NCJ Number
54701
Journal
Vermont Law Review Volume: 3 Issue: 1 Dated: (1978) Pages: 1-69
Date Published
1978
Length
69 pages
Annotation
THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FIVE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS (ADRM'S) ARE WEIGHED, AND A FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING ADRM'S WITHIN THE EXISTING JUDICIAL STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED.
Abstract
THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT SET ADRM'S APART FROM TRADITIONAL COURTROOM ADJUDICATION ARE EXAMINED, WITH REFERENCE TO THE SPECIALIZED ABILITIES OF EACH ALTERNATIVE AND TO THE TYPES OF DISPUTES FOR WHICH EACH IS APPROPRIATE. THE FOLLOWING ADRM'S ARE CONSIDERED: INFORMAL ADJUDICATION (SPECIAL COURTS, ARBITRATION, CASE SCREENING); FACTFINDING (OMBUDSMEN); DIVERSION; MEDIATION; AND INFORMATION AND REFERRAL. THE VALIDITY AND PRACTICALITY OF GOALS OFTEN CITED FOR ADRM'S--REDUCED COURT CASELOADS, REDUCED NEED FOR ATTORNEYS, BETTER TRUTH-FINDING TECHNIQUES, OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL AFFAIRS, GREATER SOCIAL STABILITY--ARE ASSESSED. REASONS FOR MAINTAINING CLOSE TIES BETWEEN ADRM'S AND THE COURTS ARE POINTED OUT. IT IS NOTED THAT ADRM'S MUST PERFORM A DUAL FUNCTION: THEY MUST PROVIDE SPEEDY, NONTRADITIONAL RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES IN A MANNER THAT RESPECTS THE INDIVIDUALITY OF DISPUTANTS AND SERVES TO RECONCILE AND EDUCATE CITIZENS, AND THEY MUST OPERATE WITHIN A CONTEXT OF KNOWN AUTHORITY AND ESCALATING SANCTIONS IN ORDER TO ENSURE SOCIAL STABILITY. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS FUNCTION CAN BE PERFORMED ONLY IF ADRM'S ARE LINKED TO THE SUPERVISORY CAPACITY OF JUDGES AND COURTS THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE BASIC NEED TO BE FAIR TO DISPUTANTS. A WORKING MODEL FOR IMPLEMENTING ADRM'S WITHIN A JUDICIAL (COMMUNITY COURT) FRAMEWORK IS PRESENTED. THE MODEL HAS THREE BASIC COMPONENTS: SELECTION AND SCREENING OF DISPUTANTS; FREE ACCESS TO A FAIR TRIAL; AND DISCRETIONARY DISPOSITION EMPHASIZING ADRM'S.