Description
Some people have criticized alternative dispute resolution and diversion programs as picking the least serious offenders for participation and then lauding their success. There have also been criticisms of gender and race disparity in acceptance into these programs. Should these programs attempt to treat and reform more serious offenders? What could be done to the eligibility criteria for these programs to ensure that they are not discriminating with regard to which cases get diverted and which remain in the traditional court system?
Explanation & Answer
Attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or need revisions.
Dispute Resolution
Hopes on alternative dispute resolution have declined over the years because damage
awards, legal billings, and lawsuits have been going high in various institutions that had
adopted the dispute resolution method. The method failed because it was practiced too often
in the judicial system's private sector, which costs and looks like litigation, which is supposed
to stop. The procedures comprise excess baggage in discoveries, dispositions, motions, briefs,
witnesses, damages beyond the contract limit, and publicity. There have been accepted
criticisms of gender and race disparity in the program, which has shown high inequality
(Blake et al., 2016). Regarding arbitration, gender differences, especially in the employment
part. Arbitration and mediation show that there may be no reason for concern because women
may not experience adverse effects on proceedings, prejudice, and biasness from, gender
race, and ethnic differences in the results that lead to party satisfaction.
The conciliation systems are the same to come up with initiatives, such as ADR
programs that can offer support and complement various cou...
Review
Review
