Quantified decision-making refers to the scaling of factors such as crime seriousness, risk assessment, violation severity, and punitive responses or intensity of surveillance. As such, it is largely based on the justice principle, according to which the punitive response should be commensurate with the crime committed. This study consequently looks at the applicability of a retributive stance towards probation, and suggests a quantified, or structured, approach to decision-making in probation with special reference to the South African situation. Referring to historical and ideological precedents, it is maintained that the current crisis in corrections - referring to the congestion of prison facilities and the negative spin-offs related to it - can, to a large extent, be ascribed to an over reliance on imprisonment as a sentencing option. It is argued that imprisonment can be seen as a failure in terms of both its basic motives, and more importantly, with regard to its unintended consequences, necessitating a search for viable sentencing alternatives. With regard to probation, and Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP) in particular, this study recognizes its limitations, but maintains that probation still holds the greatest potential as a workable alternative to incarceration. In view of South African corrections, that is plagued by prison overcrowding, on the one hand, and certain structural shortcomings, on the other, a structured probation system is proposed that will evade the weaknesses of subjective decisionmaking, which often act to intensify the crisis. It is proposed that quantified decision-making tools be developed that will replace both sentencing and revocation decisions. It is further suggested that an effective risk prediction instrument be developed to guide the probation process. / Penology / D. Litt. et Phil.

Cette thèse oppose les libertés et droits fondamentaux et l’avant-procès-pénal antiterroriste, son champ d'étude se limite à deux pays, la France et les Émirats. Cette comparaison a montré que ces deux législations choisies se ressemblent, ou plutôt qu'elles sont en voie de se ressembler quant à la procédure pénale de l'avant procès stricto sensu, mais qu'elles diffèrent sur le respect des droits de la personne faisant l'objet de ce procès. La ressemblance ne signifie pas, pour autant, qu'elles soient identiques, la France avait mis en place une justice dérogatoire en matière de terrorisme, alors que les Émirats ont préféré le choix de l'exception et ont également mis en place une justice spécialisée. En d'autres termes, il s'agit d'une compétence spécialisée, voire spéciale, qui a pour intérêt de centraliser et juger, non seulement ce qui se passe au sein du territoire national mais aussi dans l'ensemble de la planète, évoquant la question de la justice universelle en matière du terrorisme. De plus, les deux législations étudiées permettent à d'autres acteurs du champ non pénal d'interférer dans le cadre de l'avant jugement antiterroriste, notamment les acteurs militaires, les agents du renseignement et de sécurité privée, les unités de coordination, les diplomates et, les Émirats ajoutent les robots comme acteurs contribuant à la prévention du terrorisme. Cette ressemblance concerne aussi les mesures de contrainte pénale : les moyens de recherche de preuves et de privation/restriction de liberté d'aller et venir qui revêtent de caractère dérogatoire, voire l'exceptionnel. Cependant, ces ressemblances entre ces deux législations sont trompeuses, car au fond, elles se différencient quant au degré de respect des droits des personnes faisant l'objet de cette justice de l'antiterrorisme, notamment lorsque les Émirats bafouent l'ensemble des droits de la défense et les droits de faire l'objet d'un contrôle judiciaire, avant, pendant et après les mesures coercitives. / This thesis compares the fundamental rights and freedoms, and preliminary phase of the terrorist criminal procedure ; its focus is limited to two countries : France and the United Arab Emirates. This comparison shows that these chosen bodies of legislation are similar but that they differ when it comes to the respect of the rights of the person subject to these kind of law cases. The similarities do not mean, however, that the two systems are identical ; France has implemented a use of special dispensation in cases relating to terrorism, while the UAE has opted for a justice system which is both exceptional and specialized. In addition, the two jurisdictions allow other actors to intervene in this criminal field, including military actors, intelligence agencies and private security agents, diplomats, and the Emirates have added robots to the list of actors contributing to the prevention of terrorism. This similarity also concerns measures relating to criminal procedure : means of searching for evidence and restricting the suspect's freedom of movement. Concerning the first set of coercive measures, these are very sophisticated and detrimental to individual freedom, erasing the distinction between investigation and inquiryb ; and between preventive and repressive investigations. Regarding the deprivation of freedom of movement, French lawmakers have settled for setting up exemptions in terms of police custody and pre­trial detention, whereas Emirati lawmakers have created new and exceptional measures for removing certain rights : security detention and placement in rehabilitation centers. However, these similarities between these two sets of legislation are misleading, since essentially, they differ only in how far they respect the rights of those subject to the anti-terrorist regime. This is especially apparent in cases where the Emirates violates all rights to a defense and the right to judicial review before, during and after measures within the criminal procedure.

