal justice system tends to focus on how to prove a case without victim testimony rather than addressing the questions of should prosecution move forward against the victim's wishes and, if so, how. Drawing on empirical research and legal scholarship from both the elder abuse and intimate partner violence fields, this article explores three core controversies: whether victims can meaningfully exercise autonomy, whether prosecution enhances or undermines victim safety, and whether prosecutorial decisions should be guided by utilitarian or retributive theories of justice. The article draws lessons from these controversies to propose a victim‐centered approach that seeks to balance the victim's autonomy and well‐being with the criminal justice imperative to hold wrongdoers accountable. It delineates elder abuse‐specific factors to consider when assessing the state's interest in prosecution and describes strategies designed to reduce the risk of abuse and other harms, empower victims, and promote justice.