Nils Christie, Conflict as Property - a Brief Examination Through the Example of Domestic Violence Laws

This opened a whole new world for women. Women trapped in abusive relationships, with nowhere to go could no longer be ignored. Specific courts just for domestic related concerns were opened all over the country. Although this was a good thing, by separating it from other court matters, people considered it a domestic dispute rather than a

For centuries domestic violence has been perceived as a private matter private of which the government has not been concerned about nor was it considered the government’s business to intervene on behalf of a battered spouse. The unlawful nature of this failure for state or federal government intervention against this crime contributed to the systematic abuse of women in the family. The traditions, customs, and common law found in both British and American societies continued right up until the last decade of the 20th century and left the battered wives and very frequently, her children, at the mercy of the husband. It wasn’t until the 1990’s when the government began to do something to protect mothers, wives, and lovers from intimate

The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, despite having good intentions was criticized for its ‘friendly parent provisions’, which deterred women from raising issues of domestic violence. In response to this, the government passed the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and other Measures) Act (2011), which stipulated that family violence be a key consideration in deciding who the residential parent was to be. However, Adivia Sifiris in the ‘Right Now’ article “Impacts of Family Law Amendments” criticized the mediation process, stating that violent spouses are still able to intimidate. Thus, despite the resource efficiency of mediation processes (‘$3000 a mediation session compared to a $10,000 day trial’, February 2012, SMH), further work needs to be done in order to ensure that the resolution to disputes protects the rights of the vulnerable spouse.

The concept of property has long been one of the most crucial aspects for the U.S. citizens, as it is a major part of the Constitutional, and, therefore, human rights. Although the perception and understanding of “property” have been considerably changed, especially in terms of political and philosophical vision, it still has a particular meaning for the Americans. In general, the idea of property is the question of the political thought and conceptualized thinking common for the United States. In most cases, its transformations are connected to the introduction of capitalism and related governmental decision in politics. Therefore, as any other topic, the value of property has undergone harsh debates. In particular, such important figures as James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman have developed a fundamental scope of analyses with regard to the property rights in America.

In Distributive Justice, Robert Nozick aims to clarify the processes of distribution that can be reasonably upheld in a free society. To do so, he examines the origins of how people legitimately come to own things and applies the least intrusive set of guidelines that can be doled out in order to guarantee the most justice possible, while also respecting individual liberty. Nozick provides the Entitlement Theory, which specifies that so long as there is justice in the acquisition and transfer of holdings (things one owns), there is no injustice or infringement upon liberties of others and the parties involved are entitled their holdings. In the event there is an injustice committed, he provides the third topic of “ the rectification of injustice in holdings.” Establishing how individuals may legitimately acquire holdings is crucial to a discussion on the liberty and rights of individuals in a free, yet cooperative society. In order to further clarify how individuals originally come to own things in society, Distributive Justice later analyzes John Locke’s Theory of Acquisition. A diminishing number of unowned resources as well as the inherent problems in a free market convolute the issue.

Every action is followed by a reaction; however, occasionally the reaction is only a temporary solution that leads to long-term consequences. This is especially true of how domestic violence is currently governed by the criminal justice system and social norms. A lack of preventative care exists and this ignores the consequences of domestic violence in our society. Incidents of domestic violence are often treated as one-time or isolated occurrences; however, in many cases abusers and victims fall back into these learnt behaviors. Therefore, domestic violence is a never-ending cycle that cannot be stopped without cultural and legal changes that focus on preventing further instances of violence and empowering victims to break the cycle.

This essay will critically analyse the significant changes that have occurred within domestic violence which is viewed as a vital subject within the criminal justice system. It will explore the way that domestic violence has progressively become a concerning issue in the criminal justice system from being relatively acceptable in recent history. In addition to this, the essay will explore legislation changes in relation to domestic violence and how the police have arguably been forced to change their attitudes towards a problem that was once thought of as a private regard. It will critically analyse the theories put forward as to why domestic violence occurs in today’s society. It will explore the weaknesses within the criminal justice system, especially the police in regards to domestic violence, the police previously viewed domestic violence as a matter of which they should not get involved. However as mentioned in the essay, after many reviews within the system, many improvements have been made to help protect the victim.

