Disaccord, Dissatisfaction

On coop, I learned of the lovely phenomenon that is “Accord and Satisfaction.” Essentially, Accord and Satisfaction agreements give judges discretion to dismiss charges against a criminal defendant if the defendant pays the accuser an agreed-upon amount of money. (Generally, judges are not to dismiss charges over the objection of the prosecutor.) This type of agreement seems out of place in the criminal context for many reasons, most obviously because it allows an agreement between two private parties to end what is otherwise a case of the government and the people against a private party. Of course, in some situations such an agreement could be a just and beneficial if not merely efficient use of judicial resources. In others, it is ill-suited and gravely unjust, but . . . still legal in Massachusetts.

In particular, Accord and Satisfaction agreements are currently allowed in cases of domestic abuse. That is, a defendant accused of domestic assault and battery may PAY his or her accuser, and the case will be dismissed. The requirements that ensure that the accuser assents to the agreement (that the person appear in court and sign the agreement in writing) are minimal and wholly insufficient to ensure a lack of coercion. If ever parties to a contract have unequal bargaining power, it’s here. Allowing Accord and Satisfaction agreements in domestic abuse cases undermines the foundation of the criminal justice system---a system where the accuser is merely a witness and the victim is the state.

Bills outlawing the use of Accord and Satisfaction agreements in cases of domestic abuse have consistently died. Similar bills are being filed for the 2005 – 2006 session. Let’s hope for better.