SDG 16 and the Impact of the CCR on Pre-trial Detention of Children in South Africa
Loading...
Date
2020
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Speculum Juris
Abstract
The danger to children of “criminal
contamination” while in detention
pending trial cannot be underestimated.1
Unfortunately, a large number of children
are reported to be in pre-trial detention
yearly. Sustainable Development Goal 16
(Goal 16), through indicator 16.3.2 seeks
to reduce the number of unsentenced
detained persons (including children). The
essence of this indicator is that awaiting
trial persons (for various reasons) should
not be detained in custody unnecessarily.
For children, such pre-trial detention can
lead to devastating consequences such as
loss of school time, mental and emotional
breakdown and exposure to various forms of
abuse. Having in mind the various negative
consequences caused by detention, Article
37(b) of the Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC) prohibits unlawful and
arbitrary arrest, detention or imprisonment
of children and if lawfully used, it is only
to be a measure of last resort and for the
shortest period. The requirement in Article
37(b) that any detention of children be only
as a measure of last resort and for the very
shortest period of time can be used as an
instrument to achieve the objective of Goal
16, indicator 16.3.2. In light of indicator
16.3.2, this article will thus discuss the
impact of this CRC provision in reducing the
number of unsentenced detained children in
South Africa, thus contributing towards the
achievement of this goal. The article will give
a statistical analysis of the progress made
by South Africa in reducing the number of
unsentenced children detained in secure
care and correctional facilities as a result of
applying the CRC provisions.
Description
Keywords
Deprivation of Liberty, Pre-Trial Detention, SDG 16, Due Process
Citation
Sloth-Nielsen, Julia (with Sheena Mutsvara) ‘SDG 16 and the impact of the CCR on pre-trial detention of children in South Africa’ (2020) 34:1 Speculum Juris pp. 1-14