Considering whether to prosecute or not based on how many jobs are at stake is exactly what the DPA is all about. Sorry if you didn't understand that. Inappropriate "Arm twisting" on that issue is what is being questioned now. No precedent so far as it is a new legislation.
Clearly you do not understand what a dpa is, what plea bargaining is, when they are both used, and what limits they have because if you did you would know dpa's don't use employment issues as a criteria to determine a sentence.
To start with a dpa can not add to, supercede, replace s.718 [/b]of the Criminal Code which states:
Purpose
718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
and
Other sentencing principles
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or
(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
Any dpa must conform to and complement not contradict or ignore the above principles of sentencing.
Using your reasoning that a dpa can take into consideration something unrelated to the crime such as potential negative voter fall out or unemployment makes no common sense. First of all no one can say for sure if a criminal sentence would by itself trigger negative voter fall out or unemployment. Its too indirect a result to be a consideration.
Next if we created lesser sentences for criminals because their sentence may indirectly impact negatively on their employees when would this stop? If you do it for Lavalin you must do it for all criminals who are employers. So who next. Oh wait, organized criminals hire employees who do not themselves commit crimes, do we give them lesser sentences?
Of course not.
What we let a rapist off because if he doesn't return to his company it goes under and his employees lose their jobs?
Nonsense.
There is a reason the elements of consideration of criminal sentencing are directly related to the elements of the crime (the crime's impact on human behaviour to do the same crime).
Criminal law is supposed to serve as a warning to others NOT to do the same behaviour. It can't condone the behaviour because of a concept that employment concerns or voter concerns over-ride principles of criminal concern. That would undermine the entire purpose of criminal law and create the belief that employing people entitles you to a lesser sentence for a crime.
A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is in fact non-prosecution agreement. In such agreements prosecutors agrees to grant amnesty, i.e., NOT PURSUE a trial or prosecution in exchange for an agreement that the accused agree to fulfill certain requirements, i.e., pay a fine, suspend operations until new procedures are put in place to guarantee the same behaviour can not happen again and an agreement of a moratorium or time period of not getting certain business and to fully cooperate with the completion of any criminal investigation. If that is all done charges are dismissed.
Unlike a plea bargain the Judge is never involved because the prosecution is never commenced.
In a plea bargain the prosecution is commenced which necessarily means any agreed upon pleading must go before the Judge for final approval. Its the Judge who decides if the plea is acceptable.
DPA's are much rarer than plea bargains.
Let's be clear, the PM created a dpa and passed it into law hiding it in an omnibus bill. This PM said he would never use omnibus bills because they prevent proper debate in Parliament.
Yet this PM did just that and he passed through the dpa with zero discussion because if the criteria in the dpa would have been disclosed, it would have been exposed as contrary to s.718 of the Criminal Code and therefore not appropriate as it would undermine the criminal sentencing process.
That's why Trudeau snuck it by and he was wrong to do so.
A prosecutor not Justin Trudeau decides what if any plea or sentence is appropriate by considering the elements of the offence only. The elements of the offence do not include whether the criminal employs people who might lose jobs if the criminal goes to jail.
to be continued.