Murder is an offence that is regarded as atrocious across all civilisations. It is for this reason that some countries, including Botswana, still retain the death penalty for the offence of murder. In April 2018, the parliament of Botswana amended Section 203 (2) of the Penal Code to introduce a minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years imprisonment for murder with extenuating circumstances. This development was applauded in some quarters as an indication that parliament was getting tougher on murder and had delimited the discretion of the judiciary to impose lenient sentences. This paper evaluates the necessity and desirability of the minimum mandatory sentence within the premise of judicial discretion in sentencing. A pre-amendment assessment of the sentencing patterns of the courts of Botswana, in relation to murder with extenuating circumstances, is undertaken with a view of determining whether there was either inexcusable leniency or flagrant disparities. The paper contends that the courts were already effectively self-regulating in their sentencing for murder with extenuating circumstances, and that an intrusive legislative intervention by way of the minimum mandatory sentence was unnecessary. It is maintained that this erosion of judicial discretion is likely to result in injustices in instances where the particular circumstances of a case would have otherwise justified a sentence of less than 15 years imprisonment.

谋杀是在所有文明中都被视为残暴的罪行。因此，包括博茨瓦纳在内的一些国家仍然保留谋杀罪的死刑。2018年4月，博茨瓦纳议会修订了《刑法》第203条第（2）款，规定对情节较重的谋杀行为至少判处15年有期徒刑。这种发展在某些方面受到称赞，这表明议会对谋杀越来越严厉，并限制了司法机构的自由裁量权，以处以宽大的刑罚。本文在量刑的司法裁量前提下，对最低强制性刑罚的必要性和可取性进行了评估。对博茨瓦纳法院关于情节恶化的谋杀案的判刑方式进行修正前评估，这样做是为了确定是否存在不可宽恕的宽恕或明显的差异。该文件认为，法院在情节恶劣的谋杀案判决中已经进行了有效的自我调节，并且没有必要通过最低限度的强制性刑法进行干预性立法干预。据认为，这种司法裁量权的侵蚀很可能导致不公正，如果案件的特殊情况原本可以判处少于15年的徒刑。而且不需要通过最低限度的强制性刑法进行干预性的立法干预。据认为，这种司法裁量权的侵蚀很可能导致不公正，如果案件的特殊情况原本可以判处少于15年的徒刑。而且不需要通过最低限度的强制性刑法进行干预性的立法干预。据认为，这种司法裁量权的侵蚀很可能导致不公正，如果案件的特殊情况原本可以判处少于15年的徒刑。