It is diametrically opposed to the values that fuel our progress towards being a more humane and caring society. It would be a negation of those values precisely where we should be laying a strong foundation for them, in the young; the future custodians of this fledgeling democracy.
[64] We nevertheless need to examine available resources to determine whether there are indeed appropriate sentencing options. It has to be borne in mind that the presence of various options in a number of legislative provisions may not always reflect practical realities. It is important that resources should be made available and that they should be utilised properly, so that the values expressed in the Constitution may be upheld and maintained. It bears mentioning that although changes in the criminal justice system have been occurring, albeit at a painfully slow pace, there has been a perceptible shift in approach and attitude towards punishment. I mention three aspects of this process:
[65] (a) There has been a shift of emphasis with regard to the overall aims of punishment. There is a general acceptance, as observed by Schreiner JA in R v Karg,[1] that the retributive aspect has tended to give way to the aspects of prevention and correction. New and innovative systems and procedures have been introduced and some of them have been incorporated into legislation. The traditional objectives of punishment, namely, prevention, retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation, are no doubt still applicable. Still applicable, albeit in modified form, are the remarks of Holmes JA that:
"Punishment should fit the criminal as well as the crime, be fair to the accused and to society, and be blended with a measure of mercy … the element of mercy, a hallmark of civilised and enlightened administration, should not be overlooked, lest the Court be in danger of reducing itself to the plane of the criminal …"[2]
