Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The history of the american justice system
Justice system in america
Justice system in america
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The history of the american justice system
Lawyers’ Role in Dispute Resolution
Modern American culture provides an inconsistent vision of the role of lawyers
in dispute resolution. Lawyers are alternately portrayed as greedy, corrupt people
without morals or as necessary and competent allies in protecting individuals against
larger and better-funded opponents. In reality, while lawyers have the definite
capability to change the outcome of a dispute in a negative way, they ultimately have a
positive effect by allowing citizens access to the legal system. By its very nature, the
legal system is confusing, puts the inexperienced at a disadvantage, and can be difficult
to access for claimants with little authority. Lawyers provide a way to overcome these
obstacles. They are beneficial because they effectively use their experience and
education to help their clients, facilitate their client’s freedom in trial, aid in the
formation of cases, and add authority and weight to a claim.
The experience and education lawyers have is invaluable in providing legal
access for their clients. Their knowledge and skill allow lawyers to effectively interpret
the legal system and therefore help their clients navigate it. The American legal system,
in the two hundred years it has been in existence, has become extremely complex and
confusing to the uninitiated. The trial process alone can become a Byzantine series of
motions, objections, briefs, and rulings. Despite the fact that defendants are allowed to
represent themselves, the very structure of the system is so complicated that being or
employing a professional lawyer is all but necessary. Legal documents, too, are so
confusing that even non-trial disputes can be impossible for a layman to handle. A
lawyer’s training i...
... middle of paper ...
...nore, Peter d’Errico, Ethan Katsh, Ronald M.
Pipkin, Janet Rifkin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002) 76-83.
Langum, David J. “William M. Kunstler: The Most Hated Lawyer in America,
Introduction to Legal Studies: A Reader, ed. Thomas Hilbink, 2005, 83-97.
Haltom, William. Michael McCann, “Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the
Litigation Crisis,” Introduction to Legal Studies: A Reader, ed. Thomas Hilbink,
2005, 23-46.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. “The Transformation of Legal Disputes by Lawyers: What the
Dispute Paradigm Does and Does Not Tell Us,” Before the Law: An
Introduction to the Legal Process. Ed. Stephen Arons, John J Bonsignore, Peter
d’Errico, Ethan Katsh, Ronald M. Pipkin, Janet Rifkin (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 2002) 478-480
Toobin, Jeffrey. “Killer Instinct,” Introduction to Legal Studies: A Reader, ed. Thomas
Hilbink, 2005, 251-260.
He explains that when a conflict arises, we are less capable to take on the situation and are more likely to hand it off to authorities. He then comes to the conclusion of how they are overlooked, in terms of importance, and that individuals own their conflicts as one would own property. Furthermore, he justifies that these properties are stolen by law, therefore, no longer owned by individuals. Christie urges the need to eliminate ‘professionals’ from the sphere of conflict resolution in order to prevent the theft of conflicts. He explains his perspective of “conflict as property” as not relating to material compensation but rather to the ownership of conflict itself. He then recognizes the effects of victim losing the “property” originally, and puts forth a fix for this process. He introduces a way to remodel the justice system for dealing with conflicts in which the court is victim
In every society around the world, the law is affecting everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect existent to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
...ng to pay or sacrifice to obtain such a goal, and take the necessary steps to ensure that all parties involved in the negotiation are in understanding of one another. With this particular type of power breeds confidence and confidence creates the ability to listen rather than prepare to answer.
and prevents the government from exerting their brute force to bully a conviction of an innocent
Problem solving courts can affect the entire judicial system by weeding out cases that can go to a drug court, traffic court, or whichever
Almost every conflict situation consists of one party having more power than the other. When the power differential is significant, this usually has a major effect on both the matter and process of the dispute. In order for the outcome of the conflict to be fair, both parties must be relatively equal when it comes to power if resolution of the conflict is to be fair. If one side is far more powerful than another, they are more likely to impose their solution on the weaker party, who in turn will be forced to acquiesce, because they have no other choice.
Journal of Dispute Resolution, 401-427.
To be sure, modern laws are made to express the general will, a will that aims at the common good. This means that laws in most cases intend to protect every social member’s rights under the principle of justice and fairness. For telling examples one need to look no further than American judicial system. The access to the two courts systems, one federal court and one state court, provides citizens with the greatest potential to have their legal problems resolved quickly and justly. Besides, the entire U.S. legal system depends upon the involvement and integrity of citizens in the roles of parties, witnesses, jurors, legal counsel and judges, making the legislation, judgment and enforcement respecting more citizens' will, which is probably based on various interests, so that laws can be as just as possible. Therefore, modern laws are in nature pursuing to treat and protect every individual in the society.
...ential for the worker to use confrontation at the appropriate time and to initiate a confrontation carefully. The overall goal is to have the confrontation be successful and have meaningful results.
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 some 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.
Although functions of mediators and arbitrators have several characteristics in common, there are significant instrumental differences that make them distinct from one another. Firstly, whereas the arbitration process is similar to litigation in its adversarial nature, in which parties have the objective to win the dispute, the fundamental goal of mediation is to bring the disputants to settlement through compromise and cooperation without finding a guilty party. In arbitration, parties compete against each other in “win-lose” situation. During mediation, parties work on mutually acceptable conditions with the assistance of a facilitator. In this process, mediators do not have power to make decisions, they work to reconcile the competing needs and interests of involved parties. The mediator’s tasks are to assist disputants to identify, understand, and articulate their needs and interests to each other (Christopher W. Moore,
...sfied with the outcome and resolution from the mediation session, the parties are given liberties to engage with a court procedure.
Premised on the above insinuations, this paper seek to affirm the merits of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) over the conventional litigation system in other to debunk the opinion of liberal culture which positions adversarial procedures as an ideal dispute resolution mechanism.
(EXAMPLE 1) For example if a child is asked to perform neat work and if he does then he will be given extra marks on his class work for every time he/ she does his/her work neatly, then this acts as a positive