Sentencing primary caregivers in South Africa: the role of the child’s best interests

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW South African Journal on Human Rights Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/02587203.2020.1865113
Heleen Lauwereys
{"title":"Sentencing primary caregivers in South Africa: the role of the child’s best interests","authors":"Heleen Lauwereys","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2020.1865113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2007, the Constitutional Court ruled in S v M that the best interests of the child should be taken into consideration when sentencing primary caregivers. This judgment is in line with s 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, art 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and art 30(1) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The guidelines developed by the Constitutional Court are considered to be a ‘best practice’ relevant to countries introducing or debating upon a similar obligation within their domestic jurisdiction. Through a systematic content analysis of sentencing judgments concerning (potential) primary caregivers, the interpretation and application of the child’s best interests in this context are examined. The analysis shows that different interpretations and approaches concern different aspects of the guidelines, including their material scope, the elements to be taken into consideration, the alternative care for the child during the imprisonment of the primary caregiver, and how judges inform themselves on this matter in individual cases. The article concludes with recommendations to address these difficulties and inconsistencies.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"36 1","pages":"154 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02587203.2020.1865113","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1865113","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In 2007, the Constitutional Court ruled in S v M that the best interests of the child should be taken into consideration when sentencing primary caregivers. This judgment is in line with s 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, art 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and art 30(1) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The guidelines developed by the Constitutional Court are considered to be a ‘best practice’ relevant to countries introducing or debating upon a similar obligation within their domestic jurisdiction. Through a systematic content analysis of sentencing judgments concerning (potential) primary caregivers, the interpretation and application of the child’s best interests in this context are examined. The analysis shows that different interpretations and approaches concern different aspects of the guidelines, including their material scope, the elements to be taken into consideration, the alternative care for the child during the imprisonment of the primary caregiver, and how judges inform themselves on this matter in individual cases. The article concludes with recommendations to address these difficulties and inconsistencies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
南非对主要照顾者的判决:儿童最大利益的作用
摘要2007年,宪法法院在S诉M案中裁定,在对主要照顾者判刑时,应考虑到儿童的最大利益。这一判决符合1996年《南非共和国宪法》第28条、《联合国儿童权利公约》第3条第1款和《非洲儿童权利与福利宪章》第30条第1项。宪法法院制定的指导方针被认为是与各国在其国内管辖范围内引入或辩论类似义务相关的“最佳实践”。通过对涉及(潜在)主要照顾者的量刑判决的系统内容分析,研究了在这种情况下对儿童最大利益的解释和应用。分析表明,不同的解释和方法涉及指导方针的不同方面,包括其实质范围、需要考虑的要素、在主要照顾者被监禁期间对儿童的替代照顾,以及法官在个别案件中如何告知自己这一问题。文章最后提出了解决这些困难和矛盾的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
77.80%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Consulting citizens: Addressing the deficits in participatory democracy Ubuntu, human rights and sustainable development: Lessons from the African Arbitration Academy’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Research handbook on economic, social and cultural rights Augmentative and alternative communication in the South African justice system: Potential and pitfalls The importance of litigating the right to access sufficient food: Equal Education v Minister of Basic Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1