Get 20% off StudyMode
Page 1 of 2

Conflicts as Property - Critical Anaylsis

Continues for 1 more pages »
Read full document

Conflicts as Property - Critical Anaylsis

Page 1 of 2
In the article Conflicts as Property, written by Nils Christie, Christie states that conflicts in western society are the property of the involved parties and those legal conflicts have been immediately taken away from their possession (Christie, 1977). This is occurs when victims in criminal law lose their right to participate in their own legal issues (Christie, pg. 8). Christie expresses that these conflicts are eliminated from the involved parties, rather than being used to benefit the individuals. “Conflicts might kill, but too little of it might paralyze.” (Christie, 1977, pg. 9) Christie presents an example of a non-western mechanism for conflict resolving, where both parties had direct participation of their own conflict resolution, while other individuals (i.e. relatives, friends and judges) would have little involvement and did not attempt to take over the case (Christie, 1977). Christie demonstrates that the legal procedure of such conflicts are being dissociated from their owners in which continues to remain. The conflicts are repressed in such a manner where there is no attention given to the victim, revolving the concentrated attention to the background of the criminal (Christie, 1977, pg. 11). He elevates by alleging that this continuous process has been recognized to be detrimental to all of society. The author, Nils Christie, is reasonable for making these declarations. Conflicts are the property of those whom had initiated them; therefore the property of the conflict should be taken out from the legal professionals to be restituted to those established it. The absolute fundamental purpose is to maintain social control and to provide protection of all forms of conflicts to those who inhabit within their society. The legal system aspires to provide justice to any social, economic and political conflict. This however is not the case, as the Supreme Court of Canada for example; does not allow the directly involved parties to attend their own court...