|
|
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
South African Law Commission |
[Database Search] [Name Search] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]
This chapter lays a foundation for the rest of the report. It summarises the nature and extent of violent crime in South Africa. This information is critical to costing a VCS (see Chapter Six). The chapter also briefly documents the economic, physical and psychological impact of violent crime on its victims. Thereafter, the types of services currently available to victims are described. The Victim Empowerment Programme is discussed and evaluated, and the role of the Victims' Charter and its relevance to compensation highlighted.
Whilst violent crime in South Africa is widespread, a fact borne out by the anecdotal and the statistical evidence that exists, data on rates of crime and victimisation in SA are inadequate. In particular:
Given these problems, assessing the levels and distribution of victimisation is exceedingly difficult. This fact complicates the calculation of the appropriate size and coverage of a Victim Compensation Scheme (VCS) if such a scheme is to meet the needs of victims of crime and violence. At the same time, it is important to base any assessment of the desirability and feasibility of a VCS on an as accurate as possible appreciation of the scale of the problems with which it will have to deal. It is, therefore, important to reflect on what we do know about levels of crime and victimisation in SA.
Police crime statistics for the years 1994 to 1998, which should capture all crimes reported to the police, are reflected in the table below.
Source:‘The incidence of serious crime in SA between January and December 1998’ 1/99 SAPS Semester Report Pretoria: SAPS
In the above table, and in much of the rest of the report, attention is focused on violent crime (shaded blocks) because that category of crimes is most likely to become the source of eligible claims from any VCS that may be established in SA, for reasons that will be explained in Chapter Three below.
As is readily apparent, levels of recorded crime have changed at very different rates over the past five years. Thus, while recorded murders have diminished by approximately 2% per year, attempted murders and assaults with intent to do grievous bodily harm have increased at a similar rate. In addition, the trends are not stable: recorded aggravated robbery incidents declined by 21% between 1994 and 1996 but increased by 31% between 1996 and 1998.
The fact that approximately 24,000 murders are recorded each year in SA is, in itself, no real indication of the extent of victimisation. This can only be reflected if crime statistics are reflected on a per capita basis. The next table reflects crime levels in SA per 100,000 of the population. These statistics for 1996 are then compared to similar statistics for other countries.
Source: SAPS Semester Report 1/99
As can be seen, overall recorded crime levels per capita have been largely stable over the past 5 years, ignoring for the moment the inexplicable fluctuations in the aggravated robbery and common robbery statistics. There has been a fairly stable distribution of crimes between the various categories of crime to which South Africans are exposed. However, the level of crime is exceedingly high. Indeed, the total risk of being a victim of crime per person per year is in the order of about 5 per cent even before unrecorded crimes are considered.
Source: SAPS Semester Report 1/99
Figures in the table above, which reflect recorded crime levels in a variety of countries for 1996, show that, with the exception of property crimes in the first world, which are well policed and (importantly) enjoy wide insurance coverage, SA has the highest rates of violent crime in the world (shaded blocks indicate higher levels than South Africa).
There are, of course, exceptions to the finding that SA has the highest levels of crime in the world. For instance, in 1997, the homicide rate for South Africa was estimated at about 59 per 100 000 inhabitants. This is compared to approximately 9 per 100 000 in the United States and 2.5 per 100 000 in the United Kingdom. In Colombia, however, when the Medellin drug cartel was operating in 1993, the homicide rate was an alarming 450 per 100 000 (Z Roelefse-Campbell and K Campbell ‘States In The Labyrinth: Insecurity, Crime And Cartels In Columbia And Peru’ (1996a) Vol 9 No 2 Acta Criminologica 16-25).
In general, however, South African crime rates are exceptionally high by international standards. Countries such as Brazil, which have more comparable histories to South Africa’s, show similar yet less dramatic trends in violent crime (Z Roelefse-Campbell & K Campbell ‘State And Society In The Fight Against Crime In Brazil’ (1996b) Vol 9 No 1 Acta Criminologica 20-25). Brazil witnesses on average 39,000 murders a year,[2] compared to the approximate 24,000 in South Africa, which has about one third of Brazil's population (Roelefse-Campbell & Campbell, 1996a).
