Nils Christie is trying to implement the notions of perceiving conflicts as a property and the multiple fashions by which it has impacted the victims and accused within the legal system. One may agree with Christie’s indication of conflicts as property but to a certain extent. Furthermore the acuity of his insight is debatable and will be analyzed throughout this paper. Utilizing example of violent crimes within Canada; it will distinguish the strong and weak points of Christie’s argument. Lastly, the means of which experts within the judicial system can be recognized as “professional thieves” will further confirm the theory of conflict as property to another degree.
To begin with, one must comprehend Nils Christie’s main concept before evaluating …show more content…
He suggest a few central points of how our conflicts are being taken away from us. Initially, lawyers steal the conflict and twist it in ways that will benefit them. That being the case, it reduces attention given to the victim and certain facts of the case are ignored because they are deemed irrelevant. Secondly, the court houses are located away from where the general public. Hence, underprivileged and disenfranchised people have little to no access to it; certain restriction have been implemented to keep these people away such as installing a dress code. Thirdly, the people actually involved in the conflict play a minimal roles in the trial. If you are the accused the only chance you get to speak is to the judge when you are asked how do you plea and the victim only shares his side of the story if a victim impact statement is required. Therefore, by these concepts Christie demonstrates how conflicts are indeed a property and how they are being taken away from us.
In the end, we can visualize how conflicts are perceived as property and how they are being taken away from us. As previously discussed, Nils Christie’s notion that conflicts are a property is agreeable, but to a certain extent. His insight of how trials should be run is defective because justice would not be blind but rather clouded with emotions. However, there should be a change implicated to get both parties more recognized in
To begin with, one must comprehend Nils Christie’s main concept before evaluating …show more content…
He suggest a few central points of how our conflicts are being taken away from us. Initially, lawyers steal the conflict and twist it in ways that will benefit them. That being the case, it reduces attention given to the victim and certain facts of the case are ignored because they are deemed irrelevant. Secondly, the court houses are located away from where the general public. Hence, underprivileged and disenfranchised people have little to no access to it; certain restriction have been implemented to keep these people away such as installing a dress code. Thirdly, the people actually involved in the conflict play a minimal roles in the trial. If you are the accused the only chance you get to speak is to the judge when you are asked how do you plea and the victim only shares his side of the story if a victim impact statement is required. Therefore, by these concepts Christie demonstrates how conflicts are indeed a property and how they are being taken away from us.
In the end, we can visualize how conflicts are perceived as property and how they are being taken away from us. As previously discussed, Nils Christie’s notion that conflicts are a property is agreeable, but to a certain extent. His insight of how trials should be run is defective because justice would not be blind but rather clouded with emotions. However, there should be a change implicated to get both parties more recognized in