Critical Summary of Conflicts as Property Essay

IntroductionThe condition I will be critically summarizing is Conflict as Property. It is an potent article written by the criminologist Nils Christie in the late 1970s. Throughout the entire article Christie argues criminology to some utmost has amplified a process where conflicts have been taken away from the parties directly tangled and thereby have either disappe bed or become other bulks piazza1 This statement is what I have found to be Christies dissertation in which all of his points refer back to.Christies ArgumentThroughout the article Christie reflects on why he trusts the conflict between two parties, the dupe and defendant has been stolen by the authorities, the state, and by professionals. Christie said that non only does the dupe loose his or her swan in the proceedings but is relatively thrown out of the sequel in which it becomes between one ships comp any(prenominal) and the state. He found this unsatisfying and argued that it should be given back to the sign parties involved, the victim, the defendant and the part. He says when a conflict is created that we are less undefendable to take on the situation and are to a greater extent likely to moot it off to some one else. This is where there is a lineup of professionals impulsive to take the conflict from us and we are just as uncoerced to give it away. Christie explains his notion of conflict as property as not referring to material compensation but rather to the ownership of the conflict itself. He then recognizes the effects of victim losing the property initially and puts forth a method as a remedy for this process. He proposes a impudent court model for fixing with conflicts in which the court is victim refer and lay-oriented.My OpinionFor most of the part I agree with what Christie has to say. I believe that throughout a proceeding it should be of most importance that the victims situation is to be taked whether it is relevant to the law or not. Instead of letting th e state or professionals take over and say what they think has the most relevance to a case the court should hear the entire story from the victims point of view. This would show the courts to what affect this act by the offender has caused in the victims life. Also they should hear out what the victim seems survive as a fair punishment or payment in forms of restitution whether it is labour or monetary to go along with the settle sentence. I think that by having the initial parties involved instead of world pushed to the side, society will be more concerned to make authorized that everyone is given a fair, equal, and consistent resolution to a conflict. It would ensure that the neighborhood and state have the same set of shared values and goals that they are working towards to support social order.Most offenders after committing crimes do not want to see the victims or their families that they affected. It is an emotional encounter in the royal court where the offender can sho w his remorse and the victim(s) can show grieve I think that the two types of segmentation that are observed in our highly industrialized societies are the most important factors in why we dont have the ability to deal with conflict. The segmentation in space is how we go through our daily lives and not recognizing any of the people we see as who they are but by what they do. Secondly we separate people based on their physical attributes such as race, gender, and sex.This sequestration has many consequences on society as a whole. The most influential consequence that we experience is depersonalization as Christie said. Not having this person-to-person kindred is detrimental, especially when conflicts arise seeing as how we cant deal with them between the parties involved. We need professionals to step in and take the roles from us, which results in us being cast aside.ConclusionExcept for execution, castration or internment for life, no measure has a proven minimum of efficienc y compared to any other measures2 instead of continuing with the traditional way of a legal proceeding we need to changethings. People need to be able to interact face to face and have a more personal interaction. Conflicts must be given back to the initial parties and not stolen by these other powers. Is it not what somebody deserves? To have a case in which they are heard.BibliographyNils Christie, Conflict as Property (1977) 174 The British Journal of Criminology Pg. 1-15