Scott-Crossley's parole: the momentary lapse of justice?

In September 2005, Mark Scott-Crossley, a farmer from a province that has gained notoriety in respect of relations between farmers and farm labourers, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the callous murder of Nelson Chisale, who was fed to the lions.

The community and Nelson Chisale’s family found consolation in what appeared to have been justice served; especially given prior incidents where farmers murdered their workers and got only got away with a light slap on the wrist. However, this time it was different; the law had taken its course, but only momentarily.

Scott-Crossley professed his innocence and appealed the conviction and the life imprisonment sentence. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), in a unanimous judgment, upheld an appeal by Scott-Crossley against his conviction for murdering Nelson Chisale.

The SCA found no evidence that Scott-Crossley had participated in the murder of Nelson Chisale, but conceded that there can be no question that he participated in the concealment of the crime of murder and made himself guilty of being an accessory after the fact to that crime.

The SCA found that Scott-Crossley was convicted on evidence of an accomplice, Robert Mnisi, who was a self-confessed criminal, and the two other accused. The SCA found that evidence upon which the trial court relied on for determination of judgment was questionable. Scott-Crossley’s sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to an effective five-year sentence.

Scott-Crossley was recently released on parole after serving only half of his prison sentence. By law he qualified for parole like any other prisoner and the correctional services department afforded him his rights under the law.

His release from prison unleashed a flurry of outrage and expression of disgust at the decision of the Department of Correctional Services. Emotional arguments advanced are that even when a prisoner is due for parole, his release from prison still remains at the discretion of the correctional services; that given the nature of the crime and aggravating circumstances under which the crime was committed, Scott-Crossley should have been denied parole.

Some of these arguments appear valid, especially when placing oneself in a position that Chisale’s family find themselves in and when sympathising with them. However, the administration of justice is not based on emotional considerations and sentiments.

The state prosecutor in this instance had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Scott-Crossley had participated in the murder of Chisale — that when Chisale was thrown into the lion’s den he was still alive — and in doing so had failed Chisale’s family and the community.

The public outrage, while it can be understood, is misdirected at the man whom the Supreme Court of Appeal did not find guilty of murder. The seething anger demonstrated by members of the public had been in some way propped up by the media by continuing to label Scott-Crossley as “the Lion Killer” in spite of the SCA finding him otherwise. The media had continued to create a misleading perception that a convicted murderer had received a light sentence.

If we are to embrace the ideals of restorative justice in criminal cases, then it requires of the perpetrator a deeper understanding of the human impact of their abhorrent behaviour, accepting responsibility and expressing remorse. Scott-Crossley has instead displayed an attitude hostile to such ideals and the consequence is justifiably an outrage from Chisale’s family and the community who still have to contend with the trauma of the crime for which he was imprisoned.

Our criminal laws appear not to accommodate the balance between retribution and restorative justice. Victims of crime, regardless of the prescriptions of the law, have a natural expectation that the offender would be held accountable for his actions. Servicing a full sentence by the offender may fulfill such expectations.

Releasing Scott-Crossley, while the law allowed for it, may have been in violation of all these principles of restorative justice. An expression of remorse to the parole Correctional Services officials is not enough; the perpetrator must be seen to be remorseful in the eyes of the community and family of the victim. The Department of Correctional Services has erred in this instance; even the South African Prisoners’ Organisation for Human Rights (SAPOHR) was disgusted by Scott-Crossley’s release.

Prison overcrowding has been a problem for time immemorial. It thus raises pertinent questions regarding the conduct of the Department of Correctional Services in its application of the Parole and Correctional Supervision legislation. The department is disingenuous before the public when prisoners appear to be released purely for relieving the burden of overcrowding and this is seen as the betrayal of public trust. This perception is fed by the recent release of 11 000 inmates to address prison overcrowding; inmates whom the Department of Justice claims have committed only minor crimes.

It is incidents like these the continue to further demoralise particular members of the police force who risk their lives to put criminals behind bars; only for them to be released because someone has decided not to build more prisons. This is making a mockery of the justice system and sends a wrong message to criminals. The levels of crime will remain unacceptably high for as long as such ridiculous decisions are made.