Name

Course

Institution

Instructor

Date

Alternative Dispute Resolution

ADR (alternative dispute resolution) refers to methods that are adopted in seeking for solutions on legal disputes without use of litigation but by adopting such means as the negotiation, arbitration as well as mediation (Anon, 68-76). Among other legal disputes solved through the ADR are disputes on contracts, environment, insurance, security, labor, international trade and technology.

Negotiation:

This method involves the informal interaction between disputing parties with an intention of settling on the disputes and may involve a lawyer or not. It is to be noted that this process does not acknowledge the involvement of a third party (even neutral such as a judge or a jury). Two main approaches involved in negotiation are adversarial negotiation as well as problem solving approach. In adversarial approach, the warring parties seek solution through negotiation with a motive of maximizing own gain whereas in problem solving approach, joint gain is sought by parties involved. Though the method is discussed as an independent tool for solving disputes, it is often used before adoption of formal method(s) to solve a dispute and is such a case, negotiation is not perceived as an alternate to litigation processes.

Mediation:

In mediation, unlike the case with negotiation, a neutral person is a characteristic feature and is involved in facilitation of communication between the parties while at the same time offering suggestions to possible ways of solving the dispute at hand. As an expertise, the neutral person chosen (mediator) is often chosen by the consent of the warring parties. The main feature of the process is having the mediator assist each side listen to the other in a dispute. Persuasion is a mandatory character for the mediator in order to have the deliberation on the various solutions sighted and the process is concluded after the parties involved unanimously accept a s.............

Alternative dispute resolution

Name

Institution

In the past few decades, it is possible to take note of the rise in two distinct considerations to criminal justice. The approaches are inclusive of restorative justice initiatives and initiatives in support of private law enforcement[1]. The approaches arise out of a number of ideological orientations that are either more responsive to crime control, or they might be exhibiting a movement towards addressing some of the psychological needs of perpetrators and victims of a crime. This paper looks into ideology of mediation, thereby discussing some of the provisions in this ideology when used in restorative justice, civil litigation as well as family law.

Even though some of the restorative justice programs are sometimes applicable to violent felonies, most of the restorative justice programs are practically limited to relatively minor offences such as minor assaults, theft and vandalism[2]. On this note, it is vital to take note of the fact that victim-offender mediation is the most popular type of restorative justice used in the country[3]. It exhibits a slight similarity to civil mediation, but the difference emanates from the fact that a civil law mediator assumes a neutral position in the facilitation process, and he or she is not in a position to pass judgment on whichever side[4].

It is possible to determine that the public system has not been able to provide adequate resolutions for some of the criminal activities related to intra-family violence. Many practitioners in the domestic violence field have come across scenarios that involve wife battery, or when a boyfriend commits violence against a victim[5]. Mostly, the victims will not call the police since the police are highly likely to make an arrest[6]. Since the victim might find it difficult to see their loved ones going to jail, or they might be afraid of testifying against the offender, they are likely to refuse to cooperate.  Consequently, the inherent delay in the criminal justice system might give the couple time for reconciliation, thereby making prosecution difficult. For this reason, through the criminal mediation system, it would be possible for the mediator to assist the partners to resolve some of their issues.

Through some of the neighborhood justice centers existing in a number of states, which consist of community boards, it is possible to solve some of the civil cases existing in the states. Some of the cases that the community boards hear are inclusive of civil disputes such as landlord/tenant disputes, harassments, assaults, and noise, among other disputes[7]. However, the main model in a private criminal law system involves large companies and victims. Despite this fact, the main aim of the privately run organizations is the mediation of criminal disputes between some of the members of the subject communities[8].

An example of the privately run organizations includes some of the community boards that exist in San Francisco. Instead of calling the police, a victim in the area could get into contact with the community boards, upon which the case developer will be able to interview the victim as well as the perpetrator[9]. The mediators, also known as “neutrals,”[10] will then listen to what both sides have to say, and by guiding the discussion, after which they will leave it for the parties to come up with a resolution. This is a consideration th.............