Here is a story about the downside of Alaskan politics. Alaska got swept up in the victims' rights movement and started an 'Office of Victims' Rights', with a staff attorney, victims' rights advisors, etc. It is a fairly new office and it's hard to say just how much they can affect a criminal case, but this shows that the VR legislation was a really bad idea.
Now, I have no problem with privatizing dispute resolution. As a libertarian/anarchist, I am in favor of it, but this idea is bad because right now, we do not have a privatized system. This combines the worst of both systems. As a defense lawyer, when I hear about a plea like this, I figure there are some major problems with the proof. So, the prosecution makes a sweetheart offer. Now, the OVR is seeking to prevent the court from accepting it.
The uninitiated might wonder why, if there are such problems with the proof, a defendant and his (or her) attorney would accept the offer. In some circumstances, the risk is simply not worth it. The defendant in this case is facing 5 - 99 years in prison for a potential kidnapping charge. Yes, there are some good reason to not believe the complaining witness (I never say 'victim' if I can avoid it) and maybe he would win at trial. But given the stakes, the opportunity to walk away with a misdemeanor is one that should not be rejected lightly. However, courts across the country are unanimous in saying that presumptive sentencing has no effect on a decision to plead to a charge. This position, as you might expect, is quite frankly ludicrous on its face.
I will try to keep up with this case and post as further information becomes available.