3 ms·
The original speech which is quoted is an outline for the use of 'deferred prosecution agreements' office which are effectively corporate plea bargains by the D
by JackFr 7y ago
The original speech which is quoted is an outline for the use of 'deferred prosecution agreements' office which are effectively corporate plea bargains by the DOJ.
The public policy problem is that if a corporation is indicted, legally they are presumed innocent but the market may not see it that way. Though the company might be eventually fully exonerated in court, they might have driven to bankruptcy by the market. By agreeing to a DPA, the company can treat it as a pseudo-regulatory matter.
This, of course, has critics on both sides. On the one hand some critics feel this has allowed corporations to engage in ongoing criminal behavior without ever really paying the full price. On the other hand, people have criticized the Attorney General's office for using the threat of indictments on flimsy grounds as a means to create a backdoor regulatory regime with no legislative basis.
- arrosenberg 7y agoMy biggest issue with it from a public policy standpoint is that we don't have any problem putting the same burden on individual people. A person accused of a crime they didn't commit runs the same exact risk of bankruptcy and financial ruin if they can't make bail (and sometimes, even if they can), despite the same presumption of innocence. How are we supposed to reconcile giving a corporation, with vastly more resources, special consideration that an individual person does not get?