This study analyses judicial approaches to sentencing offenders under the age of 18 convicted of serious crimes and their adult counterparts. It traces sentencing patterns, trends and shifts from 1950 to 2009 with reference to key moments. The study seeks to identify factors that determine the choice of sentence. Indeed, competing penal theories appear to be behind judicial decisions. In this regard it is claimed that although it is difficult to identify the extent of factors considered in sentencing decisions, seriousness of crime seems to carry more weight than the prior record and age factor in the selection of a sentence. The study applied both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, using primary or historical and secondary sources of data collection. This involved studying real court cases, the observation of trials and interviews with Wynberg regional court magistrates, Mitchells Plain regional court magistrates and Cape High Court Judges as part of primary-historical data collected. Penal statistics and data gathered included law reports, penological literature was analysed and computerised, and philosophical interpretation of findings was used. The study concludes that sentencing approaches are still marked by inconsistency and vagueness, which require to be improved by ongoing assessment within the courts in pursuit of balanced sentencing that meets various goals. It is pointed out that there are variations between the courts, and among different regional magistrates and judges, which require to be justified in the light of the divergences in crime seriousness and offenders alike. The study claims that sentencing is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, involving history, law and sociology. It further recommends that persons under the age of 18 convicted of serious crime should be accorded less culpability compared to adults with regard to sentence severity. / Criminology and Security Science / D. Litt. et Phil. (Penology)

The goal of this research was to determine the procedures used for conducting a search and seizure in a tax-related offence in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977. Aspects that cause problems for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) investigators are the application for a search warrant and the activities that take place before, during and after the search and seizure. An introduction, definition and explanation are given of certain key concepts such as forensic and criminal investigations, as well as their objectives and purpose. The various search methods are also discussed and explained as are the chain of custody and evidence in general. A large part of this research deals with the legal requirements for a search and seizure in a tax-related offence and encompasses issues such as the procedures for obtaining a search warrant, pre-raid briefing, conducting the search, and the seizing of, marking, storage and disposal of documents. The findings of the research are discussed and recommendations subsequently made regarding the shortcomings identified. The findings that were made related to the process and procedure to obtain a search warrant, the actual execution of a search and seizure and the legislation that authorises searches and seizures in taxrelated offences. Further findings were made in respect of the mandate of SARS criminal investigators to investigate, the admissibility of evidence obtained from a search and seizure and the marking, recording, storage and disposal of seized items. Recommendations were made regarding training, improved communication and skills transfer to address the shortcomings identified. / Police Practice / (M.Tech. (Forensic investigation))

In the light of a more punitive stance in Corrections and public discontent with the criminal justice system, a number of studies have been conducted since 1970 testing public punitiveness, probably in an attempt to determine whether sentences laid down by courts are in line with public perceptions on just deserts. This study combines two scales: The first a Likert scale measuring punitiveness as such and the second a "Just Deserts" scale testing public reactions in terms of imprisonment for crime descriptions. By using Pearson's correlation, no positive correlation could be established between these two scales. Profiles of the top and bottom 15% scorers on both scales showed that the scales were, if anything, negatively related. This information is informative in the sense that opinion polls showing public discontentment with sentencing cannot be seen as a true reflection of their reactions to more descriptive cases. / Penology / M.A. (Penology)

