Monthly Archives: July 2017

SOUTH Africa is renowned globally for violent crime and rape. Law enforcement in South Africa has a monumental job.

The Free Market Foundation (FMF) continues to advocate for radical transformation of the criminal justice system to ensure law, order, peace and security in South Africa, and the transition from the apartheid-era authoritarian behemoth into a system that serves to protect the people and holds the government to account.

Decriminalising victimless crimes, removing incentives for corruption within discretionary powers and keeping the judiciary independent is a good start.

The FMF calls on the government to abolish victimless crimes, which include prostitution, some traffic offences, using drugs and contravening exchange regulations. Victimless crimes are those acts or omissions criminalised by the government despite there being no complainant. These are distinguished from victimisation crimes where an individuals rights have been criminally violated. Most victimisation crimes exist without having to be declared in an act or regulation to be unlawful, such as assault, theft, rape, kidnapping and murder.

Pursuing victimless crimes prevents the police from fighting real criminals. Police resources are under pressure. One way to alleviate this is to stop wasting time and resources pursuing value-subjective crimes where no individual rights have been violated and allow the police to focus on real crimes against people and property. The practical case is obvious police resources targeted efficiently but there is also a philosophical argument. Our liberal democratic society places a high value on individual liberty. The decriminalisation of victimless crimes would mean legalising the actions of a substantial number of ordinary, well-intentioned citizens who aspire only to get on with life without violating the rights of those around them but who, often without intention, fall foul of the law.

The sheer number of traffic regulations, which are often arbitrary and sometimes unknown to motorists, turn practically all citizens into criminals. Citizens seeking help with drug abuse are deemed criminals. Outlawing prostitution the act of engaging in voluntary conduct for money turns many people, mainly women, into criminals and the recent resolution by the South African Law Reform Commission to keep prostitution a crime is mistaken.

Corruption is a major crime in SA. Yet the major cause of corruption is the increasing use of discretionary powers by officials, which presents those who hold it with irresistible incentives. Wherever government has the discretion to grant or withhold contracts, licences, protection, subsidies and other privileges, there is real or suspected corruption.

The only way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money first, and ensure officials are bound by strict and clear criteria in exercising their powers.

A critical step towards a modern and independent legal system is to stop the ill-conceived idea of only appointing judges with a progressive or social-minded approach. This is dangerous and contrary to the rule of law. An independent judiciary is fundamental to a well-functioning democracy.

Politicising the judiciary will make the corruption problem worse and the decision by the ruling party to consider making a progressive mind-set of social activism part of the criteria for appointing judges to the bench is a dangerous move. In this case, progressive means the judiciary must favour government action in economic and social affairs rather than emphasise individual rights.

FMF legal researcher Martin van Staden said: Judges should follow the letter of the Constitution and not the ideological preferences of whomever controls government. Constitutional democracy places less emphasis on which political party governs at any particular time and more on the values in the Constitution.

South African judges are renowned for their eminence, impartiality and respect for the law. If value-subjective appointment criteria such as social activism are applied to the judiciary, the outcome is unpredictable and stands to delegitimise the courts. Politicising the judiciary will take our courts out of the dispute-resolving business and make it a third house of Parliament.

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

Follow this link:

Justice system must change - News24

I would like to question the reasoning and feasibility behind the Henry County Board of Supervisors approval of the Henry County Sheriff's Department's request for funding and building a new jail.

The projected cost for building the new jail is nearly $70 million. After the state rebate, which also includes local taxpayer money, the cost to the Henry County government is still almost $52 million. This breaks down to a cost of around $1,000 per Henry County citizen based on 2016 Census estimates. If you factor in the number of households only, the cost rises to over $2,300, and this is just the cost of building the jail. Let's look at other costs.

The proposed site of the jail once housed one of the largest industrial employers in our area and a beautiful country club. It has a scenic view of the Smith River, immediate access to 220 Business and is less than 2 miles from 58 West. DuPont still owns a considerable amount of land at the site. It is willing to donate 10 acres and sell another 20 to the county at a cost of $500,000. Based on the 14 percent increase in property tax going into effect this fiscal year, it will likely cost the county over $3,500 in lost revenue per year by coming off the tax rolls. It will also make the rest of the 450-acre site less marketable for potential employers or industry.

Once complete, the amount of time, gas, wear and tear on vehicles would rise to transport inmates to the Henry County Courthouse for trial. It is nearly 7 miles across town and, based on Google Maps, takes just under 20 minutes to travel on a day with light traffic one way. Compared to now, both figures go up exponentially.

The county is budgeting $444,000 to house overflow inmates in other facilities this fiscal year. This is up 31 percent from last year and 127 percent from fiscal year 2016. What is the cause for this increase? Did the crime rate really rise that much? Did a specific cost in housing inmates rise? Even so, at $444,000 a year, it would take over 100 years of use to justify building a new jail based on the cost to the county. It has also been said that the new jail will only meet the county's needs for the first 10 years after it is completed.

The current jail was built in 1974 when the population was about 55,300. 2016 Census estimates are 3,800 less, at 51,500. A recent publication projects the county population to drop 25 percent more over the next 3 decades. Do we really think the crime rate will rise that much when we are forecast to lose that chunk of our population? If we do lose that many, should those that stay bear a greater burden to pay for a jail? Moreover, bear in mind that we just built a new $20,000,000 school as well.

Could we lower inmate occupancy by releasing those accused of victimless crimes, like drug possession, on their own recognizance or even electronic monitoring? Is it possible that legislation potentially forthcoming could lessen the demand for inmate space in the future, putting the burden of empty beds on the taxpayer? I'm not even going to touch on the moral dilemma of government entities trying to profit off of those incarcerated.

If it is deemed absolutely necessary to have a new jail, has the county looked at other options? The first I would suggest is to remodel the current jail, with a small economical addition to be added on the same parcel the current jail is located on. There is plenty of space surrounding the current facility that could more than double the current local occupancy to meet the need. Patrick County built a jail in 2011 rated for 126 inmates at a cost of $11 million, so I know we can do much better than $70 million. Another option would be to explore a regional partnership with other jurisdictions to offset our expense and liability. The City of Martinsville has recently stated that they would like to explore possibilities of a new jail.

With a projected loss of population and tax revenue, can we afford the plan to build a new jail?

Eric Bowling is a resident of Henry County

Visit link:

BOWLING: Can we afford a new jail? - Martinsville Bulletin