Esther Agelán Casasnovas defends the validity of tax agreements in the penal system
Former Supreme Court of Justice judge, Esther Agelán Casasnovas, reaffirmed the importance of plea agreements and other alternative dispute resolution methods as essential legal instruments to combat organized crime. During her participation in an interview segment, the jurist highlighted that these tools are vital for obtaining key evidence that would otherwise be difficult to acquire through traditional processes.
Although he acknowledged that these mechanisms generate skepticism in part of Dominican society, who often perceive them as a gateway to impunity, Casasnovas emphasized that the cooperation of the accused is a necessary pillar to dismantle complex criminal structures.
Because it will not be possible, if there is no collaboration, the prosecution, the obtaining of evidence in such cases of organized crime. I agree with negotiation and also with alternative means.
Esther Agelán Casasnovas
A strategic and non-automatic use
The former magistrate clarified that the application of plea agreements should not be an automatic or indiscriminate practice. In her view, the Public Prosecutor’s Office must conduct a rigorous analysis of the defendant’s degree of participation and the relevance of the evidence provided before proceeding with any negotiation, always under the strict approval of a judge, as stipulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Opportunity criterion: Used for specific cases under evaluation.
- Conditional suspension: An alternative for first-time offenders or cases of lesser severity.
- Abbreviated trial: A tool to expedite complex processes.
The centrality of the victim and exclusion in cases of violence
A key point in Casasnovas’ analysis is the need to change the public perception that equates repairing damage solely with imprisonment. The jurist advocates for a system that pays greater attention to the real needs of victims, seeking solutions that allow for the restoration of the social fabric.
However, he was categorical in excluding conciliation in cases of gender-based and domestic violence. Agelán argued that, for a fair negotiation to exist, there must be equal conditions between the parties, a premise that is broken in contexts of violence.
There can be no reconciliation in gender-based violence, because the first condition for sitting down to negotiate is that there is equality of conditions, and a female victim does not have the same status as the aggressor.
Esther Agelán Casasnovas
Finally, the former judge concluded that the debate should not focus on the existence of these legal mechanisms, but rather on their correct execution, always guaranteeing respect for due process and the protection of citizens’ rights.
