- Title
- Rethinking minimum sentence Legislation
- Creator
- Goliath, Alphonso Augustine
- Subject
- Sentences (Criminal procedure) -- South Africa
- Date Issued
- 2020
- Date
- 2020
- Type
- Thesis
- Type
- Masters
- Type
- LLM
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/10948/47370
- Identifier
- 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.
- Format
- vii, 48 leaves
- Format
- Publisher
- Nelson Mandela University
- Publisher
- Faculty of Law
- Language
- English
- Rights
- Nelson Mandela University
- Hits: 870
- Visitors: 1150
- Downloads: 538
Collections
NMU Department of Public Law
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| View Details Download | SOURCE1 | Goliath, AA 189627890 Treatise April 2020.pdf | 593 KB | Adobe Acrobat PDF | View Details Download |