Is this really going to ruined there life and their families life too. Harsh punishment is the best way to stop crime. It should be applied for everyone.
Amicus Curiae Heard on: Introduction The applicant applies for confirmation of declarations of statutory invalidity made by the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria.
The impugned sections make minimum sentences applicable to offenders aged 16 and 17 at the time they committed the offence. The High Court found these sections inconsistent with provisions of the Bill of Rights pertaining to children. Its main objective is to establish and promote child law and to uphold the rights of children in South Africa.
Invoking the standing provisions of the Bill of Rights, 4 the Centre asserts that it brings the application in its own interest, on behalf of all 16 and 17 year old children at risk of being sentenced under the new provisions, and in the public interest. The respondents are the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development the Ministerthe Minister for Correctional Services, and the Legal Aid Board, an autonomous statutory body 5 providing legal services to indigent persons.
The second and third respondents did not oppose the application and filed notices to abide by the outcome. The CLAA created a distinctive regime for this group, 10 and exempted those under 16 altogether.
On 31 Decemberthe Amendment Act came into force. Section 51 6 now makes incontestably clear that only children under the age of 16 at the time of the offence are excluded.
Section 53A, a transitional provision, applies the new provisions to trials of 16 and 17 year olds that are already under way at the time of its coming into force.
The High Court found that while the Centre did not allege that the rights of any specific child were threatened, the rights of all 16 and 17 year old children are threatened, as the Amendment Act subjects them to the minimum sentencing regime.
The child will be 16 or 17 years old, has committed a serious offence of either rape, robbery or murder, and the Presiding Officer will have to start the sentencing process with the minimum sentence prescribed by the Legislature. The High Court did not deal with these prayers, but postponed them indefinitely sine die.
The High Court reserved costs and referred the declarations to this Court for confirmation in terms of section 2 a of the Constitution. Intervention of amicus curiae The National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Re-integration of Offenders NICROa non-profit organisation working towards crime reduction and for community rehabilitation of offenders, applied for and was granted admission as amicus curiae.
In its written submissions, NICRO supported the confirmation of invalidity, but focused its argument on the unconstitutionality of section 51 6 which exempts only those under 16 from minimum sentences. Although the Centre did not act on behalf of or join any particular child sentenced under the statute as amended, its provisions are clearly intended to have immediate effect on its promulgation.
So the prospect of children being sentenced under the challenged provisions was immediate, and the issue anything but abstract or academic.
It was thus entitled to take up the cudgels.
To have required the Centre to augment its standing by waiting for a child to be sentenced under the new provisions would, in my view, have been an exercise in needless formalism. This Court has in any event previously indicated that it may be incumbent on it to deal with the substance of a dispute about the constitutionality of legislation a High Court has declared unconstitutional, even in the absence of a party with proper standing.
That is the case here.
The Centre in addition pressed for the structural relief regarding already-sentenced youths that the High Court postponed. These, in turn, raise difficult issues of constitutional power and interpretation. For clarity it may therefore be convenient to set out first the premises that underlie the judgment of the High Court.
These may be compacted in a series of short propositions: The intention and effect of the minimum sentencing regime is to require courts to impose harsher sentences — that is, to send more offenders in the scheduled categories to jail, for longer periods. Under the minimum sentencing regime, in default of a finding that substantial and compelling circumstances exist, a sentencing court is obliged to impose the minimum sentence.
The starting point, and default position, is therefore the minimum sentence. By contrast, before the Amendment Act, under S v B, the starting point in sentencing 16 and 17 year old offenders in the scheduled categories was without predisposing constraints regarding the appropriate sentence, which would depend on individualised factors relating to the crime and the offender, while taking into account the interests of society, including the fact that the legislature had ordinarily ordained the prescribed sentences.Juveniles Being Tried As Adults - The courts felt children were less mature and less aware of the consequences of their actions, so in return they could not be held legally accountable for their behavior in the same manner as the adults.
The ruling means, for juveniles, that a judge cannot simply look at the mandatory sentence for a given crime and impose it; rather, when sentencing, judges must look at and consider that a younger person is different than an adult. Flagellation (more commonly called "flogging") is a method of punishment in which a person is beaten or whipped with a rod, a switch, or (most especially) a whip or a cat-o-nine-tails.
3 Section 28(1)(g) of the Constitution provides: “Every child has the right— (g) not to be detained except as a measure of last resort, in which case, in addition to the rights a child enjoys under sections 12 and 35, the child may be detained only for the shortest appropriate period of time, and has the right to be—.
Discussion; RE: Harsh punishments are more effective in reducing crime -Jaya priyadarshini (05/06/16) Harsh punishment can really stop people doing crime before doing any type of crime a person will really think hundred times that they should do it or initiativeblog.com this really going to .
Amid historically low crime rates, a record , people are serving life or virtual life sentences—one of every seven people in prison.