law Archives - Page 5 of 5 - understand-culture

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.

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.

In dubio pro reo

In German conflict situations, such as criminal law, the general rule “in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, for the accused) applies. During the examination of a conflict and in reconstruction of the facts, it is requird that the judiciary be extremely accurate.

This means among other things, that subjective evidence, such as taking testimonies on the basis of assumptions (even though they might be accurate), are not sufficient indications of the facts. This protects the German defendants from unlawful decisions.

However, this also means that even if the subjective evidence is convincing, the prosecutor does not have the right to use it, unless and until objective evidence (e.g. reviewed testimonies, video- or tape recordings, images) verifies it.

If the prosecutor is not able to find such evidence and tries to support his argument by using subjective testimony, he still carries the burden of proof.

Let’s take the example of a prosecutor whose house was graffitied. The prosecutor does not know with certainty that the graffiti was actually done by the defendant, but he has a strong subjective presumption since the defendant is a well-known graffiti artist in the neighborhood.

The prosecutor carries the burden of proof. Relying only on subjective reasoning will lead to the lawsuit being rejected due to lack of conclusiveness.

Mediation Law

Germans prefer to resolve their conflicts without taking it to the courts, and with the help of a neutral, third party. The so-called mediation law permits these resolutions to be legally binding. Mediation reduces the workload of the courts and often leads to a resolution accepted by both conflict parties.

Mediation is a structured approach which guarantees that its proceedings do not become public. The conflict parties participate freely in the mediation process and are asked to seek resolution in good faith.

The mediator is a neutral and independent party, but has no power to force a resolution. The mediator guides the conflict parties to a resolution which they have formulated.

The mediation law also allows for ombudsmen, or neutral third party organizations, which also offer conflict resolution services. These include banks, insurance companies, the German rail system, scientific research organizations, local utility companies, real estate associations, legal organizations. The association of banks, for example, in 2011 resolved over 8,000 conflicts. The insurance association resolved just over 17,000 conflicts.

German Mediator Training

Key Components of German Mediator Training

Duration and Structure: Training typically involves at least 130 hours of instruction over several months, often divided into modules. These modules cover both theoretical foundations and extensive practical exercises, including role-plays and supervised mediation cases.

Core Content Areas: communication techniques and conflict analysis, mediation process phases (from initial contact to final agreement); legal framework for mediation and enforceability of agreements; ethics, liability, and confidentiality; digital mediation and online communication skills; special topics such as diversity, workplace, and family mediation.

Practical Experience: trainees must complete several supervised mediations (currently five within three years after training) to qualify as a “certified mediator.” This ensures hands-on experience in real conflict situations.

Interdisciplinary Approach: trainers come from diverse backgrounds—law, psychology, business, and communication science—providing a broad perspective on conflict resolution.

Continuous Professional Development: certified mediators are required to participate in ongoing education and supervision to maintain their credentials, ensuring they stay current with best practices and new developments in the field.

Flexible and Modern Learning Formats: training can be completed in-person or online, with interactive elements such as digital whiteboards, podcasts, and online learning platforms supporting the curriculum.

Certification and Quality Assurance: he title “Certified Mediator” is protected by law and requires completion of a recognized training program, fulfillment of practical case requirements, and ongoing professional development.

Training programs are regularly updated to reflect new legal and technological developments, such as online mediation skills.

In summary, German mediator training is rigorous, interdisciplinary, and highly practical, combining legal, psychological, and communication expertise to ensure mediators are well-prepared to handle conflicts effectively and professionally.

German Mediation Act

Emphasis on Amicable Resolution: The German Mediation Act and civil procedure (§ 278 ZPO) encourage settlement at every stage, with mediators or conciliation judges empowered to use all appropriate methods—including separate interviews—to resolve disputes amicably.

Paragraph vs. Case

It is a well known fact that the German and the American legal systems have fundamental differences between them. The modern German legal system is based on ancient Roman law, combined with a bit of French and old Germanic law, but all of it follows the paragraph law structure.

The American system is derived from the English case law tradition, which follows the law as it was laid out by judicial verdicts in actual previous cases. Key cases providing precedence are reviewed to determine how to continue.

Justice (Gerechtigkeit) and judgement are closely connected in the American system. Not just the concrete facts of the case, but also the circumstances are considered to be crucial information for the deliberations and verdict. These then must be interpreted with regard to the complex nature of the human existence.

A task which only persons with sufficient experience with life as well as with people are capable of. This experience – or the wisdom that comes from such experience – is something which only older people can have.

This is why Americans are always astounded when they hear that in Germany relatively young people – in their early 30s – can become judges. Many of the district attorneys that they see on German television look as if they were fresh out of law school.

According to the American understanding of judicial power, paragraph laws play a minor part. Case law is so difficult precisely because it concerns situations which are not found in a German book of federal law.

This is why American judges must be older people who are truly good and wise. Their process too involves stringent scientific methods of analysis, not unlike German paragraph laws. These, from the American perspective, can not deliver more than just the pure facts.

The ability to take these facts and interpret them, to make sense of them, this is what they view as true good judgement. Knowledge of methodology and analytical processes may support one’s good judgement, but can never amount to the equivalent.