S v Shilubane

Last updated

S v Shilubane, [1] an important case in South African criminal law, was heard and decided in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Shongwe J and Bosielo J on June 20, 2005. The case is significant primarily for its treatment of questions of punishment, advocating the consideration of restorative justice as an alternative to direct imprisonment, urging that presiding officers be innovative and proactive in opting for such alternatives, and recommending that these alternatives be humane and balanced.

Contents

Retributive justice, the court found, had failed and was failing to stem the wave of crime in South Africa. It was counter-productive and self-defeating, therefore, to expose first-time offenders to the corrosive and brutalising effect of prison for trifling offences. Such sentences as community service were to be seriously considered where the perpetrator was not such a serious threat to society as for it to be necessary for its protection to imprison him. [2]

Facts

Shilubane, the accused, a 35-year-old first-time offender, stole and then cooked seven fowls to the value of R216.16. In a magistrates' court, he pleaded guilty and was duly convicted. [3] Notwithstanding his expression of "genuine remorse," and the fact that he undertook "solemnly" never to reoffend, [4] he was sentenced to nine months' direct imprisonment.

Judgment

On review, Bosielo held that the sentence was, in the circumstances of the case, "disturbingly inappropriate," [5] and noted that the magistrate had conceded as much, recommending that he set aside the sentence and replace it with a fine of R500 or, in default of payment, imprisonment for six months. [6] The State Advocate, with the agreement of the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, concurred that the sentence, in Bosielo's paraphrase, was "shockingly inappropriate" and recommended nemine contradicente a fine of R600 or imprisonment for six months, half of it to be suspended for three years on "suitable conditions." [7]

Bosielo cited, as "the guiding light to sentencing," [8] the dictum in S v V: [9] "Punishment should fit the criminal as well as the crime, be fair to the accused and to society, and be blended with a measure of mercy." [10] In line with the philosophy of restorative justice, the Bosielo had "little doubt" that the complainant would have been better pleased to receive compensation for his loss: An order of compensation, coupled with a suspended sentence, would have satisfied the basic triad of sentencing considerations—the crime, the criminal and the interests of society [11] [12] —and the primary purposes of punishment. This option, "unfortunately," [13] could not be considered, as the Criminal Procedure Act [14] required the consent of the complainant. [15] The court ruled instead that the sentence should be replaced with a fine of R500 or, in default of payment, to imprisonment for six months, wholly but conditionally suspended for a period of three years. [16]

Bosielo felt "constrained to remark" that, unless presiding officers become "innovative and proactive" in opting for alternative sentences to direct imprisonment, South Africa would be unable to solve the problem of the overcrowding of prisons, [17] "another serious social ill [...] concomitant with the plethora of other social ills which are spawned by this overcrowding." [18] Inasmuch as it was "critical" for the maintenance of law and order that criminals be punished for their crimes, it was also "important that presiding officers impose sentences which are humane and balanced." [19]

There was "abundant empirical evidence" (although Bosielo cited none) that retributive justice had "failed to stem the ever-increasing wave of crime," [20] to say nothing of "the public hysteria" generated by it. [21] It was "counter-productive," furthermore, "if not self-defeating," to expose a first offender to "the corrosive and brutalising effect of prison life for such a trifling offence." The price which civil society stood to pay in the end by having Shilubane emerge from prison a hardened criminal "far outweighs" the advantages to be gained by sending him to jail. [22] The courts must "seriously consider" alternative sentences, like community service, as viable alternatives to direct imprisonment, particularly where the accused was not such a serious threat to society that he needed to be taken away for its protection. [23] Bosielo quoted in this regard from a newspaper article by Cheryl Gillwald, the former Deputy Minister of Correctional Services:

Incarceration only becomes a deterrent when society perceives the justice system to be efficient, consistent and effective. Rather than focusing on internment, sentencing should focus on what the most effective rehabilitation route would be for the offender, taking into account the gravity of the offence, assessment of the individual and his/her history, social and employment circumstances. [24]

Such an approach, wrote Bosielo, "will benefit our society immensely by excluding the possibility of warped sentences being imposed routinely on people who do not deserve them." [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Punishment</span> Imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome

Punishment, commonly, is the imposition of painful consequences upon an individual or group, meted out by an authority—in contexts ranging from child discipline to criminal law—as a deterrent to a particular action or behavior that is deemed undesirable. It is, however, possible to distinguish between various different understandings of what punishment is.

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which the convicted criminal is to remain in prison for the rest of their natural life. Crimes that warrant life imprisonment are extremely serious and usually violent. Examples of these crimes are murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, illegal drug trade, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated property damage, arson, hate crime, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, theft, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Retributive justice</span> Type of punishment

Retributive justice is a legal concept whereby the criminal offender receives punishment proportional or similar to the crime.

Transformative justice is a spectrum of social, economic, legal, and political practices and philosophies that aim to focus on the structures and underlying conditions that perpetuate harm and injustice. Taking up and expanding on the goals of restorative justice such as individual/community accountability, reparation, and non-retributive responses to harm, transformative justice imagines and puts into practice alternatives to the formal, state-based criminal justice system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Restorative justice</span> Restitution with input from victims and offenders

Restorative justice is an approach to justice that aims to repair the harm done to victims. In doing so, practitioners work to ensure that offenders take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm. For victims, the goal is to give them an active role in the process, and to reduce feelings of anxiety and powerlessness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Penology</span> Subfield of criminology

Penology is a subfield of criminology that deals with the philosophy and practice of various societies in their attempts to repress criminal activities, and satisfy public opinion via an appropriate treatment regime for persons convicted of criminal offences.

