WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2008-05-08 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
By Lesego Masemola
The skewed administration of bail in South African courts is responsible for the overcrowding in prisons and an increase in crime, a conference heard on Wednesday.
This was one of the many findings of a research study by the Open Society Foundation of South Africa.
The conference was attended by magistrates, legal representatives and members of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
According to the researchers, Vanja Karth and Jean Redpath, the public perception was that bail was granted too easily in respect of violent offences, with those released on bail thought to commit further violent acts after being released.
They said there was also a perception that magistrates set bail amounts too high for lesser offences, resulting a high proportion of accused being unable to afford bail.
This, in conjunction with perceived long periods of detention awaiting trial, is thought to contribute to the overcrowding of prisons.
Explaining how the different courts dealt with bail applications, Karth said: “This conclusion is based on the findings that, in the courts in question, one out of every two cases was withdrawn or struck off the roll, with the stage at which this occurred depending on the seriousness of the offence.
“A conviction was only obtained in approximately one out of 16 cases. Where there is a conviction, although imprisonment was more likely than an alternative sentence, most sentences of imprisonment were either partially or wholly suspended.”
The study also found that having legal representation was beneficial in relation to the granting of bail to awaiting-trial suspects.
Trends observed from the courts suggested that what happened to an accused person was highly dependent on location.
Researchers agreed that changes to the law on bail thus appeared to have achieved their goal of making the granting of bail in respect of serious offences less common.
The findings suggested a system in need of major reform.
Speedier and alternative means of resolution of cases are urgently required to avoid awaiting trial in custody being used as an implicit proxy punishment.
Pretoria magistrate Dreyer van der Merwe said aspects of the study concerned him deeply.
“The public’s perception of court is worrying. There are some offenders that should be out on bail, therefore creating space for serious offenders. Offenders without legal representation can get bail on condition that they comply with the relevant procedure and are honest. It is also a waste of taxpayers’ money to keep such offenders in prison,” he said.
Van der Merwe said the public and offenders should learn about their rights and how bail applications worked.
“Most of the offenders that could be out on bail can be released on warning, subject to them complying with regulations. The problem is many offenders give us wrong addresses and other personal information, which leads to them disappearing. That is one of the reasons why they are not being granted bail. We also have to take into consideration whether the offender will be a threat to the public,” he said.
Rodney de Kok of the NPA disagreed with some of the findings of the report: “We are trying to prioritise the high-profile cases first. On the other hand, we cannot keep offenders in prison when there is a lack of evidence against them unless his life is being threatened when released. Proper procedure has to be followed to grant bail and we believe that it is followed.”