Are Conflicts Property? Re-Examining the Ownership of Conflict in Restorative Justice
| Author | Masahiro Suzuki,William R Wood |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663920911166 |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Are Conflicts Property?
Re-Examining the
Ownership of Conflict
in Restorative Justice
William R Wood
Griffith University, Australia
Masahiro Suzuki
Central Queensland University, Australia
Abstract
Nils Christie’s concept of ‘conflicts as property’ has become axiomatic within restorative
justice (RJ) as justification for victim involvement and redress, offender accountability
and reintegration, and community involvement in RJ conferencing practices. In this
article, we revisit the concept of conflicts as property as a theoretical premise for the use
of RJ. We suggest that restorative conferencing practices used to address criminal
matters in most English-speaking countries or jurisdictions evidence many of the same
concerns voiced by Christie four decades ago in his critique of the ‘stealing’ of conflicts
more rightly owned by victims, offenders and communities. We further argue that the
institutionalisation of RJ has embedded its practices into highly unequal justice systems,
with little evidence of how RJ may enable people or communities to ‘own’ conflicts in
ways that do not mirror existing lines of social marginalisation and inequality.
Keywords
Conflicts, offenders, property, restorative justice, victims
In 1977, Nils Christie published ‘Conflicts as Property’ in the British Journal of Crim-
inology, an article which he saw as unlikely to raise much interest. The article did more
than raise interest, however, and was quickly translated into theoretical justification for
Corresponding author:
William R Wood, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus,
Parklands Drive, Southport, Queensland 4222, Australia.
Email: w.wood@griffith.edu.au
Social & Legal Studies
2020, Vol. 29(6) 903–924
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0964663920911166
journals.sagepub.com/home/sls
then nascent and disparate justice approaches in Canada, the United States and elsewhere
that sought to bring offenders and victims together in face-to-face dialogue as an alter-
native to traditional youth and criminal justice practices under the rubric of what is now
called ‘restorative justice’ (RJ).
Within RJ, the influence of this article is difficult to overstate. Braithwaite (1999: 5),
perhaps modestly, has called it ‘the most influential text of the restorative tradition’.
Other notable RJ scholars have likewise pointed to its influence in the development and
legitimisation of RJ practices (cf. Johnstone, 2011; Marshall, 1999; Maruna, 2006).
Since its publication, the concept of conflict as property has become axiomatic within
RJ literature as justification for direct victim involvement and redress (cf. Doak and
O’Mahony, 2011; Wenzel et al., 2008); offender accountability, amends to victims and
reintegration (cf. Braithwaite and Mugford, 1994; Maruna, 2006); and for local com-
munity involvement and participation in restorative practices (cf. Dzur and Olson, 2004;
McCold, 1996).
In this article, we revisit the concept of conflict as property as used for theoretical
justification and/or description of RJ practices within criminal or youth justice settings.
There is little question that Christie’s concept of conflict as property remains a provo-
cative one some 40 years later. However, we argue the subsequent absorption of this
concept into contemporary forms of RJ conferencing is far different to what Christie
proposed in terms of people ‘owning’ their own conflict. Specifically, we suggest that RJ
practices today evidence many of the same or similar concerns voiced by Christie (1977)
in his critique of the criminal justice system’s ‘stealing’ of conflicts more rightly owned
by victims, offenders and local communities. We also argue that the institutionalisation
and integration of RJ into criminal and youth justice has increasingly embedded restora-
tive practices into highly unequal justice systems, with little evidence of how RJ may
enable people or communities to ‘own’ conflicts in ways that do not mirror or even
perpetuate existing lines of social inequality and marginalisation within such systems.
Conflict as Property
Modern criminal justice systems, argued Christie (1977), deprive victims, offenders and
communities from participation in their own conflicts. ‘In a modern criminal trial, two
important things have happened. First, the parties are being represented. Secondly, the
one party that is represented by the state, namely the victim, is so thoroughly represented
that she or he for most of the proceedings is pushed completely out of the arena, reduced
to the triggerer-off of the whole thing’ (Christie, 1977: 3, emphasis in the original). The
victim, he argues, ‘is a particularly heavy loser in this situation. Not only has he suffered,
lost materially or become hurt, physically or otherwise. And not only does the state take
the compensation. But above all he has lost participation in his own case’ (Christie,
1977: 7).
Christie (1977) argued that the offender is also deprived of important things. These
include the possibility of being able to respond to the victim in discussion of what could
be done to ‘undo the deed’ (p. 9); the ability to act and be seen as more than the sum of
biological, psychological or social deficits; and the possibility of having a role in what
might happen to them as a result of their actions.
904 Social & Legal Studies 29(6)
To continue reading
Request your trial