An analysis of judicial sentencing approaches to persons convicted of serious crimes

Abstract

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.