text: Ability to get results of a trial: The parties are able to obtain similar results of a court trial, specifically where a change is required to appease the dispute.
  Parties avoid the uncertainties of a trial: Consent decrees forgo a trial and its unknown outcome, the necessity of proof, and any guilt is taken for granted (because no one is accused by the consent decree).
  Parties have control of the remedial plan: Consent decrees allow both parties to have greater latitude in deciding how to remedy their issues. This is an advantage "because the parties, not the court, determine the remedy, [and] the assumption is that the remedy is better suited to the parties' needs".
  More compliance and authoritativeness: Both parties more voluntarily implement their agreements if obtained by consent than by force. Moreover, to fail to act under the consent decree seems to be more a violation of the "law" than if under a contract because the parties are "bound" and not "obligated" by the consent decree. Its authoritativeness is reinforced by the practice that a return to court for a consent decree has a priority in the court queue.
  Sustained judicial oversight and interpretation: Courts can supervise that consent decrees are upheld for an indefinite period of time.
  In contrast, the following are disadvantages of using consent decrees: