Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorHoctor, Shannon Vaughn.
dc.creatorChikoko, Vimbai.
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-26T13:01:26Z
dc.date.available2018-11-26T13:01:26Z
dc.date.created2017
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10413/15857
dc.descriptionMaster of Laws. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg 2017.en_US
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_US
dc.subject.otherSentencing.en_US
dc.subject.other"substantial and compelling".en_US
dc.subject.otherMandatory minimum sentences.en_US
dc.subject.otherMinnesota sentencing guidelines.en_US
dc.subject.otherS v Malgas.en_US
dc.subject.otherCriminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.en_US
dc.subject.otherCriminal Law (Sentencing) Amendment Act 38 of 2007.en_US
dc.subject.otherCrime prevention.en_US
dc.subject.otherCrime deterrrence.en_US
dc.subject.otherDeparture from minimum sentences.en_US
dc.titleThe interpretation of 'substantial and compelling' by South African courts and a comparison with Minnesota sentencing guidelines.en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.notesNo abstract provided.en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record