Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:40:05.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Juvenile v. State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Hurst Hannum
Hurst Hannum*
Affiliation:
The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 84 , Issue 3 , July 1990 , pp. 768 - 770
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Court’s order setting aside the sentence of caning was unanimous, but two judges limited their concurrence to the particular facts of the case.

2 No. 64/89, slip op. at 3.

3 Id. at 7–8.

4 State v. Ncube, [1988] 2 S. Afr. L. Rep. 702 (Z. Sup. Ct.).

5 Whipping was described as

somewhat reminiscent of flogging at the whipping post, a barbaric occurrence particularly prevalent a century or so past. It is a punishment, not only inherently brutal and cruel, … but one which strips the recipient of all dignity and self-respect. It is relentless in its severity and is contrary to the traditional humanity practised by almost the whole of the civilised world, being incompatible with the evolving standards of decency.

It also was noted that the procedure was “easily subject to abuse.” Id. at 722, quoted in slip op. at 2.

6 Slip op. at 9.

7 26 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1978), 2 Eur. Hum. Rts. Rep. 1 (1979–80) (holding that birching as a punishment in the Isle of Man violated the European Convention on Human Rights prohibition against degrading treatment or punishment).

8 48 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1982), 4 Eur. Hum. Rts. Rep. 293 (1982) (corporal punishment in schools in Scotland did not constitute inhuman or degrading punishment).

9 Eur. Comm’n Hum. Rts., Report of July 18, 1986 (unreported) (single cane stroke on hand as means of corporal punishment in school found to be “degrading” and in violation of European Convention on Human Rights).

10 356 U.S. 86 (1958) (citing the Court’s reference to “evolving standards of decency”).

11 GA Res. 40/33, 40 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 53) at 204, UN Doc. A/40/53 (1985).

12 See, e.g., Christenson, Using Human Rights Law to Inform Due Process and Equal Protection Analyses, 52 U. Cin. L. Rev. 3 (1983); Lillich, The Constitution and International Human Rights, 83 AJIL851 (1989).

13 The Enforcement of Human Rights Committee of the International Law Association has recently undertaken a global survey, to be completed in 1992, of the use of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in domestic law.