In general, is arbitration a good or bad thing for society?
361545
It is generally a good thing.  It is a cheaper alternative than litigation and not nearly as adversary.  It has a structure but not as formal.\n\nHere is some information as to the drawbacks.\n\n"Critics of arbitration argue that contractual requirements to arbitrate can be unfair to employees or consumers who have no power to negotiate what is often a form contract. In these cases, the choice of arbiter may be spelled out in a contract. The arbitration panel may contain industry experts who may be more sympathetic to the industry than to the individual. Also, some have argued that the fact that an arbitration company may handle many cases for a corporation while an individual rarely goes through arbitration twice may bias the arbitrators in favor of the company. On this note, many arbitration companies have these corporations as their sole source of income, further biasing their judgments. The fact that most arbitral procedures are not public, and that there may be no provision for an individual to be represented by counsel, may also work to the disadvantage of the individual. These potential disadvantages make the ethics and professionalism of arbitrators even more important.\n\nArbitration in the U.S. has also been criticized because of the unavailability of appellate review. Although the New York and federal arbitration laws were based on the English arbitration law of 1898, they omitted the English provision permitting for de novo review of questions of law. Thus, American courts can overturn arbitral rulings only for extremely gross procedural errors that violate due process, but cannot reverse most substantive errors.\n\nUnlike judicial opinions, arbitration opinions are often confidential. As a result, the law relating to activities (such as reinsurance contracts and certain types of securities industry disputes) where contracts to arbitrate are widespread may develop more slowly because the usual process of creating precedent is not available." information taken from wikipedia.
733791
That depends on what it is you want to do.  It is pretty well agreed that child molesting is not a good thing and that you would be harshly judged for doing so.  Etc.  Murder, theft, and so on. There  has to be certain agreed upon standards of conduct in order for any society to survive.
1073056
No. \n\nCleaning my apartment  would be good.\nHaving someone else clean my apartment would be better.\n\nNeither is right -- neither is wrong. \n\nThe same principle can be applied to moral situations.
286578
Pretty much everyone thinks it's good or bad.  There's always that 4% or so that are undecided, but otherwise folks think it is good or bad.\n\nGood luck.
834317
I don't think they are "good" for the person that is in them in any way (except maybe that they an't survive outside them?). They are good for society to keep people who are dangerous locked up. Personally, for people who are not a danger to society I would rather see more creative sentencing. Cons should have to give all the money they took back plus interest. Drunk drivers should have to work in hospitals with accident victims. Slumlords should have to live in their rat-infested apartments. Drive home the damage a crime does.
442444
Yes, unions have a vital place in US current society as proven by modern and ancient history. In any society the largest number of people are the working class. This group is made up of those who must work to provide for food, shelter and clothing for themselves and their families. In any society people without large amounts of money lack bargaining power and standing alone they do not have access to meet their needs in a crises. They live at the mercy of those in power. By standing together in a unified manner, the whole is greater then the separate and this gives them bargaining power to provide for individual needs such as fair compensation for a fair amount of work.
298101
No, justice is only for those who can afford it.  Some want to say that's it's for the real poor also but public defenders are NOT the same has a hired/bought lawyer.  I thought America was for the people by the people but it just seems to me that America is for the politicians, lawyers and rich.  \n\nLet's say you go to court for a traffic  ticket.  Why is it a lawyer can get you a deal but you can't get the deal unless you pay for a lawyer?  I mean why can't I just talk to the judge?  Judges only want to hear from lawyers.  It's real odd to me that the guy ahead of me with the same type of ticket just got his knocked off his record by his lawyer but I go in front of the judge and I can't that same deal.  That's not justice.  That's a business.  You get what you pay for type of deal.  That is not what the judicial system is supposed to be for.\n\nTo be honest I have gone to law school and talked to plenty of legal people and I realize that it just about the numbers.  It's all about wins and losses NOT JUSTICE.
721359
No.\n\nAny society that values the value of a human life and promotes non-violent solutions would be hypocritical to include floogging and capital punishment in their justice system.\n\nWith a fallible justice system, there is always the risk that innocent people will be flogged or executed.\n\nWhere punnishments are decided by mortals, there is a risk that the harsher sentences are handed out according to prejudice.\n\nWhere the best barristers are available to those with the most money, there is always a risk that the poor are disadvantaged.
444539
law and justice are sometimes in conflict. justice is meted out according to lifestyles, ethnicity ,political affliations,gender,social standings,wealth, to name a few.however the law must prevail in order to be in a civilized society.law must prevail .take your luck on justice.
460055
The big advantage is that you get to avoid a trial.  Trials are costly and stressful.\n\nThe disadvantage is that you agree to go with whatever the arbitrator decides.  If you don't like the result, that's tough...a bitter pill to swallow in a divorce.
889046
Ours is a litigious society and many people do not like to take responsibility for their own actions, or failures to act.  Therefore, Yes, I believe that being a lawyer will continue to be a "lucrative" career.  It's not without hard work, mind you -- hard work and bucking the stereotype.  Lawyers are not all.... well you know... use your imagination.  Not all of them are like that.
591250
it is a profitable business for someone who does not cares about well being of the society.The persons behind it think that they are providing a service to the society.No one does not understand the impact that are produced in the mind of minors.the insecurity it bring to our children,Our brothers,our sisters.The behavioral defects,the emotional problems it creates.really a nice question to think about
929736
Yes and no, If it is done by choice it's ok but if it is forced upon society it is bad. \nWhat has been happening is by force and it is making life bad for everyone. \nPeople should have the choice of who they accept as friends and the space to get away from each other if necessary.
433670
From what I've read, the Right to Strike is fairly undeveloped and highly debated in British politics. I am not sure what the status of the issue is at this point.
412977
In almost all states, that probably constitutes good and sufficient service.  But without knowing your state (and whether you're a party to the action) it is impossible to say for sure.\n\nP.S.  The person above me is wrong.
578594
depends on if you ask an economist or a sociologist.\n\nthe sociologist will probably say it is bad.\n\nThe economist will probably say it is a good thing.
242414
Everyone plays a role in maintaining law and order. Society, in theory should exist to benefit everyone. If we all do our part to make things a little better than they were before we got here then many will benefit.\n\nFollow the spirit of the law (Not necessarily the letter) and encourage others to do the same for a better society and all will be well.