I don't. Whether it's relevant to computers or patent law I don't know, but there are certain areas where it's seen as important that the victim is denied the right to absolve the perpetrator. For example, this comes up a lot in domestic abuse cases.
(not to say that these kind of domestic abuse policies don't have their own controversy... but nonetheless the situation isn't a cut-and-dry obviously-this-is-better type of thing)
In general, one concern is that criminal suspects might threaten victims with violence to get them to withdraw their support for a prosecution. The legal system also uses this concern to justify legally-compelled testimony.
It's hard for me to put myself in the shoes of someone who thinks this law is a good idea in the first place -- I've been protesting against the idea of legal restrictions on DRM circumvention since 1999 and I think §1201 was and is a huge mistake.
I guess you could imagine having a set of criminal offenses where coercion of victims appears especially unlikely, but I'm not sure of how to identify or define those.
(not to say that these kind of domestic abuse policies don't have their own controversy... but nonetheless the situation isn't a cut-and-dry obviously-this-is-better type of thing)