There are a few ways to look at the release from jail of Charmaine Phillips.
Phillips was christened Bonnie in what was in 1983 the story of how a couple went on a murder and robbery spree. Bonnie was sentenced to life imprisonment, while her Clyde — Piet Grundlingh — was sentenced to death and hanged in July 1985.
The first, and probably the most obvious, is the futility of sending people to jail for more than one life term. For those in favour of the death penalty, their argument that a life sentence means at most 25 years has been bolstered. Phillips has after all not served half of the four life sentences she was condemned to. In fact, she has not even served 25 years.
She has, of course, apologised and maybe the families of her victims have forgiven her and sleeping dogs have been allowed to lie. But the dead are still dead. And, this being South Africa, I am sure there will be murmurs about whether she would have had another chance if she were black.
But all of these arguments, right or wrong, ignore a more important point about what the penal system and its reform is about.
Accepting that there are many definitions of what the penal system is and how it should be reformed, most agree that broadly prisons are about rehabilitating offenders, preferably giving them some form of occupational training and, after satisfying prison officials of progress, returning those offenders back into society as functional members.
Scholars of penal reform have maintained that the process should bear in mind that the person known as a mere number has the same human rights and feelings as all of us.
Phillips will probably be made a case study of penal system and reform.
For ordinary people, how she goes about her daily business will determine their attitudes as to whether offenders who display rehabilitation should be let out before they have served their full terms.
For correctional services, the challenge will be whether they are able to keep tabs on Phillips to ensure that she does as her parole conditions demand. The department has in the past complained about the dearth of staff to oversee prisoners released on parole.
While one has sympathy for those whose hearts are still wrenched by what transpired more than 20 years ago, this type of eye-for-eye justice does not have a place in the civilised society we are trying to create — that is, a society that retains its belief in the rule of law and the appropriate punishment for those who flout the rules. All of this is done taking into account what’s in the interest of society, prospects of rehabilitation, the circumstances of the accused, the interest of justice, and the nature and extent of the offence.
I would submit that sentencing a lovestruck 19-year-old to death would not have been in the best interest of society. A punishment that saved society from her trigger-happy fingers for as long as possible was in the best interest of justice given the extent and seriousness of her crimes.
The prospects of rehabilitation as we now know were rightly found to exist. Even more importantly, it is heartening that someone saw beyond ”the ex-con” or murderer of four men, and invested in Phillips’s talent as a hairdresser.
She has landed a job with what has been described as Kroonstad’s trendiest hair salon — Salon David — where the manager was quoted as saying that Phillips is a talented hair stylist as evidenced by the work she had done on local prison warders.
It is a lesson that hopefully all prospective employers will consider a work seeker’s ability and not condemn them forever.
In short, Phillips and her release is a reminder that everybody does deserve a second chance.