Adjudication: Advantages: One advantage of adjudication is that the final decision will be made by a group of unbiased peers. This can help prevent bias and result in a relatively “fair” outcome. Another advantage is that all evidence available will be presented and this includes witness testimony and party testimonies. Each side will be able to equally share their side with the jury and judge. A final third advantage is that the result of an adjudicated case can be appealed to a higher court if a mistake was thought to be made or bias was exhibited.
Disadvantages: Taking a case through adjudication can be the longest process out of all ADR methods. The case will be very time demanding and can result in time away from work, school,
Negotiation:
Advantages: Negotiations give both parties the opportunity to work together to come to a “win/win” outcome. Both parties can get something positive out of the negotiation. Negotiations also do not involve a third party neutral role. This means the two parties do not have to pay for a person to organize the negotiation or pay for court costs. This ultimately makes negotiations one of the least expensive ADR options.
Disadvantages: A disadvantage of negotiations is that they can only succeed if the two parties are willing to work together. If one side refuses to budge or will not make the sacrifices they need to make to get what they want, the negotiation will fail. A second advantage is the result of a negotiation can be enforced by contract and potentially
This mediator can help the two parties get past the emotion and petty issues to realize the true issue and negotiate from there. Another advantage is that the two parties will be able to work together, explain their positions, and negotiate a settlement which could result in a “win/win” outcome.
Disadvantages: Similar to negotiations, mediations require cooperation between the two parties. If the emotion or minor issues are two much to overcome then it will be difficult or impossible for a settlement to be made. Another disadvantage is that attendance is not required and therefore organizing mediation can be tedious if one party is not willing to cooperate. The result of the mediation can also be bounded by contract and may not be
Mediation is typically used in disputes involving employers and workers where it would be important to maintain the working relationship (Kubasek, p. 72). Mediation, in this scenario would not be beneficial because Margolin may ask for substantial compensation and Funny face could refusing to pay. Also may want to seek criminal charges on Funny Face.
There are many advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the accused plea bargaining. Plea bargaining happens when the accused pleads guilty to a crime and in return the prosecution agrees on a lighter sentence or reduced charges (Siegel, Schmalleger, Worrall, 2011). In some cases the prosecution agrees to both. There are many advantages to an accused plea bargaining. Some advantages includes saving the courts money, time, and resources. There are also disadvantages to plea bargaining. Some disadvantages is that prosecutors may charged the accused with a higher charge, non-guilty defendants may plead guilty, and defense attorneys not getting paid may talk their client into plea bargaining. Criminal who chose to plea bargain also are able to move through the court process faster and resolve their case sooner.
Negotiations styles are scholastically recognized as being broken down into two general categories and those are distributive bargaining styles and integrative negotiation styles. Distributive bargaining styles of negotiation are understood to be a competitive type of negotiation. “Distributive bargaining, also known as positional bargaining, negotiating zero-sum, competitive negotiation, or win-lose negotiation, is a type or style of negotiation in which the parties compete for the distribution of a fixed amount of value” (Business Blog Reviews, 2011). This type of negotiation skill or style approach might be best represented in professional areas such as the stock market where there is a fixed goal in mind or even in a garage sale negotiation where the owner would have a specific value of which he/she would not go below. In contrast, an integrative negotiation approach/style is that of cooperative bargaining, or win-win types ...
In order to identify the advantages and disadvantage of the tribunal system and the court system it is necessary to firstly identify what they are, their purpose and then what the advantages and disadvantages of these two systems of dispute resolution are.
Most countries in the world today do not use juries, and only a small percentage of cases in the United States are decided by juries. So it has been proven successful and holding trials without juries are certainly a possibility for our future. In may in fact be in society’s best interest to change or rather improve a system that is outdated and doesn’t always serve the people justice. A person has a right to choose between a jury of his peers of a bench (judge only) trial. It’s likely that citizens may prefer a jury trial as they may feel that pool of random citizens may be less critical or harsh than a judge, but in all honesty, if we’re talking about fairness, a judge who is an informed and trained professional definitely has a better idea of how to sentence a person on trial and looks at the evidence in a holistic way. A bench trial is better because it’s more efficient and cost-effective, judges are well-educated professionals, and juries may be biased or incompetent.
