If I was to put a system that addressed conflict into place, mine would be greatly influenced by the Talmudic tradition. Specifically, I respect what the Jewish Conciliation Board of America in terms of integrating a lay-persons court that was specifically established to fill a void for Jewish immigrants. My statement of policy would say that this is “a free and neutral court allowing individuals the opportunity to avoid potentially costly litigation, brought upon us by using justice, compassion and benevolence.”
This court system would be created to make people feel as comfortable as possible during these often vulnerable experiences. My conciliation board would consists of one religious representative, one attorney, and one business person to act as hybrid mediator-arbitrator. The members would be volunteers selectively chosen to participate. The religious person to offer knowledge of moral guidance, (and the religious representative can be from whatever religion the participants prefer) the attorney to offer knowledge of legal grounds for each of the participants, and the business person to offer practical and common sense business knowledge. And if one of the participants disagrees with an outcome of the board, than
…show more content…
I would have to say that might be a case-by-case decision, or I would have to consider the outcomes of trying to force someone to do something they do not want to do. The court setting would be “non-coercive” in nature. The participants will be invited to participate, but individuals could refuse to attend without any legal, religious or social consequences. The board would operate under the assumption that the individuals who choose to be seen before the board because they desire to resolve the dispute in an equitable manner. Additionally, the most wonderful thing about this process, is that this board would be free and open to any and all