248:
State was required to value these two rights above all others, and to demonstrate that valuation in everything it did, including the punishment of criminals. This would not be achieved by depersonalising and executing murderers, even as a deterrent to others. Quite apart from the fact that vengeance or payback had not the same constitutional heft as the right to life and the right to dignity, the court was not satisfied that it had been shown that capital punishment would be more effective as a deterrent than a life sentence.
225:. The court's ruling invalidated section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which had provided for use of the death penalty, along with any similar provisions in any other law in force in South Africa. The court also forbade the government from carrying out the death sentence on any prisoners awaiting execution, ruling that they should remain in prison until new sentences were imposed. Delivered on 6 June, this was the newly established court's "first politically important and publicly controversial holding."
42:
274:
presupposes a system whose operation can be rationally tested against or in terms of the law. Arbitrariness, by its very nature, is dissonant with these core concepts of our new constitutional order. Neither arbitrary action nor laws or rules which are inherently arbitrary or must lead to arbitrary application can, in any real sense, be tested against the precepts or principles of the
Constitution.
501:
282:
in this regard: "If the new
Constitution is a bridge away from a culture of authority, it is clear what it must be a bridge to. It must lead to a culture of justification—a culture in which every exercise of power is expected to be justified If the Constitution is to be a bridge in this direction,
256:
the death sentence destroys life, which is protected without reservation under section 9 of our
Constitution, it annihilates human dignity which is protected under section 10, elements of arbitrariness are present in its enforcement and it is irremediable . I am satisfied that in the context of our
247:
The Court held further that the rights to life and dignity were the most important of all human rights and the source of all the other personal rights detailed in
Chapter 3 of the Interim Constitution. Having committed to a society premised on the recognition and realisation of human rights, the
300:
If public opinion were to be decisive, Chaskalson reasoned, there would be no need for constitutional assessment and adjudication. Although popular sentiment could have some bearing on the court's considerations, "in itself, it is no substitute for the duty vested in the Courts to interpret the
237:
The outcome may be dependent upon factors such as the way the case is investigated by the police, the way the case is presented by the prosecutor, how effectively the accused is defended, the personality and particular attitude to capital punishment of the trial judge and, if the matter goes on
273:
We have moved from a past characterised by much which was arbitrary and unequal in the operation of the law to a present and a future in a constitutional state where state action must be such that it is capable of being analysed and justified rationally. The idea of the constitutional state
291:
Although it was widely believed that a majority of the population favoured retention of the death penalty, the court affirmed its commitment to its duties as an independent arbiter of the
Constitution. It would not act merely as a vector for public opinion:
118:
296:
The question before us, however, is not what the majority of South
Africans believe a proper sentence for murder should be. It is whether the Constitution allows the sentence.
526:
320:
340:
There were about 400 of them, a moratorium having been placed on executions since 1989 as part of the country's negotiated transition to democracy (Juta's
Statutes Editors.
265:, and more specifically constitutional values such as freedom, dignity and equality, by rejecting the "arbitrary and capricious" nature of the death penalty.
536:
521:
218:
52:
314:
222:
174:
97:
233:
The Court held that, in practice, there was an element of chance at every stage of the process of implementing the death penalty:
531:
301:
Constitution and to uphold its provisions without fear or favour." This was consistent with South Africa's recent passage from
505:
302:
238:
appeal, the particular judges who are selected to hear the case. Race and poverty are also alleged to be factors.
221:. It established that capital punishment was inconsistent with the commitment to human rights expressed in the
177:; the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, or any other law, sanctioning capital punishment are invalid.
41:
200:
266:
262:
249:
214:
122:
115:
279:
158:
130:
17:
150:
146:
142:
515:
257:
Constitution the death penalty is indeed a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. "
138:
344:. 9th Edition, 3rd Impression. Cape Town: Juta & Company, Ltd, 2010, p. xxxiii).
100:
161:
126:
494:
357:
83:, 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC), 1995 (6) BCLR 665 (CC), 2 CHRLD 164, 1995 (2) SACR 1 (CC)
80:
441:
Mureinik, Etienne. "A Bridge to Where? Introducing the
Interim Bill of Rights."
154:
500:
134:
283:
it is plain that the Bill of Rights must be its chief strut."
261:
The court also affirmed its commitment to the principle of
413:
411:
321:
Mohamed v
President of the Republic of South Africa
193:
181:
167:
111:
106:
92:
87:
76:
68:
58:
48:
34:
342:The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
8:
252:, writing for the majority, concluded that
173:The death penalty is inconsistent with the
527:Constitutional Court of South Africa cases
40:
31:
333:
269:made this much clear in his judgment:
188:(all judges wrote concurring opinions)
443:South African Journal of Human Rights
7:
219:Constitutional Court of South Africa
53:Constitutional Court of South Africa
369:Juta's Statutes Editors, p. xxxiii.
