Cutting Courts

Settlements without judges

The path that neighborhood youngsters had beaten across the elderly woman's backyard was irritating enough. But when the youths began picking her flowers as well, the lady grabbed her gun and began plinking away. Though no one was hurt, police were called and the parents prepared to press charges. In most cities, the result would have been a court proceeding and bad tempers all around. But in Columbus the matter was turned over to an informal mediation process called the Night Prosecutor's Program. Within two weeks, after a meeting refereed by a local citizen trained in mediation techniques, the parents and the homeowner made a deal: they would control their kids better, she would sell the gun, and together they would finance a fence. Case closed.

More than one-third of the misdemeanor complaints that come to the Columbus police are now settled in this way--without judges, lawyers, and other legal impedimenta. Some 100 other municipalities are experimenting with similar programs, which seem particularly appropriate for disputes involving people who are neighbors or are otherwise fated to have a continuing relationship. For such citizens, winner-take-all court decisions may leave only heightened anger; mediation, by contrast, seeks to cut small problems down to size, or "make the forum fit the fuss," as U.S. Assistant Attorney General Maurice Rosenberg puts it.

One of the first such programs was set up in 1975 in the crime-plagued Dorchester section of Boston. Of the 1,200 cases heard in Dorchester's storefront Urban Court Program so far, 89% were settled there without having to be put before a judge. No one is forced to participate; either party in a dispute may insist on having his case heard in a conventional court. Those who decide to try the program sit down with two mediators--community members who are paid $7.50 a session for this part-time work and are trained to handle disputes coolly. Says Urban Court Mediation Supervisor Delia Rice: "We choose people we feel can put on a neutral hat."

Typically, the opponents in a case will tell their stories. Then the mediators will try to devise a way to lead the parties toward a compromise. Says Mediator Lamont Montigue, a cook: "You don't settle the situation. You let the agreement come from them." When it does, the former opponents sign a written settlement. All other records are destroyed, on the theory that confidentiality will help cement the deal.

Some states are experimenting with a more formal kind of out-of-court settlement procedure called arbitration, in which the counselor, rather than the parties themselves, crafts the solution. California, for example, uses this system to handle certain medical malpractice claims. Both arbitration and mediation help clear court dockets of many minor cases. They also often save money: in the Columbus program, the cost of the average agreement, including the mediators' pay, is $20, vs. $250 for the typical court case. But mediation does not promise to break the nation's litigation logjam. Says William Yeomans, a Justice Department expert on such programs:

"If they proliferate, they will make a dent in court caseloads, but they will not end the overloading." What they do promise to cut, he says, is the "hidden costs" of disputes that are left unresolved only to erupt later as cases of violence or property damage.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.