a father to the victim, the convict had a duty to protect her but did the contrary. The victim lost innocence and was traumatized. This might be forever. the other hand, learned defence counsel· only 30 That his - old capable are required by his family and 6 children further that did. Finally learned the convict appears remorseful and regrets what submitted convict to death because it will be a double loss . ...,. . . ~"".._ . . . ,.., of death it deciding sentence, not mandatory. and ·by· the court bearing in mind that must be onus is on the State to beyond reasonable doubt the existence of aggravating factors, and to negative beyond reasonable doubt the convict. of any mitigating factors relied on by In awarding sentence, due regard must be paid to · the personal circumstances and subj that might have influenced the convict's conduct. These factors must be weighted with the main objectives of punishment:deterrence, reformation and retribution. The death sentence should be handed down m the rarest of cases where there and othe,. objects of punishment would {~;t£t:1.;11ce: ultimate properly achieved by (3) SA 391Para46 V. STATE V. SE1VONOHI (1990) 4 In view of the above no reasonable prospect of 735 at 743-745. preposition, and given that the State has not asked for which they are bound to defend beyond doubt I am inclined 9