The changing face of life imprisonment in South Africa

This article investigates the meaning and use of life imprisonment in South Africa in four major legal historical eras: life imprisonment at the time when the death penalty was still lawful in South Africa (including life imprisonment as early as 1906); life imprisonment in the immediate aftermath of the abolition of the death penalty (1994-1998); life imprisonment following the introduction of the minimum sentences legislation (1998-2007); and life imprisonment after December 2007, when the sentencing jurisdiction of the regional courts was extended to include life imprisonment. In assessing the meaning and use of life imprisonment during these four historical periods, the report looks at the law in place at the time and how courts interpreted it to justify the imposition of life imprisonment. It also looks at the relevant statistics to provide and overview of the extent to which life imprisonment was imposed. The report illustrates that despite its evident simplicity, the meaning of life imprisonment in South Africa has changed over time and particularly in the last 20 years. These changes, especially since the early 1990s, were the result of two macro political forces. On the one hand was the democratisation of South Africa with the enactment of a new constitution, with a progressive Bill of Rights and protection of the right to life and provision for the right not to be subjected inhumane and degrading punishment or treatment. Pulling in the other direction was government’s reaction to crime, characterised by its over-emphasis on punishment and retribution. By 31 March 2008, South Africa’s prisons were home to 8092 prisoners serving life sentences. In the last 10 years South African courts sentenced more people to life imprisonment than they had done in the previous century. The meaning of life imprisonment has also changed drastically during this period. The increase in the number of prisoners serving life and the consequent changes in the meaning of life imprisonment did not happen by themselves, and this issue will be interrogated in this article.This publication was made possible through the financial support of the Open Society Foundation (SA). CSPRI also wishes to acknowledge the generous support of the Ford Foundation to the work of the Community Law Centre