537:Capital punishment in South Africa
315:Capital punishment in South Africa
305:to supremacy of the constitution.
199:capital punishment, human rights,
25:
499:
63:State v Makwanyane and Another
522:1995 in South African case law
495:Text of the judgment at SAFLII
360: at 151, 1995 (3) S.A. 391
1:
553:
506:S v Makwanyane and Another
354:S v Makwanyane and Another
210:S v Makwanyane and Another
18:S v Makwanyane and Another
303:parliamentary sovereignty
278:He went on to cite Prof.
198:
172:
39:
27:South African legal case
101:[1994] ZASCA 76
532:Death penalty case law
298:
276:
259:
240:
358:[1995] ZACC 3
294:
271:
254:
235:
217:1995 judgment of the
81:[1995] ZACC 3
445:, 1994: 31–48 at 32.
223:Interim Constitution
175:Interim Constitution
201:constitutional law
98:Appellate Division
504:Works related to
263:constitutionalism
213:(CCT 3/94) was a
206:
205:
189:
16:(Redirected from
544:
503:
482:
476:
470:
464:
458:
452:
446:
439:
433:
427:
421:
415:
406:
400:
394:
388:
382:
376:
370:
367:
361:
351:
345:
338:
280:Etienne Mureinik
187:
107:Court membership
44:
32:
21:
552:
551:
547:
546:
545:
543:
542:
541:
512:
511:
491:
486:
485:
477:
473:
465:
461:
453:
449:
440:
436:
428:
424:
416:
409:
401:
397:
389:
385:
377:
373:
368:
364:
352:
348:
339:
335:
330:
311:
289:
245:
231:
186:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
550:
548:
540:
539:
534:
529:
524:
514:
513:
510:
509:
497:
490:
489:External links
487:
484:
483:
479:S v Makwanyane
471:
467:S v Makwanyane
459:
455:S v Makwanyane
447:
434:
430:S v Makwanyane
422:
418:S v Makwanyane
407:
403:S v Makwanyane
395:
391:S v Makwanyane
383:
379:S v Makwanyane
371:
362:
346:
332:
331:
329:
326:
325:
324:
317:
310:
307:
288:
287:Public opinion
285:
244:
241:
230:
227:
204:
203:
196:
195:
191:
190:
183:
179:
178:
170:
169:
165:
164:
113:
112:Judges sitting
109:
108:
104:
103:
96:Referral from
94:
90:
89:
85:
84:
78:
74:
73:
70:
66:
65:
60:
59:Full case name
56:
55:
50:
46:
45:
37:
36:
35:S v Makwanyane
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
549:
538:
535:
533:
530:
528:
525:
523:
520:
519:
517:
508:at Wikisource
507:
502:
498:
496:
493:
492:
488:
480:
475:
472:
468:
463:
460:
456:
451:
448:
444:
438:
435:
431:
426:
423:
419:
414:
412:
408:
404:
399:
396:
392:
387:
384:
380:
375:
372:
366:
363:
359:
355:
350:
347:
343:
337:
334:
327:
323:
322:
318:
316:
313:
312:
308:
306:
304:
297:
293:
286:
284:
281:
275:
270:
268:
264:
258:
253:
251:
242:
239:
234:
228:
226:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
202:
197:
192:
184:
180:
176:
171:
168:Case opinions
166:
163:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
117:
114:
110:
105:
102:
99:
95:
91:
86:
82:
79:
75:
71:
67:
64:
61:
57:
54:
51:
47:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
478:
474:
466:
462:
454:
450:
442:
437:
429:
425:
417:
402:
398:
390:
386:
378:
374:
365:
353:
349:
341:
336:
319:
299:
295:
290:
277:
272:
260:
255:
250:Chaskalson P
246:
243:Human rights
236:
232:
209:
208:
207:
93:Prior action
88:Case history
62:
29:
267:Ackermann J
182:Decision by
72:6 June 1995
516:Categories
328:References
185:Chaskalson
116:Chaskalson
159:Kentridge
123:Ackermann
77:Citations
309:See also
215:landmark
194:Keywords
131:Kriegler
432:at 156.
405:at 146.
393:at 144.
151:O'Regan
147:Mokgoro
143:Mahomed
127:Didcott
69:Decided
481:at 88.
469:at 87.
457:at 89.
420:at 95.
381:at 48.
229:Chance
153:&
139:Madala
356:
155:Sachs
135:Langa
49:Court
157:JJ,
518::
410:^
162:AJ
149:,
145:,
141:,
137:,
133:,
129:,
125:,
121:,
119:P
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
