Snyman (1995:18) mentions three relative theories and further explains that “based on these theories, punishment is only a means to a secondary end or purpose”. However, the secondary purpose will always differ from one relative theory to the other. The first relative theory is the preventative theory. The second is the deterrent theory, and the third is the reformative or rehabilitation theory. If, on the other hand, one follows a relative theory, one looks to the future: the emphasis is on the object, for example, prevention and reformation, which one wishes to achieve by means of punishment. Each of these relative theories will be discussed.
2.5.2.1 Preventive Theory
According to the preventive theory, the purpose of punishment is to prevent criminality. Prevention consists of two particular aspects: general prevention and individual
28
prevention or incapacitation (Snyman, 2013:19). Senna and Siegel (2002:402) state that general prevention is the integral aim of criminal law to prevent criminal activities. Whereas individual prevention that involves incapacitation are measures to prevent the individual offender from committing further criminal activities
(http://www.uir.unisa.ac.za).
General prevention is aimed at discouraging people from committing crimes (Muthaphuli, 2012:73). However, Snyman (1995:20) cautions that since the purpose of punishment according to the preventative theory is to prevent crime, this theory can overlap with both deterrent and the reformative or rehabilitation theories. Both these theories focus on the methods to prevent crime. Hence, it is of paramount importance that these theories should not be applied in isolation. Therefore, each theory must be applied in conjunction with others in order to obtain effective results.
2.5.2.2 Deterrence Theory
In the previous section, it was mentioned that based on the preventative theory, the purpose of punishment is the prevention of crime. While according to the deterrent theory, the purpose of punishment is to deter an individual or society from committing a crime. Therefore, individual deterrence means that an individual is punished for past crimes and deterred from committing further crimes. General deterrence means that the whole community is deterred from committing crimes (Snyman, 1995:21). Imposing a sentence of imprisonment to an offender might be a general deterrence to the community, as a signal that crime does not pay (Senna & Siegel, 2002:402).
The theory of deterrence is based on the idea that crime will be reduced because people would refrain from offending for fear of being apprehended and punished (Muthaphuli, 2012:76). Rigolli (2013:246) highlights that utilitarian philosophers believed that people are rational beings and as such, they become cautious when it comes to making choices especially if these choices will have either positive or negative
29
consequences. They believed that people would always prefer pleasure instead of pain. The mere fact that deterrence involves punishment is enough to prevent potential offenders from committing crime.
According to Fagin (2007:439), deterrence is based on the principle that punishment should prevent the criminal from re-offending. Such punishment includes economic sanctions, such as fines, and corporal punishment and the threat of bodily harm based on the premise that people seek pleasure and avoid pain. This means that human beings take actions that provide pleasure and avoid those that bring pain. Reid (2012:8) explains deterrence as punishment, which is imposed to prevent the offender from engaging in criminal acts. This is based on the assumption that the perpetrator would fear punishment, learn his/her lesson and refrain from criminal activities.
The purpose of deterrence is to discourage the offender from committing crimes in future. The notion behind deterrence is to provide the offender with practical effects of punishment, which will deter him/her from committing crimes in future. It is also crucial that the punishment must be very closely linked to the crime, so that potential offenders can relate to the punishment. If an offender commits murder, a long period of imprisonment is imposed and a message is sent to other potential offenders.
2.5.3 Incapacitation
According to Scheb and Scheb (2002:20), incapacitation forms part of specific deterrence aimed at preventing a person from committing further crimes. The purpose of incapacitation is to restrict a person’s freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is restricted when an individual commits crime. The aim is to prevent an individual from committing additional crimes. Such restriction can be temporary or permanent. Incarceration is another form of restriction of movement. When offenders are incarcerated, they cannot commit crimes anywhere in the community. However, this cannot stop them from committing crimes inside the prison (Muthaphuli, 2008:48).
30
Reid (1993:9) explains incapacitation as it has been practiced in the past. This aim of punishment was to prevent the offender from committing further offences. If an offender, say for example, is a thief, he/she is incapacitated by cutting off his/her hands, gouging out the eyes of a spy, castrating rapists and disfiguring prostitutes to make them unattractive. In primitive societies, banishment from communities was often used to prevent a recurrence of forbidden behaviour. Presently, incarceration is still the most common mode of incapacitation to keep offenders under control and prevent them from committing further offences (Cole, 1983:357).
According to Fagin (2007:44), the theory of incapacitation assumes that offenders cannot be rehabilitated. As such, it will never be safe to release them back into society. In addition, Muthaphuli (2008:48) has already cautioned that incarceration may not deter an offender from committing further crimes while in custody. The only guarantee to incarceration is the certainty and peace of mind afforded to the, at least for the duration of the offender’s incarceration.