NCJ Number
97403
Journal
Seaton Hall Law Review Volume: 14 Issue: 4 Dated: (1984) Pages: 986-1003
Date Published
1984
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This paper focuses on the qualitative reasons for alternative dispute resolution and maintains that a superior result is at once 'the goal and the test' in justifying a search for alternative forums.
Abstract
Reasons for the inability of the standard adversarial justice system to process minor disputes effectively are discussed; they include the growth of government, large-scale urbanization, and the decline of nonjudicial institutions traditionally engaged in dispute resolution. Further, steps that should be taken to determine whether the court is the most appropriate forum for resolving a certain dispute are indicated. Alternative means for resolving disputes are defined, including avoidance, factfinding, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and persuasive justice. The inappropriateness of the adjudicative process in resolving certain types of disputes is highlighted, and reasons for this inappropriateness are suggested. Traditional methods of dispute resolution are shown to presuppose a dispute with a single focus rather than a multifaceted problem. Additionally, the need for the relationship between parties to be considered in determining the most appropriate type of dispute resolution, is highlighted. Attention focuses on the role of the Neighborhood Justice Center as a forum for interpersonal dispute resolution. However, the importance of evaluating the concept of the center in terms of due process objections it has provoked is emphasized. Finally, ways of safeguarding seventh amendment rights are detailed, of safeguarding seventh amendment rights are detailed, and the need for caution in alternative dispute reform is cited. Included are 116 references.