I am a lawyer and mediator, and no, I don't like how many people talk about the advantages of mediation to the detriment of the courts of law., of traditional justice, of the one that coexists with us, in the face of the emergence of alternative methods of conflict resolution.
I always said that, to demonstrate the benefits of something, We should not rely on each other's weaknesses.. They are different paths, even if they try to get to the same place. The best way to understand it is to think about a trip, Is it better to go by train, by plane, by car or on foot? Well, ask those who do the Camino de Santiago, or those who go on a business trip, or those who start a vacation trip to see different places with their family...
They are all useful, they are all necessary. Respect for all media is necessary for effective coexistence.
This list of virtues, dear reader, speaks only of the benefits of mediation, but never in discredit of other ways, because it would also be easy to talk about the “disadvantages” of mediating, especially for those people who They have no attitude, the key to all mediation.
That is why today I dare to say the benefits of traditional justice, of the courts, because respect between both avenues must be the flag of coexistence between them.
We mediators grew, surprised by the advantages of mediation:
- Promotes communication between opposing parties
- Reduces the tensions of the parties in conflict and their emotions
- They themselves assume the responsibilities of the solution, empowering them
- The solutions adjust to what they really need
- There is no feeling of winner or loser, but of a tie
- It does not focus on the past but on the future
- It promotes flexibility, adapting the “suit” in a traditional way so that it fits them well.
- In short, the level of compliance with what was agreed, being what they want, is very very high.
- And all this because it allows more creative solutions that prevent future problems.
The Courts, Traditional justice has great advantages:
- The professionalism of the Judge and the parties' lawyers allows us to unravel the legal conflict (the interpretation of the laws).
- The judge, if the parties do not give in, determines the result once they have delegated the role to the lawyers.
- Communication occurs between lawyers to search for a solution, when many times communication between them is not possible.
- Regardless of whether they need other help, it covers compliance or non-compliance with the law
- In the event of non-compliance by the parties, it is required, so as not to leave it to their free will
- Judges, lawyers and prosecutors, always before a judicial decision, allow representatives (there is no emotional wear) to agree on a way out of the problem.
Now it is you, yes yes, you, who decides where to go. If you are willing to dialogue and “recognize, even if you do not share, what the other party thinks,” come to mediation.
If you, dear friend, need someone to help you and give you the power of decision, go to your lawyer and let him negotiate on your behalf, and if it is not possible, ask for help in the judges' decision.. What's more, they are complementary ways, because many times if mediation is not possible or is unsuccessful, you will go to court and, other times, it is the courts themselves, who, suspending their decisions, refer to mediation to find a solution. . Alternatives? No man no: Complementary.
Very accurate comment Javier. Mediation is not always appropriate, it is not the panacea for all conflicts, such as in cases of violence that puts self-determination and even the life of one of the parties at risk and/or when they simply do not want to or it is not the time and it is The intervention of the expertise of lawyers and judicial authorities is essential. Thank you very much dear teacher for remembering a reality that we must not forget. .