Nils Christie’s view on modern law is that due to specialization, victims have lost the right to participate in their trials. Lawyers are becoming too involved in cases, taking conflicts away from parties and turning them into property. Christie states there there is less attention focused on the effects on the victim and more focus on the criminal’s background. Christie also states that getting a court to function is difficult while there are specialists present. According to Christie, parties become uneasy with handling their own social conflicts where they know there are professionals present who they believe can do a better job. Lawyers also decide what is relevant in court, rather than letting parties decide what they believe to be relevant. Because of this, victims lose participation in their own case. Christie also discusses the types of segmentation and their effects on modern law. I agree with Christie’s views of modern law in regards to reduced participation of parties, the presence of too many specialists, and his view on segmentation. I agree with …show more content…
There is segmentation in space, which makes us see our acquaintances as roles and not people. There is also segregation based on physical qualities, such as gender, age, or race. Christie writes that this causes a depersonalization of social life and that if a conflict is created, one is less able to cope with it on their own. If society was not as divided by segmentation, it would be easier to communicate with one another due to a reduction of social barriers. This causes people to be more isolated and have less respect for others. Christie states there are two extremes of isolation in the family as a result of this. One is that weak parties within the family have no outside network to go to for help. Another is that individuals are ignorant and do not realize that they have become