Nils Christie Conflicts As Property Summary

In the essay, Conflicts as Property, Nils Christie builds his argument around the theme of restorative justice, which is characterized by the following four guiding principles: Encounter, which is creating an opportunity for victims, offenders and community members to speak about the aftermath of the crime. Amends, which expect offenders to take steps to repair the harm they have caused. Reintegration, which seeks to restore victims and offenders. And finally, inclusion which seeks to provide an opportunity for all parties to participate in a resolution. (1)Through his essay, Christie educates society on the concept of viewing conflict as property and the impact it has on individuals involved and the law system. His view as necessary or essential

In his opinion, the structure of traditional criminal law is problematic, seeks justice- not restoration (where the theory of restorative justice would make restoration for the victim a top priority), produces a prejudicial atmosphere, and prosecutes on behalf of the Queen’s peace rather than of the individuals’ or victims’ needs. The basis of restorative justice considers crime or wrongdoing an offence against the victim or community, rather than against the state. (2) Christie points toward a law system that works to satisfy the victim’s needs before the needs of the state.

The remedy that Christie proposes is a court model that is victim centered and community oriented. He believes that a court procedure that allows the original parties to participate in their own conflicts would offer many benefits, including: a human connection between victim and offender in turn offering expression, restoration and healing. It would also provide an educational possibility of norm-clarification. His argument states that with the over-generalized policies that are currently being practiced, the victim’s unique needs are not being fulfilled and therefore the case is not being properly

The idea of restorative justice does have defects to it. For example, in cases where there is no particular victim, for example a drug related community case, who is the onus put on for what happens to the offender? And who receives compensation for the crime? The state.

Those who agree with Christie would say restorative justice is a good approach, especially when dealing with young people. However, typically when a young person commits a crime it is often one that has to do with their circumstances. So in a case like this, they are an offender— but also a victim of their situation. More often than not, young people are criminalized for behaviours that are done out of survival. If restorative justice was used to solve a case like this, the only thing that would happen is that young person would be re victimized once the community got