A conflict, within the context of “Conflicts as Property” by Nils Christie, is something in which one owns. Similarly, the ownership of conflict can be compared to the ownership of property, hence the title of the article. Throughout the article, Nils Christie conveys that every person should have the right to fight their own conflict, however, due to the current social structure in places such as Canada, that right can be taken away or even stolen by professionals.
Nils Christie further proves his thesis by comparing two different legal systems. There is the system of local neighborhood courts, which are represented in Tanzania, and there are complex courts in Scandinavia, similar to those in Canada. The author outlines that the Tanzanian …show more content…
One of these changes are to implement a “victim-oriented court.” In other words, Christie believes that by putting the victim at the centre of the court, will result in allowing them to express in complete detail all of the wrongs they have experienced. Along with which the author describes as “…detailed consideration regarding what could be done for [the victim], first and foremost by the offender, secondly by the local neighbourhood, thirdly by the state.” This is important and agreeable due to the fact that it is a form of reparative justice. Just as one would receive some sort of reparation for a property crime, by going through the process of a victim oriented court the conflict would be settled by reparation. It is very agreeable that every person should have the right to fight their own conflict, as it is very important to the initial rehabilitation process. By the victim confronting the offender there may be a clarification as to the rationale of the offender, eliminating the notion of ‘not knowing.’ However due to the modern legal and social structure in places such as Canada, the right to fight one’s own conflicts can ultimately be taken away or even stolen by professionals. It is important to examine the structure of victim oriented courts as they are often times healing
Nils Christie further proves his thesis by comparing two different legal systems. There is the system of local neighborhood courts, which are represented in Tanzania, and there are complex courts in Scandinavia, similar to those in Canada. The author outlines that the Tanzanian …show more content…
One of these changes are to implement a “victim-oriented court.” In other words, Christie believes that by putting the victim at the centre of the court, will result in allowing them to express in complete detail all of the wrongs they have experienced. Along with which the author describes as “…detailed consideration regarding what could be done for [the victim], first and foremost by the offender, secondly by the local neighbourhood, thirdly by the state.” This is important and agreeable due to the fact that it is a form of reparative justice. Just as one would receive some sort of reparation for a property crime, by going through the process of a victim oriented court the conflict would be settled by reparation. It is very agreeable that every person should have the right to fight their own conflict, as it is very important to the initial rehabilitation process. By the victim confronting the offender there may be a clarification as to the rationale of the offender, eliminating the notion of ‘not knowing.’ However due to the modern legal and social structure in places such as Canada, the right to fight one’s own conflicts can ultimately be taken away or even stolen by professionals. It is important to examine the structure of victim oriented courts as they are often times healing