Community sentence or alternative sentencing or non-custodial sentence is a collective name in criminal justice for all the different ways in which courts can punish a defendant who has been convicted of committing an offense, other than through a custodial sentence or capital punishment (death).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 of the UK Parliament enables some criminal convictions to be ignored after a rehabilitation period. Its purpose is that people do not have a lifelong blot on their records because of a relatively minor offence in their past. The rehabilitation period is automatically determined by the sentence. After this period, if there has been no further conviction the conviction is "spent" and, with certain exceptions, need not be disclosed by the ex-offender in any context such as when applying for a job, obtaining insurance, or in civil proceedings. A conviction for the purposes of the ROA includes a conviction issued outside Great Britain and therefore foreign convictions are eligible to receive the protection of the ROA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deterrence (penology)</span> Use of punishment as a threat to deter people from offending

Deterrence in relation to criminal offending is the idea or theory that the threat of punishment will deter people from committing crime and reduce the probability and/or level of offending in society. It is one of five objectives that punishment is thought to achieve; the other four objectives are denunciation, incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociology of punishment</span>

The sociology of punishment seeks to understand why and how we punish; the general justifying aim of punishment and the principle of distribution. Punishment involves the intentional infliction of pain and/or the deprivation of rights and liberties. Sociologists of punishment usually examine state-sanctioned acts in relation to law-breaking; why, for instance, citizens give consent to the legitimation of acts of violence.

South African criminal law is the body of national law relating to crime in South Africa. In the definition of Van der Walt et al., a crime is "conduct which common or statute law prohibits and expressly or impliedly subjects to punishment remissible by the state alone and which the offender cannot avoid by his own act once he has been convicted." Crime involves the infliction of harm against society. The function or object of criminal law is to provide a social mechanism with which to coerce members of society to abstain from conduct that is harmful to the interests of society.

S v Salzwedel and Others, an important case in South African criminal law and criminal procedure, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 4 November 1999, with judgment handed down on 29 November. The judges were Mahomed CJ, Smalberger JA, Olivier JA, Melunsky AJA and Mpati AJA. GG Turner appeared for the appellant ; P. Myburgh, instructed by the Legal Aid Board, for the respondents, whose heads of argument were drawn up by JR Koekemoer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alternatives to imprisonment</span> Types of punishment or treatment other than time in prison

The alternatives to imprisonment are types of punishment or treatment other than time in prison that can be given to a person who is convicted of committing a crime. Some of these are also known as alternative sanctions. Alternatives can take the form of fines, restorative justice, transformative justice or no punishment at all. Capital punishment, corporal punishment and electronic monitoring are also alternatives to imprisonment, but are not promoted by modern prison reform movements for decarceration due to them being carceral in nature.

Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.

S v Vika, an important case in South African criminal law, was heard on May 12, 2010. MM Xozwa, instructed by the Justice Centre, Grahamstown, appeared for the appellant; H. Obermeyer appeared for the State. The case was an appeal against sentence imposed in a regional court.

In S v B is an important case in South African criminal law, often cited for its findings as to the considerations to be taken into account in sentencing.

The youth justice system in New Zealand consists of organisations and processes that deal with offending by children aged 10–13 years and young people aged 14–16 years. These differ from general criminal processes, and are governed by different principles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incarceration in Canada</span> Overview of incarceration in Canada

Incarceration in Canada is one of the main forms of punishment, rehabilitation, or both, for the commission of an indictable offense and other offenses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incarceration in Norway</span> Overview of incarceration in Norway

Norway's criminal justice system focuses on the principles of restorative justice and the rehabilitation of prisoners. Correctional facilities in Norway focus on maintaining custody of the offender and attempting to make them functioning members of society. Norway's prison system is renowned as one of the most effective and humane in the world.

<i>S v M</i> South African legal case

S v M is a 2007 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa with import for children's rights and criminal sentencing. The court held unanimously that the best interests of the child must be considered whenever a child's primary caregiver is handed a criminal sentence. This obligation arises from section 28(2) of the Constitution, which enshrines the paramountcy of the best interests of the child, read with section 28(1)(b) of the Constitution, which enshrines every children's right to family care or appropriate alternative care.

References

Case law

Legislation

Articles in periodicals

Notes

  1. ↑ 2008 (1) SACR 295 (T).
  2. ↑ Mujuzi, Jamil Ddamulir (2008). "Don't Send Them to Prison Because They Can't Rehabilitate Them! The South African Judiciary Doubts the Executive's Ability to Rehabilitate Offenders: A Note on S v Shilubane 2008 (1) SACR 295 (T)". South African Journal on Human Rights. 24 (2): 330–340. doi:10.1080/19962126.2008.11864959. ISSN   0258-7203. S2CID   141979900.
  3. ↑ Paras 2, 4.
  4. ↑ Para 2.
  5. ↑ Paras 2, 7.
  6. ↑ Para 2.
  7. ↑ Para 3.
  8. ↑ Para 4.
  9. ↑ 1972 (3) SA 611 (A).
  10. ↑ 614D.
  11. ↑ S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A).
  12. ↑ 540G.
  13. ↑ Para 4.
  14. ↑ Act 51 of 1977.
  15. ↑ s 300.
  16. ↑ Para 7.
  17. ↑ Para 5.
  18. ↑ Para 1.
  19. ↑ Para 5.
  20. ↑ Para 5.
  21. ↑ Para 1.
  22. ↑ Para 5.
  23. ↑ Para 6.
  24. ↑ Gillwald 2004.
  25. ↑ Para 6.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.