skip navigation
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Login | Subscribe/Register | Manage Account | Shopping Cartshopping cart icon | Help | Contact Us | Home     
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
  Advanced Search
Search Help
     
| | | | |
place holder
Administered by the Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Seal National Criminal Justice Reference Service National Criminal Justice Reference Service Office of Justice Programs Seal National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Topics
A-Z Topics
Corrections
Courts
Crime
Crime Prevention
Drugs
Justice System
Juvenile Justice
Law Enforcement
Victims
Left Nav Bottom Line
Home / NCJRS Abstract

Publications
 

NCJRS Abstract


The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 105082  
Title: Heretical View of the Mediation Privilege
Journal: Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution  Volume:2  Issue:1  Dated:(Fall 1986)  Pages:1-36
Author(s): E D Green
Publication Date: 1986
Pages: 36
Origin: United States
Language: English
Annotation: Legislation being sought by the mediation community to provide blanket protection of confidentiality in mediation is undesirable and could have effects opposite from those intended.
Abstract: Such an expansion of the statutory or common law mediation privilege could actually reduce the acceptance of private dispute resolution and could hamper activities like the enforcement of restraints on illegal business conspiracies and combinations, the protection of individual rights, and the enforcement of the criminal law. Supporters of the expanded legislation have overlooked the complexity of the problem of mediation confidentiality. Mediation confidentiality has three basic meanings, can apply to six different aspects of a mediation proceeding, and can be enforced by five different types of individuals or entities against five different types of individuals or entities. In addition, confidentiality can be granted with no exceptions, with one broad exception, or with a list of specific exceptions. At least 14 States now have confidentiality statutes, and three provide blanket protection. The Massachusetts law providing blanket protection exemplifies the problems with such statutes in that it is both overinclusive and underinclusive. It is overinclusive because it contains no exceptions for fraud or other abuses of the mediation process. It is also underinclusive because it applies only to judicial or administrative proceedings involving former parties to the mediation. If the current efforts to enact a blanket protection are successful, the result is likely to be a law with similar problems. A more appropriate approach would be to make minor modifications in Evidence Rule 408. 90 footnotes.
Main Term(s): Mediation
Index Term(s): Legislation ; Privileged communications ; Mediation privilege
 
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=105082

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.


Contact Us | Feedback | Site Map
Freedom of Information Act | Privacy Statement | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | USA.gov

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of Justice Programs | Office of National Drug Control Policy

place holder