The South African criminal justice process is such that there is an inevitable lapse of time between the arrest of the offender and his or her subsequent trial. The pre-trial incarceration presents a special problem. Between the arrest of the accused and release, the accused is being deprived of his or her liberty in circumstances where no court of law has pronounced him or her guilty. The right to bail is well entrenched in South African criminal justice system both in the Constitution Act and Criminal Procedure Act. Bail is always in the form of contract between the State and the accused, even though at times it may be opposed by the State. In the past the legal position based on the case law was that the presumption of innocence in bail proceedings operated in favour of the applicant even where it was said that there was a strong prima facie case against him or her. This position has slightly changed in that the courts in bail applications are not concerned with guilt, but that of possible guilt only to the extent that it may bear on where the interests of justice lie in regard to bail. The onus of proof in bail applications, other than Schedule 5 and 6 offences is borne by the State. Where Schedule 5 or 6 is applicable the onus is on the applicant. There are different requirements between schedule 5 and 6 that must be met by the applicant before release on bail is granted. In Schedule 5 offences the bail applicant must satisfy the court that the interests of justice permit his or her release. In determining whether the interests of justice permit the release of a particular applicant on bail, the courts are guided by the provisions of section 60(4) to (9) inclusive of section (11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In such determination the courts must also take into account of section 60(60)(a) to (g) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In Schedule 6 offences there are two requirements namely: the exceptional circumstances and the interests of justice. The term “exceptional circumstances” does not have a closed definition. Both requirements must be established by means of written or oral evidence to the satisfaction of the court before bail may be granted. As pointed out above, the State may still oppose the release on bail of the applicant. It is now accepted in bail applications that ordinary circumstances may in particular context be blended with exceptional or unusual elements. In such cases the court is expected to apply its independent evaluation of evidence in order to determine whether the exceptional circumstances in the interests of justice permit the release on bail. Similarly to the South African bail jurisprudence the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognises a right of the arrested person to apply for the interim release. It also recognises the need to establish exceptional circumstances for such release. The South African bail jurisprudence recognises the right to bail, and places reasonable and procedural limitations founded on the constitutional values and interests of justice. There are still practical challenges that need to be addressed as a results of the stringent requirements in section 60(11)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act that relate to Schedule 5 and 6. It is therefore recommended that there is a need for the following: 1. Legislative intervention that will regulate and limit the time spent on investigations where bail has been refused. 2. Legislative intervention that will provide for an automatic review procedures in Schedule 5 or 6 offences where bail is refused on grounds that the interests of justice do not permit the release of the applicant on bail or for failure to prove exceptional circumstances. It is submitted that this may assist in reducing refusals of bail based on mistaken understanding of the law or facts or irregularities that may be prejudicial to the applicant or the administration of justice; or 3. Legislative intervention that will make it mandatory for a court that refuses to grant bail to reconsider its decision after a certain period in future provided that the trial has not been commenced with, in order to determine whether further incarceration is necessary or proportionate to the offence. It is submitted that this may assist the court to enquire into unreasonable delays on investigations or changed circumstances of the applicant in order to enable the court to reconsider its previous decision if necessary. This may further assist in offences where it is foreseeable that the trial court is likely to pass a partly or wholly suspended sentence in case of conviction. For example some cases fall within the scope of Schedule 5 by virtue of a previous conviction on Schedule 1 or release on bail on a Schedule 1 offence. The above recommendations may directly or indirectly contribute in balancing the scales of justice during the bail proceedings and its aftermath. These may contribute to the reduction of high numbers of the in custody awaiting trial prisoners while not compromising the current bail procedures.

Thesis (M.S.)--Missouri State University, 2008. / "December 2008." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 80-89). Also available online.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, resulted in dramatic legal changes in the U.S. As part of its investigation into the attacks, the U.S. Government detained approximately 5,000 "aliens" from predominantly Muslim countries. These detentions were characterized by minimal, and sometimes non-existent, habeas corpus and due-process protections. During times of crisis, care should be taken that panic not be allowed to prevail over long-cherished constitutional values. This thesis examines Government actions in light of constitutional principles to examine the larger question of whether the War on Terror detention practices have permanently undermined the rule of law in the U.S. / The factual and legal scenarios in this area have been changing at a rapid rate, and they will certainly continue to change. Those constant changes have presented a special challenge in writing this thesis. The facts and legal scenarios described herein, therefore, are current as of January 31, 2005.

This thesis evaluates the policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers maintained by successive Australian governments against several core liberal principles. These principles are derived from various accounts of liberal political thought and the major themes and criticisms inherent in the public debate over the policy. The justifications of the policy given by the Australian government and the criticisms enunciated by scholars, refugee advocates and non-government organisations with respect to the policy strongly correspond with the core liberal principles of fairness, protecting the rights of the individual, accountability and proportionality. The claims of the critics converge on a central point of contention: that the mandatory detention of asylum seekers violates core liberal principles. To ascertain the extent to which the claims of the critics can be supported, the thesis selectively draws on liberal political theory to provide a framework for the analysis of the policy against these liberal principles, a basis for inquiry largely neglected by contributors to the literature. This thesis argues that, on balance, the mandatory detention policy employed by successive Australian governments violates core liberal principles. The claims of the critics are weakened, but by no means discredited, by the importance of the government's maintenance of strong border control. In the main, however, criticisms made by opponents of the policy can be supported. This thesis contributes to the substantial body of literature on the mandatory detention policy by shedding light on how liberal principles may be applicable to the mandatory detention policy. Further, it aims to contribute to an enriched understanding of the Australian government's competence to detain asylum seekers.

Thesis (L.L.M.)--University of Waikato, 2007. / Title from PDF cover (viewed March 14, 2008) Includes bibliographical references (p. 151-166)

Thesis (M.M.A.S.)--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2009. / "AD-A512 385." "11 Dec 2009." Includes bibliographical references.

The United States of America has in its custody several hundred Taliban and Al Qaeda combatants who were captured after the September 11, 2001 attack and during the war in Afghanistan. These prisoners are incarcerated at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba. The treatment given to these detainees has elicited widespread criticism, as well as unprecedented intellectual and legal debates regarding prisoners of war. In order to fully understand the position of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, one has to be aware of the origins of the prisoner-of-war phenomenon. From biblical times, through the countless conflicts that were waged across the globe through the ages, the concept of “prisoner of war” gradually evolved. Growing concern for the plight of prisoners of war was paralleled by the development of the laws of war, which sought to regulate the conduct of combatants during an armed conflict. The laws of war that have bearing on modern day States are those documented in the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions regulate armed conflicts and set out the requirements for prisoners of war, as well as their trial rights. The United States, in declaring the Guantanamo Bay detainees “unlawful combatants” or “illegal enemy combatants”, terms which are undefined in International Law, have sought to evade the prescripts of the Geneva Conventions. In direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions, the Guantanamo Bay detainees are denied the right to humane treatment, a fair trial and due process of the law. Prior to Hamdan vs Rumsfeld, the United States’ position was challenged with very little success. The Supreme Court, in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld, directed the president to accord the detainees the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. The relief brought by this decision was very short lived. In September 2006 the United States Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This Bill gives the president of the United States unfettered power in dealing with anyone suspected of being a threat to the State, as well as the authorisation to interpret and apply the Geneva Conventions according to his sole discretion.

No description available.

This thesis is based on a particular domain of anthropological inquiry, the anthropology of policy, which proposes that policy be contemplated as an ethnographic object itself. The policy I consider is Australia's refugee policy, which advocates the mandatory detention of

<abstract>