“Give them a fair hearing.”Means to listen to each side’s arguments or explanations openly and impartially.
Schlichter
The process of Schlichtung – arbitration, mediation, conciliation – is a bit different in every case. To get a sense for the process it is helpful to take a look at the Mediationsgesetz – mediation law, for there is actually a law in Germany supporting out-of-court arbitration.
The law states clearly that the Schlichter takes a neutral position during the mediation. She or he is to lead the conflict parties to a consensual (both agree freely) resolution of the conflict, so as to avoid the need for a court case.
The Schlichter speaks with each party separately in order to reconstruct the conflict as objectively as possible. But what does “objective” actually mean? The mediation law does not answer that question. It is the job of the Schlichter, typically via a long process, to find the truth.
The one conflict party tries to prove the guilt of the other party. That party, in turn, does their best to prove lack of guilt. The mediator does her best to get as objective a picture of the situation as possible.
Judge and Procedure
Role of the Judge and Procedure: In German civil litigation, the judge plays an active, guiding role during oral hearings, often steering the process to avoid escalation. The court can propose settlement discussions and, if mediation is chosen, the mediator may meet with parties separately or together, depending on what is deemed most constructive. This flexibility allows for the avoidance of direct, adversarial exchanges.
in-court mediation
Mediation Models: There are several models of in-court mediation, including integration (mediator is a judge from the same court but not involved in the case), extension (mediator from another court), and outsourcing (external lawyer as mediator). All these models are designed to ensure impartiality and reduce the risk of direct confrontation, often involving separate interviews or caucuses with each party.
get to the bottom
“Let’s get to the bottom of this.” Suggests investigating thoroughly—gathering facts and testimonies—to resolve the conflict.
Sacco and Vanzetti
The Sacco and Vanzetti trial had a profound influence on American perceptions of conflict resolution by exposing the limitations and vulnerabilities of the open hearing system when prejudice and social tensions are present.
Public Hearing as a Double-Edged Sword: The trial was highly public, with both defendants and accusers present, embodying the American expectation that justice is served through open hearings where all sides confront each other. However, the proceedings revealed how such openness could be compromised by widespread nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment, leading to a process where the accused were judged as much for their background and beliefs as for the actual evidence against them.
Exposure of Systemic Bias: The case became an emblem of injustice, demonstrating that even in a system designed for fairness through open confrontation, outcomes could be deeply affected by societal prejudice. The trial and its aftermath showed that “who you are and, in this instance, what you believe, has an enormous amount to do with how you’re treated by the judicial system”.
Catalyst for Reform and Debate: The public outcry and international attention the case generated led to calls for legal reforms, such as changes in Massachusetts law to allow the Supreme Court to review facts in death penalty cases, rather than only procedural matters. The trial forced Americans to confront foundational questions about equality, fairness, and the role of bias in conflict resolution.
Symbol of Ongoing Debate: Sacco and Vanzetti’s case turned into a rallying point for those seeking to combat injustice and prejudice, and it remains a touchstone in debates about the American justice system, open hearings, and the treatment of minorities and dissenters.
In summary, the Sacco and Vanzetti trial revealed both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the American approach to conflict resolution through open hearings, highlighting that true justice requires not only procedural openness but also vigilance against bias and prejudice within the system.
Watergate
Public Inquiries and Congressional Hearings. Example: Watergate Hearings (1973–1974). Congressional hearings into the Watergate scandal involved the systematic collection of documents, tapes, and extensive witness testimony. Lawmakers acted as judges, weighing both types of evidence to determine wrongdoing and recommend action.
Fester
Americans – both team leads and team members – almost always prefer a suboptimal conflict resolution reached in a timely manner over an optimal resolution arrived at late. Americans refer to conflicts which fester.
fester: to become painful and infected; to become worse as time passes; to cause increasing poisoning, irritation, or bitterness; to undergo or exist in a state of progressive deterioration; to make inflamed or corrupt; “We should deal with these problems now instead of allowing them to fester.”
First known use 14th century. Synonyms: break down, corrupt, decompose, disintegrate, decay, foul, mold, molder, perish, putrefy, rot, spoil.
confidential sources
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972). This Supreme Court case addressed whether journalists could refuse to testify about confidential sources. The Court considered both the objective need for evidence in criminal cases and the subjective arguments about press freedom. The majority opinion emphasized that courts must balance these interests on a case-by-case basis, reviewing both facts and testimony to reach a fair outcome. The case illustrates the American approach of acting as a judge—considering all available evidence and subjective claims before making a ruling.