About the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences

dc.contributor.advisorvan Zyl Smit, Dirk
dc.contributor.authorOppert, Anna
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-18T13:44:58Z
dc.date.available2023-09-18T13:44:58Z
dc.date.issued1995
dc.date.updated2023-09-18T13:44:43Z
dc.description.abstractAs difficult as the task of reaching a reliable verdict may be, the second half of a criminal court's procedure, that of imposing sentences on those who have been found guilty or who have themselves admitted their guilt raises even more fundamental questions. What are we trying to do, what is the object of this exercise? Traditionally there have been four approaches to the sentencing of an offender which correspond to the four "objects" or "purposes" of sentencing, namely retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence or incapacitation, i.e. the offender should be punished for the crime; the offender should be punished to be given the opportunity to return "onto the right track"; the offender (individual deterrence) or others (general deterrence) should be deterred from committing similar crimes in the future; and, finally, the offender should be incapacitated, i.e. be prevented from repeating crimes.
dc.identifier.apacitationOppert, A. (1995). <i>About the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences</i>. (). ,Faculty of Law ,Department of Public Law. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11427/38741en_ZA
dc.identifier.chicagocitationOppert, Anna. <i>"About the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences."</i> ., ,Faculty of Law ,Department of Public Law, 1995. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/38741en_ZA
dc.identifier.citationOppert, A. 1995. About the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences. . ,Faculty of Law ,Department of Public Law. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/38741en_ZA
dc.identifier.ris TY - Master Thesis AU - Oppert, Anna AB - As difficult as the task of reaching a reliable verdict may be, the second half of a criminal court's procedure, that of imposing sentences on those who have been found guilty or who have themselves admitted their guilt raises even more fundamental questions. What are we trying to do, what is the object of this exercise? Traditionally there have been four approaches to the sentencing of an offender which correspond to the four "objects" or "purposes" of sentencing, namely retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence or incapacitation, i.e. the offender should be punished for the crime; the offender should be punished to be given the opportunity to return "onto the right track"; the offender (individual deterrence) or others (general deterrence) should be deterred from committing similar crimes in the future; and, finally, the offender should be incapacitated, i.e. be prevented from repeating crimes. DA - 1995 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town KW - law LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PY - 1995 T1 - About the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences TI - About the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/38741 ER - en_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11427/38741
dc.identifier.vancouvercitationOppert A. About the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences. []. ,Faculty of Law ,Department of Public Law, 1995 [cited yyyy month dd]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/38741en_ZA
dc.language.rfc3066eng
dc.publisher.departmentDepartment of Public Law
dc.publisher.facultyFaculty of Law
dc.subjectlaw
dc.titleAbout the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences
dc.typeMaster Thesis
dc.type.qualificationlevelMasters
dc.type.qualificationlevelLLM
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
thesis_law_1995_oppert anna.pdf
Size:
1018.53 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
0 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Collections