Summaries in Afrikaans and English / Text in Afrikaans / 'n Kort elementologiese uiteensetting vir strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid word gevolg deur bewysregtelike begrippe wat van toepassing is op vermoedens by toerekeningsvatbaarheid. Die historiese regsposisie asook die ontwikkeling in die huidige Suid-Afrikaanse reg met betrekking tot geestesongesteldes, kinders en persone wat 'n verweer van nie-patologiese ontoerekeningsvatbaarheid insluit, word bespreek. Daar word gekonsentreer op ·die ontwikkeling van 'n algemene verweer van niepatologiese ontoerekeningsvatbaarheid. Die konstitusionele reg, vennoedens en ontoerekeningsvatbaarheid word aan die hand van Suid-Afrikaanse regspraak en die Interim Grondwet bespreek. Daar word na buitelandse reg gekyk ten einde 'n aanbeveling te kan maak wat grondwetlik nie sal indruis op die reg van die individu tot onskuld nie. 'n Algemene verweer van nie-patologiese ontoerekeningvatbaarheid word onderstellll mits dit met omsigtigheid deur die howe benader word. Die arbitrere ouderdomsgrens vir vasstelling van toerekeningsvatbaarheid by kinders word gekritiseer en 'n verhoorbaarheidvasstellingseenheid word aanbeveel. / A short elementological discussion of criminal responsibility is followed by concepts of law of evidence that is applicable to presumptions of accountability. The historical legal position as well as the development in the current South African law and the present legal position with reference to the mentally disturbed children and persons with a defence of non-pathological unaccountability are included and discussed. The constitutional law, presumptions and unaccountablility are discussed with reference to the South African case law and the Interim Constitution. Foreign law is perused so that a recommendation could be made that would not interfere with the rights of the individual to be deemed innocent. A general defence of non-pathological unaccountability is supported if it is treated with the necessary circumspection by the courts. The arbitrary age boundaries for the determination of accountability in children is critized and a unit to determine trialability for pathological and non-pathological accountability is recommended. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M.

In this dissertation the problems surrounding the sentencing stage and factors which influence the sentence are briefly considered. The emphasis is on the use and value of a pre-sentence report in determining suitable sentences other than imprisonment. Historical background in the use of pre-sentence reports in South Africa, England and America is briefly referred to. Relevant concepts, such as individualisation of punishment, are considered in relation to possible sentences such as compensation, fines, community service, and correctional supervision. It is concluded that the provisions of sections 274 and 276A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1 977 are not enough to regulate the use of pre-sentence reports in South Africa. It is further concluded that legislation is needed in this area, but in the meantime, our courts should work towards developing guidelines based on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1 977. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M (Law)

O objetivo do presente estudo é analisar como o consenso tem sido utilizado para abreviar, interromper ou encerrar antecipadamente o procedimento criminal. A inserção do consenso ou dos acordos entre acusação e defesa nos sistemas jurídicos de civil law exigiu a abertura de espaços de oportunidade ao exercício da ação penal (princípio da legalidade), e tem contribuído para a superação da ideia de que todo o processo penal deve contar sempre com as fases preliminar, intermediária e decisória. O estudo de Direito Comparado revela como Itália, Alemanha e Espanha incorporaram as soluções negociadas norte-americanas em seus respectivos ordenamentos, ora oferecendo soluções diversionistas à aplicação da lei penal, ora admitindo que a declaração de culpa e a consequente aplicação da pena tomem em conta o acordo firmado entre acusação e defesa. A pesquisa prossegue com a averiguação dos principais óbices à admissibilidade dos acordos no processo penal, notadamente a eventual violação aos direitos ao silêncio e de não produzir prova contra si mesmo, e a suposta privatização do processo com a admissão de uma verdade consensuada. Diante deste cenário internacional, analisam-se as alterações legislativas levadas a efeito pelo Brasil para admitir os acordos em seu processo penal, bem como a principal inovação no projeto de novo Código Processual Penal brasileiro: os acordos penais. O estudo conclui que o consenso não é incompatível com os princípios e valores do devido processo legal, mas reconhece a necessidade de aprimoramento dos mecanismos de controle judicial daquele, salvaguardas essas que não só protegem o acusado mas também reforçam a natureza pública e indisponível do processo penal. / The purpose of the present study is to analyze how the consensus has been used to shorten, interrupt or close the criminal procedure in advance. The insertion of consensus or agreements between prosecution and defense in the civil law legal systems has required the opening of opportunities for criminal prosecution (the principle of legality), and has contributed to overcoming the idea that all criminal proceedings must always have the preliminary, intermediate and decision-making phases. The Comparative Law Study reveals how Italy, Germany, and Spain incorporated US negotiated solutions into their respective jurisdictions, sometimes offering diversionary solutions to the application of criminal law, or assuming that the guilty plea and the consequent application of the penalty take into account the agreement between accusation and defense. The investigation proceeds with the investigation of the main obstacles to the admissibility of the agreements in criminal proceedings, namely the possible violation of the rights to silence and of not producing evidence against itself, and the supposed privatization of the process with the admission of a truth agreed upon. In view of this international scenario, we analyze the legislative changes carried out in Brazil to admit the agreements in the criminal process, as well as the main innovation present in the draft new Brazilian Criminal Procedure Code: penal agreements. The study concludes that consensus is not inconsistent with the principles and values of due process, but recognizes the need to improve judicial control mechanisms, which safeguards not only protect the accused but also reinforce the public nature and unavailability of criminal proceedings.

