Discussion 4 In the business world, settling out of court is a favoured form of dispute resolution because it prevents a costly and drawn-out legal process. In the following paragraphs, I will discuss why settling out of court is a good and bad option. First, settling out of court is a good option because it prevents time-consuming, costly litigation and it preserves the business relationship between the two disputing parties. For example, a frozen food supplier may decide to settle out of court with one of their customers for a delinquent payment due to their close working relationship and the fact that the litigation process would be more expensive (Shvartsman, 2015). Moreover, court proceedings can be extremely stressful for both parties because the ruling is beyond their control. Each party must accept the judgment passed down by the judge or jury. This may result in one side losing out completely due to the other side making a more convincing legal argument in court. Thus, the settlement process can alleviate some stress due to the informal nature of the proceeding where both sides can hash out their differences to reach an agreement (Shvartsman, 2015). Second, settling out of court is a good option because …show more content…
(2011, January 12). Retrieved July 07, 2017, from http://www.ctvnews.ca/court-reluctant-to-undo-65m-facebook-settlement-1.595463 Staff, L. (2007, August 06). Alternative Dispute Resolution. Retrieved July 07, 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alternative_dispute_resolution What is Alternative Dispute Resolution? (n.d.). Retrieved July 07, 2017, from http://settlement.org/ontario/legal-services/lawyers-and-other-legal-help/other-kinds-of-legal-help/what-is-alternative-dispute-resolution/ Shvartsman, S. (2015, April 09). To Settle or Not to Settle? That Is the Question. Retrieved July 07, 2017, from
Plea bargaining is a tool used in the court system for the benefit and detriment of the accused for numerous reasons. Additionally, the Crown will use plea bargaining for their benefit as well. For the purposes of this paper I intend to focus on the benefits and risks for an accused person to accept a plea bargain.
An agreement made in a criminal case between a prosecutor and its defendant, before reaching a trial is a plea bargain. The prosecutor offers an opportunity to the defendant to plead guilty. By agreeing to plead guilty to a crime the defendant would in exchange get a prosecutor’s promise to convince the judge to reduce the sentence. It is really impossible to predict what a jury is going to decide in a trial. I personally think that plea bargaining is being used as an easy way out; instead of having the person who committed the crime pay for what they did by serving the whole time. By managing a plea bargain the terms can sometimes be used to include pondering on how it works and who it can help.
A plea bargain is a discussion between defense counsel and prosecution in which the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain considerations, such as reduced charges or a lenient sentence (Siegel, 2017, p. 670). To understand why plea bargaining is used so often, you must look at the pros and cons. In deciding if a plea bargain is the best option, then the pros must outweigh the cons and must favor the interests of the state. Some of the pros that stood out were the overall reduction of cost of the criminal prosecution and resources and prosecution being devoted to more serious cases. If the prosecution can push a plea bargain, then they can move on to a more serious case and get more money for their time and services. Plea bargains allow dangerous offenders to receive lenient sentences. Jesse Timmendequas, a previously convicted sex offender, was given a 10-year plea-bargained sentence for child rape. Upon his release, he raped and killed 7-year-old Megan Kanka in one of the nation’s most notorious crimes (Siegel, 2017, p. 392). In other cases, innocent people might plead guilty if they believe that the system is biased and that they have
Plea bargaining saves the court a lot of time by a case not going to trial. If the case doesn’t go to trial it also saves the criminal justice system a lot of money (CJ Interactive Multi-Media, 2014). This allows for the local, state, or Federal government to save on resources they would need to use if every case went to trial. It also saves on how much resources needs to go into the criminal justice system (CJ Interactive Multi-Media, 2014). The courts are all ready over loaded with cases and many have become extremely backlogged. By people plea bargaining it helps resolve the case faster and helps bring down the number of back logged cases in court. A plea bargain also saves on all parties having to go through a trial (CJ Interactive Multi-Media, 2014). Some trials can take up to several months and the outcome of the trial is very unpredictable. Plea barging can also help law enforcement get information they can use about other criminal activities (CJ Interactive Multi-Media,
The planned settlement is a concession reflecting the reality that ending the hearing would expose Microsoft to an undefined result and would put the government case at risk. The government dropped numerous basics of the conduct remedies that they had accomplished in the original hearing and the ...
Koppel, N & Ashby Jones (2011, January, 12). Early Legal Issue: Where to Try Case. retrieved February 2 2014, from Wall Street Journal Web Site: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870451590457607624427344507
In Chapter One of Emerging Systems for Managing Workplace Cnflict: Lessons from American Corporations for Managers and Dispute Resolution Professionals, authors, David Lipsky, Ronald Seeber, and Richard Fincher (2003) lay the foundation for the rest of the book. They provide historical background on why corporations have shifted from dispute resolution to conflict management and stress the fact the “substantial dissatisfaction” that must drive companies to change how they handle dispute resolution (Lipsky, Seeber, & Fincher, 2003, Chapter 1, Inclination to Change). In addition, the authors articulated the differences between dispute management and conflict management (Chapter 1, Litigation, Dispute, and Conflict Management), detailed the five characteristics of an integrated conflict management system, listed the eight essential elements of a fair conflict management system, and pointed out other characteristics that effective conflict management systems share (Chapter 1, The Concept of a Conflict Management System).
Throughout the years there have been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented, they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply, among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved.
6-9. When the litigants settle their case by compromise, let the magistrate announce it. If they do not compromise, let them state each his own side of the case, in the comitium of the forum before noon. Afterwards let them talk it out together, while both are present. After noon, in case either party has failed to appear, let the magistrate pronounce judgment in favor of the one who is present. If both are present the trial may last until sunset but no later.
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Journal of Dispute Resolution, 401-427.
are seemingly in the right and an agreement can not be met. Whatever the case
Document ID: 671516321. Poitras, J. (2007). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. The Paradox of Accepting One's Share of Responsibility in Mediation. Negotiation Journal, 23(3), 267-282.
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.
However, must be bear in mind that the mediator is at no power of making decisions which bind the parties. The mutual agreement or resolution which achieved during a mediation process will need enforcement by registering the resolution or settlement agreement in court. Although mediation seems like a better solution than the court process however, must be remember that not every mediation session will end up with a settlement or resolution as wanted, take for example a mediation which took place between one of Malaysia celebrity, Hanez Suraya and her Public Relation (PR) Officer, Mohd Fairus...