Nils Christie shares his thoughts with society about his perception of seeing conflicts as property, as well as the ways in which the legal system and individuals involved in conflicts are affected. This purpose of this paper is to explain why I agree and what makes Christi's theory of conflict as property understandable. Christie's view as essential as it can be is arguable and will be further investigated throughout this paper. The ways in which professionals in the area of law can be seen as professional thieves will also be discussed to further confirm Christie's idea of conflict as property. Essentially, his viewpoint is that conflict is key to the growth of a society and additionally, that individuals have lost their rights to participate in their own resolutions. He believes that conflicts are stolen, and the important values of them are overlooked. Individuals should own their conflicts in the same way that one would own property. I will be explaining how the law steals these properties; therefore causing the individuals to no longer own them. In relation to that, I will be going over the notion of how and very often a conflict is changed into being an offence against a state rather than against an individual. Lastly, I will be discussing how the consensus and conflict paradigms of society are directly relevant to the question of where or not conflicts should be seen as property. .
Conflicts should be seen as properties for the reason that they are problems that have originated between two or more parties. These parties may or may not, have witnesses or may not be involved in the problem, but they know what is essentially going on and what the conflict is, from their own bystander perspectives. For example, let us discuss the Tanzania case that Christie presents. In a relatively large house within a village with a small population, a conflict or in Christie's words, a happening takes place.