Terrill: World Criminal Justice Systems: A Comparative Survey


Case Studies

Chapter 4: South Africa

Mandiba was arrested on suspicion of homicide late one evening. Police officers spent hours questioning Mandiba despite his exhaustion and the late hour. He was not provided with food, restroom breaks, or the opportunity to sleep for more than 72 hours. On the last day of questioning, the officers told him that if he signed the written confession they had typed up, he would be allowed to sleep, have a hot meal, and use the restroom and shower. Mandiba said he would do so and signed the confession. During Mandiba’s trial, the signed confession was a significant piece of evidence that was used against him. He was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death.

Questions

  1. What are the two constitutional issues in this case?

    Correct Answer

    Is the death penalty constitutional in South Africa? Are confessions under duress accepted in South Africa?

  2. What are the two past court decisions that established the constitutionality of these two issues and the rulings?

    Correct Answer

    S v Makwanyana (1995) centered on whether the death penalty was constitutional. The court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional because it violated the ninth (equality), tenth (human dignity), and eleventh (right to life) rights found in the Bill of Rights. In S v Zuma (1995), the issue was whether a defendant had to prove his claim that a written confession was forced under duress. The court ruled that this was unconstitutional on the grounds of the presumption that a confession was made freely and voluntarily.

  3. What police agency would have been conducting this investigation in South Africa? Why?

    Correct Answer

    The South African Police Service is the only policing agency that has the authority to conduct criminal investigations in South Africa. Municipal police forces do not have the right to do so.

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.