ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 2, p. 415-427
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i2a7
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 2, p. 428-434
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i2a8
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Retired Judge, Supreme Court of Appeal
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 2, p. 435-436
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i2a9
None
ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: MA (Criminology) (UFS); Junior Lecturer, Faculty of the Humanities, University of the Free State
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 36 Issue 3, p. 363 – 378
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i3a1
The role of criminologists in South Africa and many other countries has been evolving and expanding over the years. Criminologists are increasingly involved in various phases of the judicial process, including the pre-trial, trial, and post-trial stages.1 As a scientific discipline, criminology involves understanding the root causes of crime, its impact on society, and how to prevent and respond to criminal behaviour. However, it stands to reason that in making an informed and balanced contribution to a case in a court of law, the criminologist must familiarise themself with all aspects relevant to the case.2 The current study focused on the perception of presiding officers about criminologists as expert witnesses in their courts during sentencing. This study explored whether presiding officers valued criminologists knowing, understanding and applying sentencing objectives in writing their reports. A qualitative inquiry was conducted to explore whether it is important for a criminologist to understand sentencing objectives in order to provide an overall and thorough report to the court. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with presiding officers from the regional and high courts in Bloemfontein. The findings suggest that presiding officers prefer to appoint a criminologist who understands and has broad experience of all sentencing objectives in South Africa to assist them in deciding on appropriate sentences.
ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: LLB (UFH) LLM PhD (UCT); Senior Lecturer, Department of Private Law, Stellenbosch University
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 36 Issue 3, p. 379 – 405
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i3a2
This article takes stock of the progress made and challenges confronted by Zimbabwe in domesticating international child justice standards relating to general principles of children’s rights, the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and pre-trial detention. It demonstrates that the country has largely incorporated general principles of children’s rights and their implications for child justice norms, standards and practices at the domestic level. In addition, the article posits that the legislature should raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years to harmonise domestic law with regional and international child law. In the context of pre-trial detention, it is argued that the constitutionalisation of the twin principles of detention as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period are designed to ensure that an alleged child offender is solely detained if there are no less restrictive means for securing the child’s attendance during trial proceedings. It is also shown that pre-diversion assessments of child offenders enable key players in the justice system to craft individualised, evidence-based interventions that respond to the treatment needs of each child offender. Finally, the article reiterates that the state should urgently enact the Child Justice Bill, allocate more resources, and build relevant infrastructure for pre-trial, child-friendly justice to become a reality.