...an agreement, in which the superior may have a final say in the matter, this too can be detrimental to the business because it only serves to lower the morale of the manager, and confidence in the work he or she is trying to achieve. Secondly the attitudes of the negotiators can greatly affect the outcome. For example, if one negotiator has a competitive behaviour rather than a cooperative behaviour then it will most likely make the other negotiator adopt a more competitive attitude and thus decrease the likelihood of inducing counteroffers that can lead to an agreement (Fisher, Fredrickson & Peffer 2000). Negotiations can also cause those involved who disagree in significant and irreconcilable ways to accentuate those differences (Hilton 1994).
While both aim to find the truth in criminal situations, neither is considered better or worse at doing so, they just have different methods of going about it. The adversarial process focuses on a competitive trial between a prosecutor and defense attorney in order to determine truth. The prosecutor acts on behalf of the accuser as an extension of person vengeance, while the defense attorney acts on behalf of the defendant who needs not be cooperative, as the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. In this process the judge has a diminished role, with power split evenly between the key players. The case is then ultimately decided by a jury.
Arguments for and against ADR both seem to make sense. However, the future of ADR will largely depend on whether or not ADR lives up to its expectations. Whether, when compared to traditional litigation, it actually is more efficient, more expeditious and less costly. But until then, ADR seems like a good way to solve disputes today without dragging them through the rigorous proceedings of litigation, and it is also a good way to keep case management in the courts under control without overburdening the system.
Integrative negotiation is often referred to as ‘win-win’ and typically entails two or more issues to be negotiated. It often involves an agreement process that better integrates the aims and goals of all the involved negotiating parties through creative and collaborative problem solving. Relationship is usually more important, with more complex issues being negotiated than with Distributive Negotiation. Integrative negotiation is the process of defining these goals and engaging in a process that permits both parties to maximize their objectives.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involves dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside of the government judicial process. There has been moves against ADR in the past by entities of many political parties and their associates, despite this, ADR has gained inclusive acceptance among both the broad community and the legal profession in past years. In fact, many courts now entail parties to remedy to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before allowing the parties' cases to be tried. The increasing attractiveness of ADR can be clarified by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to obtain larger control over the selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute.
Negotiation approaches are generally described as either distributive or integrative. At the heart of each strategy is a measurement of conflict between each party’s desired outcomes. Consider the following situation. Chris, an entrepreneur, is starting a new business that will occupy most of his free time for the near future. Living in a fancy new development, Chris is concerned that his new business will prevent him from taking care of his lawn, which has strict requirements under neighborhood rules. Not wanted to upset his neighbors, Chris decides to hire Matt to cut his grass.
Negotiations always occur between parties who believe that some benefit may come of purposeful discussion. The parties to a negotiation usually share an intention to reach an agreement. This is the touchstone to which any thinking of negotiations must refer. While there may be some reason to view negotiations as attempts by each party to get the better of the other, this particular type of adversarial negotiation is really just one of the options available. Among the beginning principles of a negotiation must be an acknowledgment that the parties to a negotiation have both individual and group interests that are partially shared and partially in conflict, though the parameters and proportions of these agreements and disagreements will never be thoroughly known; this acknowledgment identifies both the reason and the essential subject matter for reflection on a wide range of issues relevant to a negotiation. (Gregory Tropea, November 1996)
Mediation is a way to solve a dispute without having to resort to court procedure which sometimes could turned out to be rigid, formal and time consuming especially when it needed a lot of paperwork and the possibility of adjournment which could consume years. Besides that, unlike in court, mediator as a third impartial party did not acted as a judge who decides on the resolution however, the mediator will help the parties to explore the needs and issue which before preventing them from achieving a mutual resolution and settlement. The mediation process gave the authority towards the parties to agree with each other and open up the chance for the parties to meet with a resolution at the end of the mediation session.
With experience and training in communication techniques as well as training in financial and custodial matters, the mediator helps you communicate with your spouse even if you are bitter towards him or her. The mediator reframes your feelings and words so they are understood by your spouse and this bring about the best outcome for your children and both you and your spouse. While a mediator may not have powers like a judge, there are still some laws that govern the process. The sessions are completely confidential and a mediator cannot be called as a witness in case mediation fails and your divorce goes to