Source: (2012) Marquette Law Review. 95:927-940.
The traditional assumption of “one size fits all”-where that size was
adjudication by third parties in a public space-has withered in the face
of the growing diversity of conflict resolution practice, both private and
public. Many courthouses now offer mediation programs, neutral
evaluation and assessment services, counseling, duty counsel services,
case management, and judicial settlement conferencing programs. The
importance of attempting to resolve disputes short of a full trial is fully
accepted among policymakers, for whom it makes obvious economic
sense, and is increasingly accepted by members of the bench and bar,
who must continue to protect the rights and interests of disputing
parties. This plethora of processes-with new programs being added all
the time-often feels messy and confusing. We sometimes crave the
certainty and simplicity of the days before the expansion of ADR in the
courts where there was just one process: litigation. Practically speaking,
it is also easier to marshal support behind one or two demonstrably
effective core programs than to keep testing and evaluating new pilot
schemes. However, I shall argue here that we have no choice but to
keep innovating if we are to meet the new challenges of change, despite
how untidy and unsettled that sometimes feels. (excerpt)
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.
Donate Now