sentencing factors and child molestation

7/28/2019 Sentencing Factors and Child Molestation

1/8

Sentencing Factors and Child

Molestation

Christopher Richard Isaac

21798311


2/8

P a g e | 2

2 Sentencing Factors and Child MolestationBy Christopher Richard Isaac

21798311

Table of Contents

Essay Question: __________________________________________________ 3Word Count: __________________________________________________ 3

1. Introduction: ________________________________________________ 32. Case Study: _________________________________________________ 33. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors: _____________________________ 4

3.1. Mitigating Factors: ________________________________________ 53.2. Aggravating Factors: ______________________________________ 5

4. Conclusion: _________________________________________________ 65. References: _________________________________________________ 7


3/8

P a g e | 3


21798311

Essay Question:

With reference to an actual court room case study, provide an outline of

extenuating and aggravating factors for purposes of sentencing.

Word Count:

1134 (Not Including References in Text)

1. Introduction:In the case observed on the 16

thof May a trial of child molestation was

conducted at the Roodepoort Courts. This case was not concluded on that day,

however, there was enough testimony given on that day to examine potential

mitigating and aggravating factors surrounding the potential sentencing of the

accused.

2. Case Study:The Roodepoort being examined in the contexts of extenuating and aggravating

factors is a case of child molestation. For the sake of privacy no names will be

used in reference to the trial due to the sensitive nature of the trial. This is both

for the sake of the accused and the prosecuting party. This case involves the

grandfather of two girls who has been accused of having touched the youngest

girl inappropriately. The girls were seven and ten at the time of the alleged

incident. He is also accused of having paid the girls to touch him. On the 16th

of

May 2011 both the mother of the children and one of the children herself gave

their testimony to the court. This is the part of the trial that was observed.

On this date the mothers testimony reviewed how she came to know about the

incident that allegedly happened on the 15th of May 2010 and what was

supposed to have happened on the date of the incident. On the 8th

of July 2010

the mother found her younger daughters personal journal which they had got

from McDonalds three days prior to her reading it. The mother had also had


4/8

P a g e | 4


21798311

the child examined by a doctor who confirmed that she had been molested. The

childs school performance also took a noted drop, she stopped doing extra-

curricular activities, seemed to be less social and seemed to be scared.

In the younger daughters testimony (now 8 years old) the trial was conducted

in such a way that it was congruent with the Criminal Procedure Act (1977:4).

So an intermediary was sworn in to conduct the examination of the child by

proxy through video feed in a separate room to the court in accordance with the

Child Care Act (1983:7). All questions were aimed toward the intermediary

who in turn asked the child the questions in a less intimidating manner. In the

childs testimony she was asked what had happened on that occasion and said

that she and her sister had been in their grandfathers part of the house when he

touched her in between her legs under her clothing as indicated by the child

pointing to where she had been touched on a doll. The grandmother was in the

other part of the house while the parents were at the girls uncles house. It is

uncertain as to whether or not the payment of money for the girls to touch the

grandfather took place at the same time though the defence claimed that this

was not solicitation in any kind but rather money for them to spend outside at

the shops and not for sexual favours.

3. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors:In the case discussed above there is a strong need for the examination of the

mitigating and aggravating factors because the implications of either could be

severe given the seriousness of the allegations. First of all this is a hypothetical

examination of mitigating and aggravating factors because this case has yet to

come to a conclusion regarding the guilt of the defendant. Thus, we must

assume the guilt of the defendant which it must be noted is not necessarily the

eventual outcome of the trial. As there is compelling evidence for both parties

in that the childs testimony gives us an indication of guilt while the journal

evidence submitted by the mother is lacking because of the fact that it would


5/8

P a g e | 5


21798311

have been the first year of school for the younger child and she likely would not

have had the capability to properly articulate what transpired in writing.

3.1.Mitigating Factors:In almost all trials the admittance of guilt is almost always a mitigating factor

(Tiedt, 2010:66). However, in this case the defendant did not plead guilty. This

means that this factor does not mitigate the defendants actions. So in the

process of assuming that the court has found the defendant guilty this will in

fact begin to act as an aggravating factor for him as it begins to show a lack of

remorse which is unfair to assume given the hypothetical nature of this

examination.

