In criminology the focus to resolve these conflicts is on the criminal system and on the perpetrator of the crime. Christie (10) explains that the conflict has been taken away from the parties involved and has become the property of another person. The perpetrator has been transformed into an object of study, manipulation and control and has reduced the victim to a nothingness (Christie 12). I agree with your point that conflict is typically stolen by the state, such as lawyers, courts and judges. Both offenders and victims are represented by an appointed attorney and generally sit back and watch the conflict and decision unfold before their eyes. This system seeks to ensure peace within society by offering a just, equitable and coherent solution to conflicts for all and by ensuring a set of shared values ​​and goals that support this social order. The state must also reduce conflicts with this system and protect the needs of victims. Christie wants a system in which the original parties participate in their own conflicts and that conflict is addressed by those parties and not by professionals. I think the system in theory is the best and impartial way to resolve conflicts. Through laws, precedents and mandatory sentences, fair justice should be created for the victim who has been harmed and ensure that this is applied to all citizens in every case. I think the theory of this system is necessary in society, that punishments of crimes should be provided for individuals so that everyone is treated equally and no one is above the law. However, it is clear that the system is by no means perfect. Some sentences that people receive are not fair at all, and some offenders are wrongly convicted because they appear guilty when in reality they may be completely innocent. Andrea Christidis, for example, was 18 years old