Personalized approach The Conch Shell After the plane crash had separated the boys, Ralph and Piggy come across the conch shell lying on the beach and use it to call the group together.
The two accused in this matter were convicted in the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court on four counts of murder, one count of attempted murder and one count of robbery with aggravating circumstances.
They were sentenced to death on each of the counts of murder and to long terms of imprisonment on the other counts.
They appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court against the convictions and sentences. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals against the convictions and came to the conclusion that the circumstances of the murders were such that the accused should receive the heaviest sentence permissible according to law.
Section 1 a of the Criminal Procedure Act No. Counsel for the accused was invited by the Appellate Division to consider whether this provision was consistent with the Republic of South Africa Constitution,which had come into force subsequent to the conviction and sentence by the trial court.
He argued that it was not, contending that it was in conflict with the provisions of sections 9 and 11 2 of the Constitution. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals against the sentences on the counts of attempted murder and robbery, but postponed the further hearing of the appeals against the death sentence until the constitutional issues are decided by this Court.
Two issues were raised: Although there was no formal reference of these issues to this Court in terms of section 6 of the Constitution, that was implicit in the judgment of the Appellate Division, and was treated as such by the parties.
The trial was concluded before the Constitution came into force, and so the question of the constitutionality of the death sentence did not arise at the trial. Because evidence which might possibly be relevant to that issue would not have been led, we asked counsel appearing before this Court to consider whether evidence, other than undisputed information placed before us in argument, would be relevant to the determination of the question referred to us by the Appellate Division.
Apart from the issue of public opinion, with which I will deal later in this judgment, counsel were not able to point to specific material that had not already been placed before us which might be relevant to the decision on the constitutional issues raised in this case.
I am satisfied that no good purpose would be served by referring the case back to the trial court for the hearing of further evidence and that we should deal with the matter on the basis of the information and arguments that have been presented to us. It would no doubt have been better if the framers of the Constitution had stated specifically, either that the death sentence is not a competent penalty, or that it is permissible in circumstances sanctioned by law.
This, however, was not done and it has been left to this Court to decide whether the penalty is consistent with the provisions of the Constitution. That is the extent and limit of the Court's power in this case. No executions have taken place in South Africa since Some of these convictions date back toand approximately half of the persons on death row were sentenced more than two years ago.
It does not deal specifically with the death penalty, but in section 11 2it prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In S v Zuma and Two Others, 6 this Court dealt with the approach to be adopted in the interpretation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter Three of the Constitution.
It gave its approval to an approach which, whilst paying due regard to the language that has been used, is "generous" and "purposive" and gives expression to the underlying values of the Constitution.
The meaning of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter was to be ascertained by an analysis of the purpose of such a guarantee; it was to be understood, in other words, in the light of the interests it was meant to protect.
In my view this analysis is to be undertaken, and the purpose of the right or freedom in question is to be sought by reference to the character and larger objects of the Charter itself, to the language chosen to articulate the specific right or freedom, to the historical origins of the concept enshrined, and where applicable, to the meaning and purpose of the other specific rights and freedoms with which it is associated within the text of the Charter.
The interpretation should be Bizos, who represented the South African government at the hearing of this matter, informed us that the government accepts that the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and that it should be declared unconstitutional.
The Attorney General of the Witwatersrand, whose office is independent of the government, took a different view, and contended that the death penalty is a necessary and acceptable form of punishment and that it is not cruel, inhuman or degrading within the meaning of section 11 2.
He argued that if the framers of the Constitution had wished to make the death penalty unconstitutional they would have said so, and that their failure to do so indicated an intention to leave the issue open to be dealt with by Parliament in the ordinary way.
It was for Parliament, and not the government, to decide whether or not the death penalty should be repealed, and Parliament had not taken such a decision. Legislative History The written argument of the South African government deals with the debate which took place in regard to the death penalty before the commencement of the constitutional negotiations.
The information that it placed before us was not disputed. It was argued that this background information forms part of the context within which the Constitution should be interpreted.
Our Courts have held that it is permissible in interpreting a statute to have regard to the purpose and background of the legislation in question. Certainly no less important than the oft repeated statement that the words and expressions used in a statute must be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning is the statement that they must be interpreted in the light of their context.
But it may be useful to stress two points in relation to the application of this principle. The first is that "the context", as here used, is not limited to the language of the rest of the statute regarded as throwing light of a dictionary kind on the part to be interpreted.
Often of more importance is the matter of the statute, its apparent scope and purpose, and, within limits, its background. It is, however, permissible to take notice of the report of a judicial commission of enquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining "the mischief aimed at [by] the statutory enactment in question.
In England, the courts have recently relaxed this exclusionary rule and have held, in Pepper Inspector of Taxes v Hart 14 that, subject to the privileges of the House of Commons: Even in such cases references in court to Parliamentary material should only be permitted where such material clearly discloses the mischief aimed at or the legislative intention lying behind the ambiguous or obscure words.
We are concerned with the interpretation of the Constitution, and not the interpretation of ordinary legislation. A constitution is no ordinary statute. It is the source of legislative and executive authority.Introduction. Famous William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies was written in Being a kind of parody for books of R.M.
Ballantine’s The Coral Island () sort, this tale of survival on a tropical island is a description of principal forces driving the development of society and a warning against the evil nesting in each human being.
Golding’s intricate allegories and simplistic. Sacred texts Thelema Thelema. The proper metaphor for the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is that of proud parent and progeny.
Led by these characters—the Ann Frank Center, the obnoxious Anti-Defamation League—Jews have managed to cast themselves as just another faction in the noisy, multicultural mob that is America. Rae West 20th August Some people believe that whites need to reunite as Christian communities as part of the process of opposing so-called 'Jews'.
Or to return to what they think was a comfortable, better life as Christians. Related Questions. What is a good thesis statement about nature (like outside nature not human nature) in Lord of 1 educator answer What part of human nature does Piggy represent in Lord of the.
Sacred texts Thelema Thelema.