Does Litigation Serve Justice?

Our entire countries judicial system is based upon the justice and fairness created through litigation in courts. This establishes litigation as the primary means of creating justice in our nation. Without our ability to fight for our rights in a civilized and organized manner in court, we would forfeit the equity and freedom that the United States is founded upon. A certain few would use litigation to "cry wolf" and bring unreasonable cases to court, which is where alternative solutions can become more effective than litigation. Alternate dispute resolution, on the same hand, is an effective way to employ previous litigation without going through the lengthy and expensive court processes that go along with a trial.

By examining past settlements and rulings based on litigation we have written a code of rules unique to our democracy, the most fitting set of regulations we could create. Justice is defined by litigation and court rulings that go along with it, and in our system we value justice so greatly we will let nine criminals go before convicting one innocent man. As our class proves there are alternate methods to reach justice that may be just as fair and offer more simple solutions, but litigation remains the most fundamental public institution of solving questions of right and wrong and serving justice to those who deserve it. We still require litigation to resolve new and un answered judicial issues and to set precedent for similar following cases, but after the initial litigation alternative dispute resolution can become a very effective way to solve problems without going through the hassle of court.

Although I am a strong believer in litigation and its merits, the American system could also stand to make certain changes to make it a more efficient, simple and cheap system. Other countries such as members of the European Union and Japan have much cheaper systems that hand out sentences quickly and fairly to both sides involved (Ponte & Cavenagh 5). However, they sacrifice the jury in the process of making the trial shorter and more efficient. The jury is integral to the United States justice system of democracy, keeping the government and judges in check and allowing the public to actively participate in their legal system. Putting restrictions on the jury's size, choices regarding the case, and time allowed to make decisions could streamline the American litigation system and make it more similar to the less expensive systems of other countries. In Italy and Belgium, for example, a court case may arise regarding patents of ideas or items, and rather than have a judge or jury hear the case, a special arbitrator with a background in patents will be employed to settle the case. This use of alternate dispute resolution is superior to ours in the sense that it avoids sloppy litigation on an issue already established (Ladas&Parry LLP).

Both online and normal businesses normally try to avoid the perils of litigation at all costs, as many trivial cases that cost them valuable money are brought to their door every year. Already almost ninety five percent of cases are settled through alternate means, but this is still no justification to eliminate the foundation of litigation that we are built upon. Businesses cite liability crisis, or people taking unreasonable cases to litigation against them just to try and make money, as their reason for desiring direct alternate dispute resolution. This is the situation in Babcock versus Northwest Memorial Hospital, where Artaruth Babcock needed to have her legs amputated after contracting blisters in the hospital due to negligence. The hospital claimed she was using their liability unfairly, but litigation granted her what she deserved.

Litigation is the normal due process of law and has to remain our primary method of settling disputes. The fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution guarantee parties involved in litigation the rights to fair and equitable trials no matter what the circumstances and issues, and even though alternate dispute resolution may be easier in some cases, the option of litigation must always be present in order for us to maintain the legal system we have in place(www.findlaw.com/
data/consitutionamendment). This was not the case, however, in the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance versus Earle Broadnax. Earle Broadnax was looking to go to immediate arbitration for a dispute over the insurance money he was due to receive from State farm. A "No Fault Act" in Colorado regarding insurance payments stipulated that the issue go straight to multiple arbitrators, but State Farm wanted to go to litigation to settle the issue. Justice Vollack ruled that there was no direct clause in the Colorado constitution mandating access to court, and therefore State Farm would have to submit to the original arbitration and possibly appeal in court after. Another Justice, Kirshbaum, thought this ruling was wrong, and although the arbitration would be much easier, I agree with Kirsbaum (Ponte&Cavenagh 38). Even though there is no direct clause that gives a party right to access the court system, it has to always be the foremost and primary option before a case is judged or decided. If we begin to always resort to arbitration we might as well live in a country with a code of laws rather than a justice system established upon litigation.

Alternate dispute resolution has modified our modern court and justice system away from the previous system based entirely upon litigation. Both online and real time alternate dispute resolution provide faster and more cost effective solutions, provide the parties involved a better chance to negotiate with each other, and provide more options for resolution of the problems at hand. However, alternate dispute resolution can also be put to negative uses such as throwing money at a problem just to make it go away quietly or getting criminals off the hook when they deserve to be tried and sentenced. This is why litigation needs to remain the primary server of justice in our country while alternate dispute resolution can integrate itself into becoming a fair and equitable possibility for those who do not require litigation. In America litigation will always serve justice and let us solve our problems like civilized humans.

Works Cited
Ponte&Cavenagh. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Business. Thomson Learning Custom Publishing, 2002.
Ponte&Cavenagh. Cyberjustice: Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for E-Commerce. Pearson Education Inc., 2005.
Thomson Findlaw. 1994-2006 Findlaw, a Thomson Business. Lp.findlaw.com/
Ladas&Parry LLP: Intellectual Property Law. Copyright 2002, www.ladas.com