Conflicts as property is an initially perplexing notion. Published in a 1977 issue of The British Journal of Criminology, “Conflicts as Property” is an article criticising industrialised legal criminal systems and proposing a new, reformed system. Nils Christie suggests that conflicts are entities that are taken from their rightful owners. He later describes a hypothetical legal system where “professional thievery” of conflicts is nonexistent. By use of an analogy and several sub-ideas he deconstructs the concept.
Christie begins his modern law investigation with a Tanzanian case. In this fabricated court case, the main parties are significant and at the centre of attention. Moreover, the general public’s opinion is vital and judges are inactive …show more content…
Christie further observes warningly that depersonalised societies eliminate defamation, libel, and honour conflicts. However, Christie fails to acknowledge that such conflict-free societies are generally ideal. He continues to outline the importance of conflict.
Further expanding on the property aspect of conflict, Christie oversteps his authority by expressing that conflict is “immensely more valuable” than property. Nils Christie writes that our society of “task-monopolists” exclude citizens when they are of most importance. Christie deserts the fact that crimes are not exclusively the conflict of the parties involved, but a conflict between the offender and the State: a breach of law itself. He has reason, though, in describing criminal cases as opportunity to clarify …show more content…
“Conflicts as Property” dates nearly 40 years and the western culture of segmentation and depersonalisation and the industrialised legal systems described are applicable to 2016. Christie uses an array of personal insight and external thought to support his philosophy of lay legal systems. His shortfalls are acknowledged and his convictions are well-supported. “Conflicts as Property” eloquently illuminates the concept and its many
Christie begins his modern law investigation with a Tanzanian case. In this fabricated court case, the main parties are significant and at the centre of attention. Moreover, the general public’s opinion is vital and judges are inactive …show more content…
Christie further observes warningly that depersonalised societies eliminate defamation, libel, and honour conflicts. However, Christie fails to acknowledge that such conflict-free societies are generally ideal. He continues to outline the importance of conflict.
Further expanding on the property aspect of conflict, Christie oversteps his authority by expressing that conflict is “immensely more valuable” than property. Nils Christie writes that our society of “task-monopolists” exclude citizens when they are of most importance. Christie deserts the fact that crimes are not exclusively the conflict of the parties involved, but a conflict between the offender and the State: a breach of law itself. He has reason, though, in describing criminal cases as opportunity to clarify …show more content…
“Conflicts as Property” dates nearly 40 years and the western culture of segmentation and depersonalisation and the industrialised legal systems described are applicable to 2016. Christie uses an array of personal insight and external thought to support his philosophy of lay legal systems. His shortfalls are acknowledged and his convictions are well-supported. “Conflicts as Property” eloquently illuminates the concept and its many