Negotiated Settlements Substitutes For Trials
By: Tommy Elder, Jr.
Some of the United States` corporations avoid the financial and manpower burdens of a court
Trial through the mechanism of Deferred Prosecutions. This technique permits the state to ``collect fines and appoint an outside
monitor`` to produce changes within the
company so that a trial will become unnecessary. Often the identity of the monitor and the stipulations of the deal remains concealed.
According to Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times- the Bush Administration often utilizes this legal procedure. On Deferred Prosecutions- Vikramaditya S. Khanna, a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan notes that firms often prefer the Deferred Prosecution tactic- `because clearly it avoids a bigger headache for them.`
Recently, Deferred Prosecution Agreements came under an avalanche of criticism because of such deals entered into by a medical supply company to present $ 52 million to the consulting company of John Ashcroft, the former Bush Administration Attorney General to serve as an external monitor who will skirt a criminal trial. Some members of Congress demand investigations and more strigent procedures for Deferred Prosecutions.
Proponents of Deferred Prosecution Agreements contend that they permit the government to obtain the aid of a corporation while eliminating the financial, manpower allocation and doubt created by a trial.
Speaking of the Deferred Prosecution technique- former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft said- ``that they avoided `destroying entire corporations` through criminal indictments.`` He continued- `A Deferred Prosecution can avoid the catastrophic collateral consequences and costs that are associated with a corporate conviction.`
More reviews about the New York Times