>

This isnt him being rich.  If you were already locked away life youd get similar treatment.  Time spent pursuing this is time not spent on other scumbags roaming the streets.  
Theres limited resources, finite number of prosecuters out numbered by cases coming their way
Even if he’s already going to jail for life, his other victims still deserve their day in court (if they want it). I hope this is something the victims decided and wasn’t pushed on them by the prosecutor. >

It seems that they believe there is no point since his federal prison sentences will keep him in jail for life. It still feels unjust to the victims, though. >

Yeah, this seems deeply uncool to them, unless they were for it. >

Some victims would definitely want to continue but I think there's many that don't.  Court is hell for the parties on both sides. The right to a vigorous defense means that even someone whose almost guaranteed to get convicted gets to basically tear apart any detail of your life on defense and even rape shield laws which are already constitutionally suspect don't actually protect you from as much as people think they do from watching law and order. 
Also even if one victim in a given subgroup wants to go forward, it could require subpoenaing others to testify depending on the case which would put them in an ugly position. >

Yep, a friend of mine went through testifying against her rapist when she was 19. It was so traumatic for her that a decade later when two men broke into her apartment and assaulted her the thought of having to testify if the cops found them made her decide to not submit to having a rape kit done. >

Wtf give that friend a hug. That’s horrible >

This happened a couple months ago and I've been letting her stay with me until her lease is up (today actually) and she can move into a new place since obviously there's no way she would want to go back into that apartment. It's frankly inhuman that the leasing office wouldn't let her break her lease. No one should be forced to go back to the place they were assaulted. >

It means a shit ton of less trouble for the victims; they don’t have to be dragged through the mess for years on end and can just work on survival. >

There can be other issues on not having it be part of the official record of their abuse. I’m afraid as a male I’m not familiar with what resources are available to a victim of sexual abuse. At the very minimum there’s counseling, official confirmation that the abuse occurred and a certain payback to an abuser. >

This is the way Kim Foxx operates. >

Kim Foxx is a pretty shit state's attorney. She thinks it's her position to act on unjust laws, so she lets lots of violent offenders off because society has been unfair to them. Carjackings in Chicago have been skyrocketing. There's also some conflict of interest in the Jussie Smollet case, as I believe she was in contact with either his attorneys or his sister.
I'm generally liberal, but she's a terrible state's attorney. She makes the city less safe. She recently got reelected because she's a Democrat. I think Republicans are doing a lot of despicable things at the national and state levels. But Kim Foxx reminds me that most politicians are garbage. >

While I don’t disagree that she is awful and should be ousted, the rationale for not pursuing these charges is so that they can devote their resources to other cases. Given that R Kelly will be in prison for the rest of his life, it’s kind of a moot point and they did meet with the plaintiffs to before dropping them.
Again, Kim Foxx = bad. This decision = mostly fine. >

Must be nice to be rich any of us regular folks who be not so lucky