There is a perception among victims of crime, and people in general, in South Africa that the country’s laws favour and protect offenders. These people believe that offenders have more rights than victims which are derived from the Constitution of the country, and other legislative Acts of parliament. This view may sometimes lead to vigilantism and a total disregard of the law. The study will show that victims do have rights in the country’s legislations. The study briefly explains the sources of such laws, like the Constitution, the Victims Charter and selected provisions of some Acts of parliament. It is a fact that the section 35 of the Constitution provides in detail, the rights of the arrested, detained and accused. It is also submitted persons that there is no specific provision that talks about the rights of the victims of crime. However, that does not mean that such victims do not have rights in terms of the constitution. The rights of victims of crime are seen during the courts’ interpretation and application of rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The use of words like “everyone” and “any person” in the Bill of Rights also refers to victims of crime. Therefore, the Constitution is not victim-biased and offender-friendly. The Constitution protects everybody because it seeks to uphold the values of human dignity, equality, freedom and the African concept of ubuntu. The study discusses briefly the rights of victims as adopted by the Victims’ Charter. The Charter lists these rights, but does not explain how such rights are to be achieved. South Africa also developed a document called the Minimum Standards for Services for Victims of Crime which indicates how each right is to be achieved. The study also shows that South Africa had developed some Acts of parliament even before the adoption of the Victims Charter. South Africa claims that the Victims’ Charter is compliant with the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice Abuse of Power of 1985. It is submitted that this statement is not entirely correct, especially with regards to the provision that deals with compensation. South Africa did not define compensation as defined by the United Nations Declaration. This can be seen as a dismal failure by South Africa to abide by the United Nations Declaration and this has resulted in more harm suffered by victims of crime. The study also discusses how rape victims benefit through the use of Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act of 2007. This begins with the changing of the definition of rape. The Act also deals with how rape victims can access antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV/Aids infection. It explains limitations on the right to privacy of the accused, especially to compel him or her to undergo an HIV test. The HIV positive status of the accused can be used as an aggravating factor during sentencing in terms of UNAIDS policies. S v Nyalungu 2005 (JOL) 13254 (T) is a leading case in South Africa showing compliance with UNAIDS policies. Restorative justice mechanisms have been discussed to show positive movement by South Africa from a retributive justice system to a restorative justice system. The advantages of such mechanisms for victims have been discussed. The study also describes briefly some selected provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 and how these provisions benefit victims of crime. These include sections 153, 170A, 297, 299A, 300 and 301. The study highlights some challenges that still exist and what innovations can be made. This includes recommendations which can be made to benefit victims of crime further. For example, an apology can be used as one of the important principles in the restorative justice system. It is submitted and recommended that truth and apology go hand in glove and the basic elements of forgiveness. South Africa can pride itself with regards to this approach especially during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which was established in post-apartheid South Africa. The study concludes by saying that South Africa should set up a victim-compensation scheme. It is submitted that South Africa can afford such a scheme despite the problems identified.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:27100 |
| Date | January 2016 |
| Creators | Nkukwana , Zingisile Wiseman |
| Publisher | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Faculty of Law |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Masters, LLM |
| Format | iv, 62 leaves, pdf |
| Rights | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds