Rethinking minimum sentence Legislation
- Authors: Goliath, Alphonso Augustine
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: Sentences (Criminal procedure) -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/47370 , vital:39851
- Description: The harsh mandatory minimum sentences, introduced by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, seemed like a good idea to politicians, as a means of countering the escalating crime rate experienced when South Africa transitioned to its new democracy, and to appease the public that something is being done about the issue. The plan was that everyone who committed the same crime would receive the same guaranteed sentence. Judges and Magistrates can only deviate from the predetermined sentences if they are satisfied that substantial and compelling circumstances exist, which would justify the imposition of a lesser sentence, limiting their flexibility. By doing so sentences would always be fair, politicians could be seen to be tough on crime and everyone would be satisfied. Unfortunately, this is not how minimum sentencing legislation turned out to be, as research has shown that it is not a deterrent for crime in South Africa or anywhere else. Instead of achieving consistency in sentencing, it worsens inconsistencies and disparities. With minimum sentencing legislation, the sentence for drug trafficking and murder is the same. Instinctively, human beings want to be safe and secure, but to lock up non-violent people for years will not make people feel safer. Due to the increased number of people serving life sentences and because non-violent offences are incorporated in the minimum sentencing legislation, our prison population has increased rapidly. Minimum sentencing legislation has several negative consequences, at a huge cost to South Africans, of which overcrowding of prisons is the most significant. Courts were tolerant with the poor language of the minimum sentencing legislation, as it was only supposed to be a temporary emergency measure against the high escalating violent crime experienced in South Africa post-1994. Since this Legislation became permanent in 2007, it is considerably different from the one considered in S v Dodo and a constitutional challenge is justifiable. With reference to the above, this research will reveal that minimum sentencing legislation did not deliver the desired results South Africa was hoping for and it is a vii major contributor to South Africa’s social retrograde. The rethinking of minimum sentencing legislation becomes imperative, bearing in mind that South Africa has previously researched sentencing alternatives at its disposal.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- Authors: Goliath, Alphonso Augustine
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: Sentences (Criminal procedure) -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/47370 , vital:39851
- Description: The harsh mandatory minimum sentences, introduced by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, seemed like a good idea to politicians, as a means of countering the escalating crime rate experienced when South Africa transitioned to its new democracy, and to appease the public that something is being done about the issue. The plan was that everyone who committed the same crime would receive the same guaranteed sentence. Judges and Magistrates can only deviate from the predetermined sentences if they are satisfied that substantial and compelling circumstances exist, which would justify the imposition of a lesser sentence, limiting their flexibility. By doing so sentences would always be fair, politicians could be seen to be tough on crime and everyone would be satisfied. Unfortunately, this is not how minimum sentencing legislation turned out to be, as research has shown that it is not a deterrent for crime in South Africa or anywhere else. Instead of achieving consistency in sentencing, it worsens inconsistencies and disparities. With minimum sentencing legislation, the sentence for drug trafficking and murder is the same. Instinctively, human beings want to be safe and secure, but to lock up non-violent people for years will not make people feel safer. Due to the increased number of people serving life sentences and because non-violent offences are incorporated in the minimum sentencing legislation, our prison population has increased rapidly. Minimum sentencing legislation has several negative consequences, at a huge cost to South Africans, of which overcrowding of prisons is the most significant. Courts were tolerant with the poor language of the minimum sentencing legislation, as it was only supposed to be a temporary emergency measure against the high escalating violent crime experienced in South Africa post-1994. Since this Legislation became permanent in 2007, it is considerably different from the one considered in S v Dodo and a constitutional challenge is justifiable. With reference to the above, this research will reveal that minimum sentencing legislation did not deliver the desired results South Africa was hoping for and it is a vii major contributor to South Africa’s social retrograde. The rethinking of minimum sentencing legislation becomes imperative, bearing in mind that South Africa has previously researched sentencing alternatives at its disposal.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
The impact of minimum sentence legislation on South African criminal law
- Authors: Du Plessis, Jan Andriaan