Other mitigating factors in this case would be prison conditions. As indicated

by Kriel (2005:105) the prison populations in the prison system are far too high

and thus should act as a mitigating factor in consideration for alternative

sentencing. This should also be taken into account considering that most child

molesters are found to be unaggressive (Reich, Amit, & Siegel, 2009:306) and,

thus, likely to be victimised in prison. Another consideration of mitigating

factors would be to consider the possibility as suggested by Van der Hoven and

Ovens (2003:24) that paedophilia could be equated to an addiction. This would

serve to act as a mitigating factor due to the fact that if it is an addiction the

offender would have been acting out of his normal frame of mind.

The fact that this is also the first and only offence will serve as a mitigating

factor as it shows that this is not normal behaviour for the defendant (Naude,

Prinsloo & Ladikos, 2003:67). Especially considering the offenders old age,

however, this may also serve to discount the idea of taking into account

addiction as a mitigating factor.

3.2.Aggravating Factors:There are several factors in this trial that could act as seriously aggravating

factors in this case. The first of which is obviously the severity of the crime


6/8

P a g e | 6


21798311

itself which is likely subject to a mandatory sentence according to the Criminal

Law Amendment Act (1997:48). The long term psychological effects of an

incident like this give this factor more weight as the incident may not be

aggressively physical but does tend to severely affect the childs life in the

future which obviously disadvantages the child (Bartol & Bartol, 2008:426). As

mentioned before the fact that the offender pleaded innocent and was proven to

be guilty will factor in as a questionable lack of remorse. Another aggravating

factor in this case would be the massive abuse of trust perpetrated by the

offender by exerting domination over the child (Davis & Snyman, 2005:185) as

well as potentially causing the mistrust of other family members.

4. Conclusion:Having examined the mitigating and aggravating factors involved it is unlikely

that the mitigating factors will outweigh the aggravating factors due to the

nature of the crime. The abuse of trust and disadvantaging of children is an

extremely taboo practice in modern society. This is so much so that if found

guilty the defendant will likely be on a public register of sex offenders for the

remainder of his life. However, it must be noted, once again, that this is only if

the defendant in the trial is found guilty of perpetrating this crime.


7/8

P a g e | 7


21798311

5. References:Bartol, C.R., & Bartol, A.M., (2008). Criminal Behaviour: A Psychological

Approach. Pearson Education Inc.: United States of America: New Jersey.

Child Care Act. (1983), Retrieved on May 21, 2011 from

http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1983-074_childcareact.pdf

Criminal Law Amendment Act. (1997), Retrieved on May 21, 2011 from

http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/num_act/claa1997205.pdf

Davis, L., Snyman, R., (2005). Victimology in South Africa. Van Schaik

Publishers: Pretoria: Hatfield.

Kriel, J., (2005). Emerging Trends Among the South African Inmate Population

and Persons Subject to Community Corrections.Acta Criminologica 18(2),100-

115.

Naude, B., Prinsloo, J., & Ladikos, A., (2003). Magistrates and Prosecuters

Sentencing Preferences Based on Crime Case Scenarios. Acta Criminologica

16(5), 67-72.Reich, W.A., Amit, U., & Siegel, H.I., (2009). Perception of self and others in

male sex offenders against children: Schema content and its relation to criminal

sexual behaviour.Journal of Sexual Aggression 15(3), 305-317.

Subordinate Legislation in Respect of the Criminal Procedure Act, (1977).

Retrieved on May 21, 2011 from

http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/regulations/r2006/CRIMINAL%20PROC

EDURE%20ACTfin.pdf

Tiedt, A., (2010). Turning Yourself In: What Sentencing Discount can be

Expected for Assisting Authorities.Law Society Journal, 66-68.
http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1983-074_childcareact.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1983-074_childcareact.pdfhttp://www.saflii.org/za/legis/num_act/claa1997205.pdfhttp://www.saflii.org/za/legis/num_act/claa1997205.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/regulations/r2006/CRIMINAL%20PROCEDURE%20ACTfin.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/regulations/r2006/CRIMINAL%20PROCEDURE%20ACTfin.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/regulations/r2006/CRIMINAL%20PROCEDURE%20ACTfin.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/regulations/r2006/CRIMINAL%20PROCEDURE%20ACTfin.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/regulations/r2006/CRIMINAL%20PROCEDURE%20ACTfin.pdfhttp://www.saflii.org/za/legis/num_act/claa1997205.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1983-074_childcareact.pdf


8/8

P a g e | 8


21798311

Van der Hoven, A. & Ovens, M., (2003). A Forensic Case Study of a

Paedophile Illustrating the Presentation and Value of the Pre-Sentence

Evaluation Report.Acta Criminologica 16(2), 19-29.

sentencing factors and child molestation

Documents