In this contribution, I attempt to show that Pat Carlen S (2013) argument, that the rehabilitation paradigm in the United Kingdom (UK) is redundant, is similarly applicable to the situation in postapartheid South Africa. My point of departure is therefore a shift of emphasis in attempting to apply theory from the developed world to the Third World. Since local conditions obviously differ from those in the UK, I focus my method, in particular, on a critical criminological evaluation of five aspects unique to the South African experience. This is within the context of Piketty's (2014) thesis that deepening inequality will continue exponentially, unless there is effective intervention (which seems unlikely). I consider this idea of possible paradigm redundancy along five axes which appear to be pertinent in criminal justice in the third decade of the 21st century. These referents are fairness, the presence of the prison-industrial complex, Pat Carlen's notion of the obsolescence of the rehabilitation paradigm, Reiman's Pyrrhic Defeat Theory and, finally, Steven Box's valuable concept of crime mystification. Firstly, I attempt to show by way of three well-known cases in local criminal proceedings (namely that of Zuma, Omotoso and Van der Vyver) that fairness does not necessarily benefit all accused in the same manner, as one would expect. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest the contrary, namely, that it is the rich and powerful who are able to draw most advantageously on this resource. Secondly, I argue that the repurposing of the prison from its historical justification as a centre of prevention and rehabilitation to a business model, is nowhere more visible than in the phenomenon which came to be known as the prison-industrial complex. Thirdly, I suggest, by way of application of Reiman's Pyrrhic defeat theory and Box's notion of the mystification of crime, that the marginalisation of floating populations as criminogenic within this context, serves the useful purpose of diverting the popular attention away from the far more monstrous crimes of the state and their corporate partners. I also aim to explore the impact which the "war on crime" is having on our understanding of the public/ private divide as the 21st century progresses. In order to gauge the existing rehabilitative potential of the Department of Correctional Services'sprograms and policy directives, I provide a critical overview of these, even though this consideration could amount to nothing but forced coercion. Said in another way, irrespective of the efficacy or otherwise of DCS's rehabilitation and resettlement mandate, the question is and remains how sustainable and realistic such efforts at rehabilitation are, if the social and economic conditions on the ground are criminogenic. Before heading into a discussion, I reflect on the probable theoretical perspectives which these five trends in criminal justice might give rise to. After a prolonged discussion, in which I weigh the evidence of a blurred private/public demarcation, as the 21st century wears on, I conclude that this dichotomy is likely to become more complex, as it not only deepens, but also becomes more blurred. The emergence of a third space (exile) is also possible in neoliberal government's punitive management of urban marginality. In conclusion, I suggest that the crime rehabilitiation paradigm in South Africa has, to an extent, become redundant, but, considering the partial success which DCS has achieved with its numerous ongoing rehabilitation programs and the repurposing of the Department's mandate from purely punitive to that of a rehabilitation-driven institution, the implications for possible policy reformulation are multi-factoral. The complete rejection of the rehabilitation paradigm in South Africa, even though certainly comprehensible, is not recommended. The question that remains, however, is to what extent rehabilitation and resettlement programs can be defended in view of the wider social and economic conditions which militate against sustainable rehabilitation in principle, and are in fact, criminogenic.
In hierdie bydrae word gepoog om aan te toon dat Carlen (2013) se standpunt dat die rehabilitasieparadigma in Brittanje uitgediend is, eweneens op postapartheid Suid-Afrika van toepassing is. Aangesien omstandighede hier ter plaatse egter uiteraard verskil van dié in die Verenigde Koninkryk, spits ek my metodiek in besonder toe op 'n krities-kriminologiese oorweging van vyf unieke aspekte van die Suid-Afrikaanse ervaring. My vertrekpunt is dus 'n klemverskuiwing. Eerstens poog ek om aan die hand van drie welbekende gevalle in plaaslike strafregverrigtinge (naamlik Zuma, Omotoso en Van der Vyver) aan te toon dat billikheid nie noodwendig alle beskuldigdes tot dieselfde mate begunstig nie, maar hoofsaaklik tot wesenlike voordeel van welgesteldes en gesaghebbendes dien. Tweedens wys ek daarop dat die gebruiksverandering van die gevangenis na 'n besigheidsmodel, nêrens in groter mate sigbaar is as by die verskynsel wat bekend staan as die gevangenis-industriële kompleks nie. Derdens betoog ek, aan die hand van Reiman se pyrrhusnederlaagteorie en Box se gedagte van die versluiering van misdaad, dat die verguising van die uitgeslotenes ("urban marginality") as kriminogenies binne hierdie konteks die nuttige doel dien om aandag van staatsmisdade of dié van die staat se korporatiewe bondgenote af te lei. Teen hierdie agtergrond oorweeg ek die gedeeltelike sukses wat met rehabilitasiebeleid en -praktyke ter plaatse behaal is. Laastens kom ek tot die gevolgtrekking dat die rehabilitasieparadigma wel tot 'n mate in Suid-Afrika uitgediend is, die implikasies vir nuwe beleidsformulering veelvlakkig is en word die algehele verwerping van hierdie paradigma in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks nie aanbeveel nie.