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Sentences (Criminal procedure) -- South Africa , Capital punishment -- South Africa , Human rights -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10182 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020037x
- Description: The Criminal Law Amendment Act introduced a scheme where minimum sentences are prescribed for serious offences into the South African Criminal Law. The limitations put on the courts’ sentencing discretion were not received with unanimous approval from all quarters. The Constitutional Court declared the general working of the Act to be constitutional soon after its inception. Specific provisions pertaining to certain offences remained unpopular. The hefty sentence of 15 years imprisonment prescribed for the possession of a semi-automatic firearm is put forward as an example in this regard. High Courts avoid the minimum sentence prescribed for this offence by using different interpretational methods. Despite the sense of animosity towards the unfair contents of this provision, no ruling is made on the constitutionality thereof. An apparent deference towards the legislature could be detected on the part of the judiciary. South African jurisprudence discourages our courts to rule on the constitutionality of a law. It is only done when the defect could not be remedied by any other available means. The reluctance of our courts to make a ruling on the constitutionality of the semi-automatic provision does not promote legal certainty. High Courts attach different interpretations to the “true intention” of the legislature in order to bypass this provision. Logic dictates that inexperienced presiding officers with inferior interpretational skills would continue to hand down the minimum sentence while it remains on the law books. A sentence of fifteen years is also prescribed for robbery with aggravating circumstances. The existing common law on the interpretation of the definition of this offence provides for a wide range of human conduct to be included. Case law could be expected where the courts deviate from the prescribed sentence on a regular basis. This unscientific approach should be discouraged and a rethinking of the boundaries of this offence is suggested. The Act is doing more harm than good to our Criminal Law. The legislature could still provide other visible measures against serious crime without invading the sentencing discretion of the judiciary.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Du Plessis, Jan Andriaan
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Sentences (Criminal procedure) -- South Africa , Capital punishment -- South Africa , Human rights -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10182 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020037x
- Description: The Criminal Law Amendment Act introduced a scheme where minimum sentences are prescribed for serious offences into the South African Criminal Law. The limitations put on the courts’ sentencing discretion were not received with unanimous approval from all quarters. The Constitutional Court declared the general working of the Act to be constitutional soon after its inception. Specific provisions pertaining to certain offences remained unpopular. The hefty sentence of 15 years imprisonment prescribed for the possession of a semi-automatic firearm is put forward as an example in this regard. High Courts avoid the minimum sentence prescribed for this offence by using different interpretational methods. Despite the sense of animosity towards the unfair contents of this provision, no ruling is made on the constitutionality thereof. An apparent deference towards the legislature could be detected on the part of the judiciary. South African jurisprudence discourages our courts to rule on the constitutionality of a law. It is only done when the defect could not be remedied by any other available means. The reluctance of our courts to make a ruling on the constitutionality of the semi-automatic provision does not promote legal certainty. High Courts attach different interpretations to the “true intention” of the legislature in order to bypass this provision. Logic dictates that inexperienced presiding officers with inferior interpretational skills would continue to hand down the minimum sentence while it remains on the law books. A sentence of fifteen years is also prescribed for robbery with aggravating circumstances. The existing common law on the interpretation of the definition of this offence provides for a wide range of human conduct to be included. Case law could be expected where the courts deviate from the prescribed sentence on a regular basis. This unscientific approach should be discouraged and a rethinking of the boundaries of this offence is suggested. The Act is doing more harm than good to our Criminal Law. The legislature could still provide other visible measures against serious crime without invading the sentencing discretion of the judiciary.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
Minimum sentence legislation in South Africa
- Authors: Nzimande, Eric Sibusiso
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: South Africa -- Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 , Sentences (Criminal procedure) -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10179 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1012041 , South Africa -- Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 , Sentences (Criminal procedure) -- South Africa
