Those who cannot listen straight, remember straight or intervene dispassionately are unlikely to be any more objective when weighing conflicting testimony. Nor was this judge. Nor by inference were the two assessors who sit with a judge in any trial where the death sentence might be imposed. The judge ruled on points of law. The three of them decided by simple majority the facts of the case and whether extenuating circumstances existed sufficient to justify not imposing a sentence of death. Over the Sharpeville accused there was no dissent.
KeywordsCommon Purpose Death Sentence Ankle Injury Professional Footballer Nature Ofthe
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 63.The judge’s reasoning against Oupa is demolished by E. Cameron, ‘Inferential Reasoning and Extenuation in the Case of the Sharpeville Six’, (1988) 1 SACJ 243–60.Google Scholar