O objetivo do presente estudo é analisar como o consenso tem sido utilizado para abreviar, interromper ou encerrar antecipadamente o procedimento criminal. A inserção do consenso ou dos acordos entre acusação e defesa nos sistemas jurídicos de civil law exigiu a abertura de espaços de oportunidade ao exercício da ação penal (princípio da legalidade), e tem contribuído para a superação da ideia de que todo o processo penal deve contar sempre com as fases preliminar, intermediária e decisória. O estudo de Direito Comparado revela como Itália, Alemanha e Espanha incorporaram as soluções negociadas norte-americanas em seus respectivos ordenamentos, ora oferecendo soluções diversionistas à aplicação da lei penal, ora admitindo que a declaração de culpa e a consequente aplicação da pena tomem em conta o acordo firmado entre acusação e defesa. A pesquisa prossegue com a averiguação dos principais óbices à admissibilidade dos acordos no processo penal, notadamente a eventual violação aos direitos ao silêncio e de não produzir prova contra si mesmo, e a suposta privatização do processo com a admissão de uma verdade consensuada. Diante deste cenário internacional, analisam-se as alterações legislativas levadas a efeito pelo Brasil para admitir os acordos em seu processo penal, bem como a principal inovação no projeto de novo Código Processual Penal brasileiro: os acordos penais. O estudo conclui que o consenso não é incompatível com os princípios e valores do devido processo legal, mas reconhece a necessidade de aprimoramento dos mecanismos de controle judicial daquele, salvaguardas essas que não só protegem o acusado mas também reforçam a natureza pública e indisponível do processo penal. / The purpose of the present study is to analyze how the consensus has been used to shorten, interrupt or close the criminal procedure in advance. The insertion of consensus or agreements between prosecution and defense in the civil law legal systems has required the opening of opportunities for criminal prosecution (the principle of legality), and has contributed to overcoming the idea that all criminal proceedings must always have the preliminary, intermediate and decision-making phases. The Comparative Law Study reveals how Italy, Germany, and Spain incorporated US negotiated solutions into their respective jurisdictions, sometimes offering diversionary solutions to the application of criminal law, or assuming that the guilty plea and the consequent application of the penalty take into account the agreement between accusation and defense. The investigation proceeds with the investigation of the main obstacles to the admissibility of the agreements in criminal proceedings, namely the possible violation of the rights to silence and of not producing evidence against itself, and the supposed privatization of the process with the admission of a truth agreed upon. In view of this international scenario, we analyze the legislative changes carried out in Brazil to admit the agreements in the criminal process, as well as the main innovation present in the draft new Brazilian Criminal Procedure Code: penal agreements. The study concludes that consensus is not inconsistent with the principles and values of due process, but recognizes the need to improve judicial control mechanisms, which safeguards not only protect the accused but also reinforce the public nature and unavailability of criminal proceedings.

The New Peruvian Criminal Procedure Code includes the figure of the civilly liable third party, through which one or more subjects, who are civilly responsible together with the person who committed the crime, are involved in a criminalprocedure.The author of the present article analyses if it is correct to judge people who have not infringed Criminal Law, and hence should be judged in a civil procedure, through a criminal procedure because they are civilly responsible together withthe person that committed a crime. Further on, the author reflects on the fact that criminal judges have to sentence about topics of Civil Law. / El Nuevo Código Procesal Penal peruano recoge la figura del tercero civilmente responsable, mediante la cual se involucra en un proceso penal a uno o más sujetos que tengan responsabilidad civil conjunta con aquel que cometió el delito.El autor del presente artículo analiza si es correcto que se juzgue en un proceso penal a personas que no han infringido la norma penal, y que por lo tanto deberían ser juzgadas civilmente, por tener responsabilidad civil conjunta con aquel que sí delinquió.Asimismo, el autor reflexiona sobre el hecho de que jueces penales tengan que sentenciar sobre temas de Derecho Civil.