published_or_final_version / Sociology / Master / Master of Social Sciences

published_or_final_version / Criminology / Master / Master of Social Sciences

No description available.

Generally the Courts have a discretion to impose sentence. Violent crime was rampant in South Africa. The response of the legislature in dealing with crime was to enact legislation in 1997 like sections 51 to 53 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 which prescribe severe mandatory sentences for a large number of serious offences like murder, rape and armed robbery. This legislation come into effect on 1 May 1998 and was to have effect for two years. The President could with the concurrence of Parliament by proclamation extend its operation for one year, that was in fact done. The latest extension of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 was for a further two years making the minimum sentence provisions valid until 30 April 2005. The Courts did not like these mandatory sentences because of the limitation it places on judicial discretion and dealt with this legislation that limited their judicial discretion restrictively in order to defend their sentencing discretion. Although the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 105 of 1997 was held not to be unconstitutional the Courts stll sought to give it a narrow interpretation. This research paper include an outline of the Criminal Law Amendment Act / the Constitutional challenges that were brought against the Criminal Law Amendment Act / the judicial interpretation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act as well as the applicability of the Criminal Law Amendment Act to District Courts and juvenile ovenders / the procedural requirements that must be complied with in the Criminal Law Amendment Act and its consequences if not complied with. This paper examined how the Courts defined substantial and compelling circumstances, the approaches adopted by the Courts and when deviation from the Criminal Law Amendment Act can take place. It also include the challenges posed by mandatory minimum sentence legislation as well as recommendations for the improved implementation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Sentencing reform and "tough on crime" policies have assisted in the inflation of the United States' prison population by nearly 400% over the last 50 years. In 2003, justice reinvestment was conceptualized as a way to decrease recidivism and remedy the exorbitant correctional spending by reinvesting funds on rehabilitation and reentry assistance to those leaving custodial institutions. Early implementations of justice reinvestment in Connecticut and Texas achieved both savings and reductions in prison populations. This led to the creation of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance in 2010. Officials of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative sought states who were willing to achieve bi-partisan agreements on reform and reinvestment strategies to assist in the creation and implementation of this new policy. The State of Oregon began this process in early 2012 and completed the process with the enrollment of HB 3194 in July of 2013. Despite the implementation of this policy in 17 states, few evaluations have been performed on the effectiveness of justice reinvestment policy. This study employs a quasi-experimental time series analysis of corrections data from the State of Oregon, the high usage county, medium usage county, and the low usage county proxies to assess the effectiveness of the law. Counties were selected as proxies for levels of justice reinvestment grant usage. These data include prison admissions (June 2010-July 2016), probation admissions (June 2010-July 2016), and the number of individuals on community supervision (July 2010-December 2015). Analyses reveal significant changes in all measures. The results of this study have several implications for current and future implementations of justice reinvestment.

It is generally agreed that a criminal justice system reflects the values of the society within which it exists. The presence of patriarchal social values will likely affect the response of the criminal justice system to intimate violence. While the perpetration of violence against another is a violation of an important social norm, patriarchal values may function to discount the seriousness of such an act, if the violence is perpetrated by a man against his girlfriend or wife. This discount of seriousness may lead to less severe punishment for men who assault their intimates than to men who assault nonintimates. The purpose of the present study was to test the hypothesis that men who are convicted of committing serious assaults against female intimates receive more lenient punishment than men who are convicted of committing serious assault against nonintimates. Punishment was defined as sentencing outcomes, i. e. type and length of sentence. The sentences of offenders convicted of felony assaults as the major offense and subject to sentencing guidelines in Oregon in 1993 were examined. Chi-square tests were used to compare the sentence types of intimate and nonintimate violence offenders. Two-tailed !-tests and multiple linear regression were used to examine the relationship between victim-offender relationship and length of sentence. It appears that the presence of Oregon's sentencing guidelines, rather than victim-offender relationship, had the greatest effect upon the severity of punishment. This finding suggests that the guidelines may be responsible for minimizing the impact of patriarchal values on sentencing decisions in serious assault cases.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) --University of Limpopo, 2014 / This research focuses on the application of the double jeopardy principle in labour law, section 188(1)(a (b) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, (herein the LRA) which provides that the dismissal is unfair if the employer fails to prove that the reason for the dismissal is fair and was effected in accordance with a fair procedure. The first point which I would explain is the meaning of double jeopardy and whether it is applicable in labour law. The research articulates that the double jeopardy principle applies to labour law and enumerates ways it can be applied. The South African courts, in particular, the Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court have delivered several judgements on the double jeopardy principle. These cases will be critically discussed in detail. Comparison will be made with foreign labour law jurisprudence on the double jeopardy principle, particularly in Australia and the United States of America.

In an effort to establish a clearer understanding of the sentencing of sexual assault offenders, this study analyzes data generated from a content analysis of sexual assault cases, using feminist theory as a backdrop for the analysis. The sample consists of ninety-seven sexual assault cases from across Canada for the period of August 15, 1992 through August 15, 1993. Using a statistical analysis, the data were analyzed for evidence of whether certain factors aggravated or mitigated sentence length. The findings indicate that factors not affecting sentence length include breach of trust, sex of the judge, sex of the complainant, plea and show of remorse. Factors that work to mitigate sentence length include the youth or old age of an offender. Finally, variables that, when present, aggravate an offender's sentence length are prior offences, force, sexual intercourse and psychiatric considerations. These findings indicate that while there has been some response to feminist concerns regarding criminal justice processing of sexual assault, some of the myths that have been traditionally associated with its victims and offenders are still influencing the judiciary.

Generally the Courts have a discretion to impose sentence. Violent crime was rampant in South Africa. The response of the legislature in dealing with crime was to enact legislation in 1997 like sections 51 to 53 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 which prescribe severe mandatory sentences for a large number of serious offences like murder, rape and armed robbery. This legislation come into effect on 1 May 1998 and was to have effect for two years. The President could with the concurrence of Parliament by proclamation extend its operation for one year, that was in fact done. The latest extension of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 was for a further two years making the minimum sentence provisions valid until 30 April 2005. The Courts did not like these mandatory sentences because of the limitation it places on judicial discretion and dealt with this legislation that limited their judicial discretion restrictively in order to defend their sentencing discretion. Although the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 105 of 1997 was held not to be unconstitutional the Courts stll sought to give it a narrow interpretation. This research paper include an outline of the Criminal Law Amendment Act / the Constitutional challenges that were brought against the Criminal Law Amendment Act / the judicial interpretation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act as well as the applicability of the Criminal Law Amendment Act to District Courts and juvenile ovenders / the procedural requirements that must be complied with in the Criminal Law Amendment Act and its consequences if not complied with. This paper examined how the Courts defined substantial and compelling circumstances, the approaches adopted by the Courts and when deviation from the Criminal Law Amendment Act can take place. It also include the challenges posed by mandatory minimum sentence legislation as well as recommendations for the improved implementation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Thesis (MPsy(Forensic))--University of South Australia, 2002.