>It has absolutely nothing to do with them - it is up to the prosecutor alone.

The "absolutely nothing to do with them" is patently false. Prosecutors listens to victims about such things and are influenced by them all the time.

On the other hand, the prosecutor will often take their views into account when deciding how to conduct his activity and, especially, what charges to press, what bargains to offer and what stance to adopt during the trial. Making a stand in court becomes far more difficult when both victims insist that whatever damage was done was easily repaired and of little consequence to their well-being. MIT's ambiguous -- at best -- position in this case fueled a great deal of the moral abuses of the prosecution.

As explained by the director of the Media Lab:

"Apparently a grand jury is meeting to render an indictment on Wednesday and there is really only one more day to provide any input into the process. Since it is a criminal case and the prosecutor needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was unauthorized, I think MIT is in the position to “cast doubt” if it desires."

That's not necessarily true. The victim quite often has a strong say in whether the prosecution presses forward with charges or not. I can't say whether that prerogative would have applied in this case or not though.

The victim almost always does, just by their right to refuse cooperation.

That's not true in CA. Prosecutors have to consult with victims in felony cases before accepting a plea agreement.