When it comes to describing domestic violence all that comes to mind is a woman or man being physically abused or being mistreated and humiliated by another person. You may think that since domestic violence is a serious concern the criminal justice system has taken actions to stop or prevent it. In reality the system is failing these women and some are getting seriously hurt or even killed. Domestic violence was not that popular before the Tracy Thurman case. Ever since the case was shown to the public domestic violence awareness increased. It captured the attention of the public through the media.

Identify, define, examine, and discuss the domestic violence laws in your state applicable to this situation between Sarah and her boyfriend. Compare and contrast property crimes and personal crimes and how domestic violence relates to both. Evaluate victim's rights as they related to domestic violence and social responsibility in your state. Analyze the criminal behavior of domestic violence and describe how criminal behavior is evaluated towards the formation of new policy for social order in the criminal justice system. Compare and contrast the history and the future of

In Robert Nozick’s piece, “Justice as Entitlement”, he discusses the framework of what a just acquisition of an object consists of and what would be considered a just transfer of said object between persons. He also provides guidelines for occurrences of unjust distributions and how to appropriately rectify them. The primary grounds of Nozick’s philosophy involve justice in acquisition or holdings.

Academically, Domestic violence is “the willful intimidation, physical assault, battery, sexual assault, and/or other abusive behavior as part of a systematic pattern of power and control perpetrated by one intimate partner against another. It includes physical violence, sexual violence, threats, and emotional or psychological abuse. The frequency and severity of domestic violence varies dramatically.” However, in Washington State Domestic Violence includes a more limited definition. In Washington State Domestic Violence is defined as (a) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, between family or household members; (b) sexual assault of one family or household member by another; or (c) stalking as defined in RCW 9A.46.110 of one family or household member by another family or household member. This statutory definition is similar to that of many states in that it omits the “systematic pattern of power and control perpetrated by one intimate partner against the other” otherwise known as “coercive control.” The omission of this provision in the statutory language creates difficulty in obtaining domestic violence protection orders, when the victim cannot describe instances of physical violence, stalking, or sexual assault, yet lives in very real fear of their partner. In this literature review, I will analyze the phenomenon that is now known as

In a paper by Nils Christie which was written in 1977, gives us the notion of “Conflicts as Property”. Christie further explains this notion as highly industrialized societies are taking over internal conflicts from the people who are actually involved; the defendant(s) and the victim(s) by creating process that puts the conflict in the hands of the law. In the following essay it will explain further in detail what Christie is trying to argue and my personal insight on the argument.

Our legal system has progressively become less troubled with the victim. Emphasis is no longer on who is most affected by misconduct, instead it is laid on the state and victim contentment with the result is overlooked. Christie gave the hint to see “Conflicts as Property” as a way to question the process of the criminal justice system. Modern day criminology in very industrialized societies is undeniably fixed in a way to let those in charge of criminology take control of the conflicts that happen. Also, that they have generated a method in which conflicts have been removed from the persons involved and positioned in the hands of the law. According to Kazmierski (2010), Christie said “criminology to some extent has amplified a process where

We must approach this question in consideration of the fact that the American Realist movement never purported to formulate a complete theory of law which could stand alone to tell us what law is. Instead, the basis was that official conduct in dispute settlement in all kinds of dispute was the focal point for the analysis of the law's impact, facilitating the ability to make legal predictions based on expected official action. I think that to measure the impact of this type of thinking on jurisprudential thought, we need to keep in mind how it seeks to differ from other theory.

Personal notes made with reference to Legal Reasoning And Legal Writing by Richard K. Neumann, Jr.