release in the event that circumstances meant that punishment was no longer “exceptional justified.” Germany The South African constitutional system was largely modelled in similar lines to the German constitutional model of adjudication and for that reason, the jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional Court often makes reference to German decisions. Considering the Zimbabwe Constitution’s similarity to that in South Africa, it can therefore be argued that the consideration of German jurisprudence is of high persuasive value. In 1977, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany decided on the Imprisonment” case. “Life The Court considered whether a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for a murder of cruelty” was compatible with the German Constitution. “wanton The Court held that the State could not turn an offender into an object of crime prevention to the detriment of his constitutionally protected right to social worth or human dignity. The Court held that respect for human dignity and the rule of law meant the humane enforcement of life imprisonment was possible only when the prisoner was given concrete and “a realistically attainable chance” to regain his freedom at some later point in time. A life sentence struck at the very heart of human dignity if it stripped the prisoner of all hope of ever earning his freedom. The linked the right to human dignity to the requirement that punishment be aimed at rehabilitation. An offender had to be given the chance, after atoning for his crime, to re-enter society. The State was obligated to take all measures necessary for the achievement of that goal. The Court emphasised the individual nature of the assessment of rehabilitation. For a criminal who remained a threat to society, the goal of rehabilitation might never be fulfilled; in that case, it was the particular personal circumstances of the criminal which might rule out successful rehabilitation rather than the sentence of life imprisonment itself. The Court held that, subject to these conclusions, life imprisonment for murder was not a senseless or disproportionate punishment. The fact that, under the German Criminal Code, life prisoners
release in the event that “exceptional circumstances meant that punishment was no longer justified.” Germany The South African constitutional system was largely modelled in similar lines to the German constitutional model of adjudication and for that reason, the jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional Court often makes reference to German decisions. Considering the Zimbabwe Constitution’s similarity to that in South Africa, it can therefore be argued that the consideration of German jurisprudence is of high persuasive value. In 1977, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany decided on the “Life Imprisonment” case. The Court considered whether a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for a murder of “wanton cruelty” was compatible with the German Constitution. The Court held that the State could not turn an offender into an object of crime prevention to the detriment of his constitutionally protected right to social worth or human dignity. The Court held that respect for human dignity and the rule of law meant the humane enforcement of life imprisonment was possible only when the prisoner was given “a concrete and realistically attainable chance” to regain his freedom at some later point in time. A life sentence struck at the very heart of human dignity if it stripped the prisoner of all hope of ever earning his freedom. The linked the right to human dignity to the requirement that punishment be aimed at rehabilitation. An offender had to be given the chance, after atoning for his crime, to re-enter society. The State was obligated to take all measures necessary for the achievement of that goal. The Court emphasised the individual nature of the assessment of rehabilitation. For a criminal who remained a threat to society, the goal of rehabilitation might never be fulfilled; in that case, it was the particular personal circumstances of the criminal which might rule out successful rehabilitation rather than the sentence of life imprisonment itself. The Court held that, subject to these conclusions, life imprisonment for murder was not a senseless or disproportionate punishment. The fact that, under the German Criminal Code, life prisoners
Applicants%27%20Consolidated%20Heads%20of%20Argument%20in%20Makoni%20v%20The%20Commissioner%20of%20Prisons%20and%20Another.docx