Nils Christie’s article, “Conflicts as Property” discusses modern legal systems and the issues and concerns he has with them. He suggests that highly industrialized societies have created a legal system where conflicts are being taken away from those who are directly involved. Christie states that legal professionals, specifically lawyers or as he refers to them—“professional thieves” — are treating conflicts as property. He argues that conflicts become property when they are converted into a conflict with the State, rather than with those directly involved. Christie proposes the notion of a court procedure—a lay-oriented one —that eliminates lawyers from legal issues in order to restore individual’s rights.
In criminal cases, both parties are represented however one, usually the victim, is represented by the State. Christie argues that victims lose the rights to their conflict to the State: as their …show more content…
When they are not, the judges ought also to be their equals.” This is similar to the ideology of a jury, theoretically speaking lawyers are not apart of this model therefore how would the ‘selection of equals’ occur? Christie furthermore never indicates what defines people as equals; surely having wealthy businessmen in a lay-oriented court against a homeless offender would not be considered fair or equal. If they have different professions, different morals and ethics or different IQ levels, does that prove they are equal in legal standards of a lay-oriented court? Additionally, Christie does not address the concept of a hung jury: if Judges are people’s equals and not the final decision makers, how will a decision be
In criminal cases, both parties are represented however one, usually the victim, is represented by the State. Christie argues that victims lose the rights to their conflict to the State: as their …show more content…
When they are not, the judges ought also to be their equals.” This is similar to the ideology of a jury, theoretically speaking lawyers are not apart of this model therefore how would the ‘selection of equals’ occur? Christie furthermore never indicates what defines people as equals; surely having wealthy businessmen in a lay-oriented court against a homeless offender would not be considered fair or equal. If they have different professions, different morals and ethics or different IQ levels, does that prove they are equal in legal standards of a lay-oriented court? Additionally, Christie does not address the concept of a hung jury: if Judges are people’s equals and not the final decision makers, how will a decision be