He and his lover Casca were the sole survivors of the dreaded Eclipse which was caused by their former friend and leader, Griffith, selling them and all of their comrades in the Band of the Hawk out to the Godhand in order to become a demon lord so that he could fulfill his life-long dream after a year of crippling torture.
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."An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." The Cycle of Revenge is one way to show that "two wrongs make a right" is a logically fallacious claim by deconstructing its as use as justification for vengeance.
It, more often than not, results in A Tragedy of Impulsiveness. It's also very. The first-degree murder case He said cell phone data doesn’t constitute probable cause, that police have not found the gun used to kill Olsen and there wasn't any eye-witness testimony.
Susan Lucille Wright (born April 24, ) is an American woman from Houston, Texas who made headlines in for stabbing her husband, Jeff Wright, times and then burying his body in their backyard.
She was convicted of first-degree murder in , and is currently serving a year sentence at Correctional Facility in Gatesville, Texas as of Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, – June 11, ) was a United States Army veteran and security guard who bombed the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He was convicted of 11 United States federal offenses, and was sentenced to death . Whether sufficient identification evidence supports the conviction; and II.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Conn, beyond a reasonable doubt, as the person who shot Patterson.” Appellant’s Brief at identified Conn as revenge for the earlier argument. His argument presents a. Some people can be filled with the desire for Revenge so greatly that they will pursue it at any cost.
Their pursuit of it can be unreasonably dangerous to themselves and/or their loved ones (which in extreme cases can make it a Suicide Mission), or it can lead to unreasonable and irrevocable consequence to their mission/objective.