Scielo RSS <![CDATA[SA Crime Quarterly]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/rss.php?pid=1991-387720180003&lang=pt vol. num. 65 lang. pt <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://www.scielo.org.za <![CDATA[<b>Hard questions, big challenges</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000300001&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt <![CDATA[<b>Shot while surrendering. Strikers describe Marikana Scene 2</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000300002&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt This article is concerned with the events of 16 August 2012 at the Lonmin Marikana mine in the North West province, when members of the South African Police Service killed 34 people, most of whom were striking mineworkers. These killings, now widely referred to as the Marikana massacre, are regarded not only as a tragedy but also as an event of great significance in South Africa's contemporary history. A commission of inquiry was held into the killings, but it did not reach any conclusions about what had happened at the second massacre site, commonly referred to as Scene 2, at which 17 of the fatal shootings took place. While these events are now the subject of an investigation by police oversight and criminal justice agencies, we cannot assume that this will reveal the truth about the killings at Scene 2. To add to our understanding of the events at Marikana, this article analyses statements from the injured and arrested strikers taken by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate in the five days immediately after the massacre. This article examines data from the statements, and the circumstances in which these statements were taken, in order to interrogate the assertion that 'strikers were shot by police while surrendering or injured at Scene 2'.1 It concludes that, taken as a whole, the statements are a reliable source of information that some of the strikers at Scene 2 were indeed shot while surrendering. <![CDATA[<b>A missing link in the Traditional Courts Bill 2017. Evidence obtained through human rights violations</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000300003&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt The issue of admission of evidence obtained through human rights violations is central to a criminal justice system as a mechanism through which to prevent overzealous prosecution by the state and ensure protection of human rights. As such, any court that deals with criminal cases has to evaluate evidence before it is admitted. This article argues that the Traditional Courts Bill (TCB)1 does not provide for a mode of dealing with evidence obtained as a result of human rights violations. To substantiate this argument, the article reviews the current Bill, and reflects on the challenges that arise with regard to evidence obtained in this way. The article contextualises section 35(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, and discusses the practical difficulties of applying it under the current Bill. The article concludes with recommendations for measures that can ensure that accused persons are not prejudiced when appearing before the court. <![CDATA[<b>Is crime getting increasingly violent? An assessment of the role of bank associated robbery in South Africa</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000300004&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt There is public concern about the violent nature of crime in South Africa and the continuously increasing levels of crime, both of which place a huge burden on the resources of the criminal justice system. 'Bank associated robbery' is a bank-related robbery (or attempted robbery) of cash, committed against a bank client while en route to or from a bank or ATM. Although this phenomenon is relatively unknown both in the academe and to the general public, the drastic increase in these violent and potentially traumatic crimes puts the general public at risk, and is therefore of particular concern to the banking industry and criminal justice practitioners. The impact and consequences of these robberies are aggravated by their interaction with the so-called trio crimes: home invasions and robbery, business robberies, and vehicle hijacking. In this article the dynamics of bank associated robbery are analysed, as well as its interrelationship with the trio crimes. <![CDATA[<b>In no certain terms. The court's inconsistent approach to the role of sexual grooming when sentencing in cases of the sexual abuse of children under 16</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000300005&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt This article considers whether evidence of sexual grooming influences decisions by South African courts when passing sentence on offenders who have been found guilty of sexual assault or rape of children. By analysing judicial decisions, the article considers three themes - the lack of violence, the apparent consent of a child under 12, and the appropriateness of correctional supervision. The article concludes that evidence of grooming should play a role in sentencing decisions, as it forms part of the nature of the crime that the court is required to consider. <![CDATA[<b>Anneliese Burgess: Heist! South Africa's Cash in Transit epidemic uncovered</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000300006&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt More than 50 years ago, Howard Becker asked the question Whose side are we on? in our conversations about crime and criminals.1 Becker intended the question to force us to reconsider our assumptions about the value-free nature of research, the neutrality of the 'law', and the pathology of the criminal 'other'. Becker's argument was that, in our studies of the social world, we cannot avoid taking sides. Becker's question has long plagued South African criminology. How else, in a political context where law and enforcement agencies served minority interests and where processes of criminalisation for contravening a plethora of apartheid laws so cruelly impacted on the racial underclass? Twenty-five years into the new democracy, Becker's question is still with us. The connection between crime and politics has not been disrupted. Social inequality continues to feed social discontent and moral ambivalence about the law and its enforcers. Furthermore, over the past two decades criminal enterprises and illicit networks have flourished. The destinies of the licit and illicit have become intertwined, and the question Whose side are we on? remains without a definitive answer. <![CDATA[<b>Nicolette Naylor and Sibongile Ndashe discuss local and global developments on sexual harassment and the role of the law in responding</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000300007&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt Recent local and global developments have turned the spotlight on the role of law in addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. Almost four decades after feminist legal scholars pushed for laws which recognise that sexual harassment constitutes a form of discrimination that is legally actionable, it is important to take stock of the success and limits of the law. In recent times the law has increasingly been accused of complicity in shielding abusers by (mis) applying sexual harassment policies to exonerate the perpetrators, or failing to hold institutions to account over claims that their hands are tied because victims do not want to lay formal complaints. Nicolette Naylor (Director, Ford Foundation for Southern Africa) and Sibongile Ndashe (Executive Director: The Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa [ISLA]) discuss the role of the law against the backdrop of the successes of campaigns like the #MeToo movement, which encourage survivors to speak out by unmasking and publicly naming perpetrators. The conversation was originally presented as an ISLA Conversation between Nicolette and Sibongile on 10 July 2018 in Johannesburg.