NCJ Number
85310
Date Published
1982
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This essay considers reasons why citizens and organizations seek alternatives to the courts for resolving disputes, judicial deficiencies that prompt such forums, and ways in which the judicial system might respond to the increase in these alternative forums.
Abstract
Reasons why citizens and organizations are promoting alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms are (1) to reduce court delay and backlog, (2) to increase access to justice in a wider range of disputes, (3) to provide styles of dispute resolution more appropriate for parties with an ongoing relationship, and (4) to provide forums that are more cost-effective in dealing with certain disputes. If nonjudicial forums are to reduce court delay and backlog, they must be equipped to handle cases that would normally be handled by the courts. Some examples, which usually operate under the 'umbrella' of the court, are compulsory arbitration, screening panels for medical malpractice cases, and mandatory mediation. Forums that provide less rigid procedures for conversing about and deciding disputes, usually through negotiation, are more appropriate for disputants with a continuing relationship, such as family members and neighbors. Some criticisms of alternative forums are that they dispense second-class justice, will cause the wealthier litigants who could afford the costs of court litigation to go to the cheaper forums, are not suitable for disputants with radically different social and economic statuses, operate without predictable procedures bound by law, and will be used excessively to resolve the most minor contentions. It would probably be best if the court system either revised its procedures to correct some of the deficiencies prompting the alternative forums or included the various forums under the 'umbrella' of the judicial system's administration. Twenty-eight references are listed.