- Description: Legislation regulating minimum sentences in South Africa was re-introduced by sections 51 to 53 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 which came into operation on 1 May 1998. These provisions were regarded as a temporary measure to be effective for two years, where after they were extended from time to time. After they had been extended for several times, section 51 was rendered permanent on 31 December 2007 by the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Amendment Act 38 of 2007. At the same time sections 52 and 53 were repealed by the same Act. Minimum sentence legislation was the result of a call by the community for heavier penalties and for the offenders to serve more realistic terms of imprisonment. There was also a general dissatisfaction about the perceived leniency of sentences imposed by the courts for serious crimes. During 1996 and in the wake of these concerns the Minister of Justice requested the South African Law Reform Commission to investigate all aspects of sentencing in South Africa. A Project Committee chaired by a judge of the High Court was appointed and it operated from the late 1996 to March 1998. Minimum sentences for certain serious crimes were one of the options to be investigated by the Project Committee. Consequent to this the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 was promulgated with effect from 1 May 1998. The legislature intended this Act to defer criminal activity, to avoid disparities in sentencing and to deal harshly with perpetrators of serious offences. The subsequent amendments to the Act included the granting of jurisdiction to the Regional court to pass life imprisonment, an automatic right of appeal against life imprisonment in respect of a juvenile accused and identification of circumstances that do not constitute substantial and compelling circumstances. Judicial discretion and departure from prescribed minimum sentences had initially presented a problem regarding its interpretation in a variety of cases in our courts. Eventually our courts came up with a clear interpretation of the meaning of the phrase substantial and compelling circumstances. This research project will analyze the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 with regard to minimum sentences for certain serious offences. In the process case law and other literature will be discussed regarding the interpretation of minimum sentence provisions in the Act. Recommendations for legislation which will cover the aspect of sentencing on a wider scale are made.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
- Authors: Nzimande, Eric Sibusiso
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: South Africa -- Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 , Sentences (Criminal procedure) -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10179 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1012041 , South Africa -- Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 , Sentences (Criminal procedure) -- South Africa
- Description: Legislation regulating minimum sentences in South Africa was re-introduced by sections 51 to 53 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 which came into operation on 1 May 1998. These provisions were regarded as a temporary measure to be effective for two years, where after they were extended from time to time. After they had been extended for several times, section 51 was rendered permanent on 31 December 2007 by the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Amendment Act 38 of 2007. At the same time sections 52 and 53 were repealed by the same Act. Minimum sentence legislation was the result of a call by the community for heavier penalties and for the offenders to serve more realistic terms of imprisonment. There was also a general dissatisfaction about the perceived leniency of sentences imposed by the courts for serious crimes. During 1996 and in the wake of these concerns the Minister of Justice requested the South African Law Reform Commission to investigate all aspects of sentencing in South Africa. A Project Committee chaired by a judge of the High Court was appointed and it operated from the late 1996 to March 1998. Minimum sentences for certain serious crimes were one of the options to be investigated by the Project Committee. Consequent to this the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 was promulgated with effect from 1 May 1998. The legislature intended this Act to defer criminal activity, to avoid disparities in sentencing and to deal harshly with perpetrators of serious offences. The subsequent amendments to the Act included the granting of jurisdiction to the Regional court to pass life imprisonment, an automatic right of appeal against life imprisonment in respect of a juvenile accused and identification of circumstances that do not constitute substantial and compelling circumstances. Judicial discretion and departure from prescribed minimum sentences had initially presented a problem regarding its interpretation in a variety of cases in our courts. Eventually our courts came up with a clear interpretation of the meaning of the phrase substantial and compelling circumstances. This research project will analyze the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 with regard to minimum sentences for certain serious offences. In the process case law and other literature will be discussed regarding the interpretation of minimum sentence provisions in the Act. Recommendations for legislation which will cover the aspect of sentencing on a wider scale are made.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »