Scielo RSS <![CDATA[SA Crime Quarterly]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/rss.php?pid=1991-387720180004&lang=en vol. num. 66 lang. en <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://www.scielo.org.za <![CDATA[<b>Decolonising the South African prison</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000400001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en <![CDATA[<b>Rationalising injustice. The reinforcement of legal hegemony in South Africa</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000400002&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The legal system in South Africa holds a legitimate and authoritative position in the country's constitutional democracy and political order, despite the commonplace experiences of injustice that take place at the hands of the criminal justice system. This article looks at how the legal consciousness of community activists, student activists and migrants is shaped by experiences of arrest and detention, and focuses particularly on how their perceptions of the law reinforce the legitimacy and hegemonic status enjoyed by the criminal justice system and broader legal system in South Africa. The article draws on original interviews with community activists, student activists and migrants, who recounted their experiences of arrest and detention. Using a socio-legal framework of legal consciousness, the article unpacks how these groups reinforce legal hegemony through the ways in which they understand and rationalise their experiences of punishment. Despite the reasonable expectation that those who have experienced a miscarriage of justice would be most sceptical and pessimistic about the law's legitimacy, this article finds that they continue to maintain their faith in the law. The article presents an analysis of interviews conducted with members of these groups, and shares evidence that begins to explore some of the ways in which South Africa's criminal justice system is able to sustain its legitimacy, despite the gaps between what the law ought to be and what the law actually is. <![CDATA[<b>Possibly unconstitutional? The insistence on verification of address in bail hearings</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000400003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Arrestees have the right to apply for bail and to be released pending their trial, where circumstances require it. There is a practice of requiring people to verify their addresses prior to bail being granted, and this is implemented in various ways by different magistrates' courts; from a magistrate refusing to hear a bail application until there is a verified address, to a magistrate hearing the application but holding the decision over until a verifiable address is supplied. This practice is widespread, and unfairly prejudices the homeless and poor, whose addresses are difficult to verify. It also means that their pre-trial incarceration might be lengthier than their sentences. This article will argue that this practice should be subject to the interests of justice criteria, and that its current form does not meet this standard. We will also investigate what this practice might look like if carried out in compliance with the interests of justice criteria. Lastly, this article will argue that this practice in its current form fails to meet rule of law standards. These arguments will be made in the context of the right to equality, and discrimination against those living in poverty. It will be concluded that, in its current form, the practice is unconstitutional. <![CDATA[<b>Decolonising prisons in South Africa. The need for effective bail affordability inquiries</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000400004&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Prisons have been a major player in all countries with a history of tyrannical regimes, as people who attempted to resist repression frequently found themselves detained in prisons. Many countries have adopted democratic government, underscored by equality of all people before the law. Many states - South Africa among them - continue to make reforms to address these past injustices, and, as part of this shift, prisons across continents are attempting to decolonise. This article questions whether South Africa can decolonise its prisons, given that the country's poor are at a higher risk of detention because they are not able to afford bail. The article focuses on the concept of cashless bail and argues that, given South Africa's history of marginalisation and income inequality, this model can be one mechanism through which to address past injustices with a view to decolonising the country's prisons. The article makes a strong case for the effective implementation of provisions on inquiry on affordability of cash bail as one of the means to achieve this end. <![CDATA[<b>The Lindela Repatriation Centre, 1996-2014. Applying theory to the practice of human rights violations</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000400005&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en This article is based on media content analysis of more than 230 newspaper articles written on the Lindela Repatriation Centre from its establishment in 1996 to 2014. This centre is South Africa's only holding facility for undocumented migrants┬╣ awaiting repatriation, and the data revealed that it is a hub of human rights violations. The article juxtaposes the South African Bill of Rights, which supposedly underpinned the establishment of the centre, with the grotesque human rights violations that have occurred there since its inception. In light of this, the article draws on the theorising of Giorgio Agamben (1998), and particularly his theoretical contribution of the 'homo sacer' as one who has been left behind or excluded from the territorial boundaries that confer the rights of citizenship. I found that the detainees at the centre are largely living in what Agamben describes as a 'state of exception' and that undocumented migrants are often treated as 'bare life', as individuals who are subject to the suspension of the law within the context of the centre. Since they are non-citizens of the recipient state, these actions amount to xenophobia, which manifests in a gross violation of human rights. <![CDATA[<b>Judge Jody Kollapen</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1991-38772018000400006&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en This article is based on media content analysis of more than 230 newspaper articles written on the Lindela Repatriation Centre from its establishment in 1996 to 2014. This centre is South Africa's only holding facility for undocumented migrants┬╣ awaiting repatriation, and the data revealed that it is a hub of human rights violations. The article juxtaposes the South African Bill of Rights, which supposedly underpinned the establishment of the centre, with the grotesque human rights violations that have occurred there since its inception. In light of this, the article draws on the theorising of Giorgio Agamben (1998), and particularly his theoretical contribution of the 'homo sacer' as one who has been left behind or excluded from the territorial boundaries that confer the rights of citizenship. I found that the detainees at the centre are largely living in what Agamben describes as a 'state of exception' and that undocumented migrants are often treated as 'bare life', as individuals who are subject to the suspension of the law within the context of the centre. Since they are non-citizens of the recipient state, these actions amount to xenophobia, which manifests in a gross violation of human rights.