manner in which and where corporal punishment should be inflicted. This is sometimes not done resulting in juveniles being abused during the process. There is a shortage of medical practitioners to urgently assess the child before the punishment can be executed. The punishment may have to be inflicted before the report is produced for the child not to be incarcerated. A designated officer should administer “moderate” corporal punishment in the presence of a medical officer. The parents of a child who is to receive corporal punishment have a right to be present when it is being administered. Corporal punishment in Zimbabwe applies to boys only. Corporal punishment should be administered in private but in practice this has not been followed in all cases. However, it is pertinent to note that the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe is reserving judgment on a corporal punishment case brought before it. The High Court has repeatedly encouraged the use of corporal punishment for serious offences such as rape and unlawful entry into premises as an alternative to imprisonment. In the case of the State v Hunda&Anor HH-124-10 the court held that a 17 year old accused who had been convicted of theft and unlawful entry could have been sentenced to corporal punishment, plus a wholly suspended prison term. He was now above the age of 18, and must be treated as an adult, in the sense that corporal punishment is no longer applicable. The offence was a serious one. He must now be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, as he could no longer be subjected to corporal punishment. Other forms of punishment, like community service or a fine, would trivialize the serious offence he committed. In the State v Mahuni HH-4-09, a 14 year old accused had sexually assaulted two girls who were aged 6 years. He was charged with, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of rape. The magistrate disregarded the recommendation of the probation officer that the accused receive corporal punishment, saying that such a punishment would be too lenient. She sentenced him to 9 years imprisonment, of which three years were suspended on appropriate conditions. The High Court held that the magistrate had misdirected herself. To sentence such an immature person to prison at all, let alone for the length imposed, was so harsh as to induce a sense of shock. She also misdirected herself in holding that corporal punishment was lenient. Corporal punishment is brutal, inhuman and degrading and can never be characterized as lenient. Juvenile offenders convicted of rape should not be treated as little adults. Their very ages denote their mental immaturity. Non-custodial options other than fines and community service should be pursued. Some of these options are counselling, institutionalization in juvenile reformatories and corporal punishment. The choices in Zimbabwe are limited by our level of economic development and our prevailing economic challenges which impact negatively on the development of new institutions and the funding and staffing of existing ones. Our courts therefore are obliged to resort to the disproportionate use of corporal punishment, coupled with a suspended term of imprisonment as the only available and viable option. Besides these special provisions dealing with the punishment of juveniles, the CPEA also provides various sentencing options. Section 338 of the Act prohibits the passing of the death sentence upon a person who was under the age of 21 years at the time of the commission of the offence. This is also supported by the Costitution where it provides that the death penalty must not be emposed on a person who was less than twenty-one years when the offence was committed81.This complies with international human rights law which prohibits the death sentence on juvenile offenders. The Act however does not outlaw life imprisonment for juvenile offenders. In practice children are not being sentenced to life imprisonment. This Act is also silent on the effects of mandatory sentences on children hence in some cases like stock theft juveniles are sentenced to imprisonment for the prescribed mandatory period. A court can also impose a fine and community service upon a convicted juvenile.82 Community service can be useful in rehabilitating the juvenile offender. The Act is also relevant in juvenile justice in that it empowers the courts to postpone the passing of sentence and to suspend the operation of the sentence passed.83 Both options can give a child the 81 Section 48(c) (i) of the Constitution Section 336 of the CPEA 83 Section 358 of the CPEA 82 19