As the table above shows, these levels of overall crime are high in comparison to crime rates around the world. More importantly, the weight of violent crime in the basket of crimes to which South Africans are exposed is much greater than is the case in those countries – notably in the first world – whose overall levels of crime exceed those of SA. This obviously has important implications for the desirability and feasibility of a VCS in SA since the overall levels of victimisation, as well as the high rates of violent crimes, will generate much greater volumes of eligible claims.
There is a great deal of evidence that the rate of reporting crime in SA is a good deal lower than 100%. Statistics South Africa (1998, p.53-61) reports that for some serious crimes, reporting levels are below 50%. In this category fall such crimes as theft (28%), assault (38%), robbery with force (41%) and sexual offences (47%). Indeed, crimes which are generally very well reported in other jurisdictions were surprisingly under-reported in South Africa, with murder having a recorded reporting level of only 83%. These findings are broadly in line with a number of similar victimisation surveys in South Africa.
The fact that crime is under-reported in South Africa is no surprise. The history of the relationship between the police and the community under apartheid was hardly conducive to the creation of trust and legitimacy, which are the prerequisites for high levels of reporting. Moreover, although there is some evidence that the black South Africans’ impression of the criminal justice system has improved (M Schönteich Justice Versus Retribution: Attitudes To Punishment In The Eastern Cape Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies 2000, p.32), the perception that the police have, through their actions and lack of action, failed to curb the growth in crime has continued to fuel low levels of reporting. In this regard, it is also worth bearing in mind that the relative inaccessibility of policing services exacerbates under-reporting by making it logistically more difficult to report crimes.
Although the statistics used in this chapter can be useful in making broad comparisons, the figures need to be understood in context. Broad statistics can convey the mistaken impression that crime rates are uniform. South African crime, like much else in this society, does not impact equally on all individuals. In general terms, black South Africans are far more exposed to the risk of violent victimisation than are White South Africans, while police crime statistics suggest that White South Africans are more likely to be victimised in property crimes than are black South Africans.[3]
Source: Altbeker (Crime in Pretoria: A Quantitative Analysis Pretoria: Idasa 1998)
The table above makes this point explicitly: whereas property crime in Pretoria was concentrated in the suburban police precincts, recorded violent crime was overwhelmingly concentrated in township areas and the inner city – precisely the places where black South Africans are most likely to make their homes. This is evidenced by the fact that the stations reporting the largest proportion of violent crimes are invariably Mamelodi, Atteridgeville, Rietgat, Shoshanguve and Pretoria Central, while the stations reporting the largest proportions of property crime are Lyttleton, Brooklyn, Garsfontein, Pretoria West, Pretoria Central, Sunnyside and Wierdabrug. Moreover, while about 60% of all violent crimes are recorded in township police stations, often less than 10% of property crimes are recorded in the same stations. If crime were evenly distributed, the bulk of all crimes would occur in the most populous station areas. As this is not the case, we can conclude that crime affects different people differently.
The perception (largely held by White South Africans) that the wealthy are more affected by crime than the poor is, therefore, at best, only partly true. The rich are twice as likely to be victims of property crime than the poor,[4] but the poor are nearly 80 times more likely to die or get physically hurt by crime than the well-off (J Steinberg ‘Crime: Beyond 2000’ (1999) Issue 4 (Autumn) Siyaya 47-49). Furthermore, the annual incidence of violence experienced by African women is more than ten times that of their White counterparts (Trauma Review, 1996). These figures are in line with the increasing international evidence that poor people bear most of the brunt of violence in society (cf. J A Mercy, M L Rosenberg, K E Powell, C V Broome and W L Roper ‘Public Health Policy For Preventing Violence: New Vision For Prevention’ (1993) 12 Health Affairs (Millwood); A Louw and M Shaw Stolen Opportunities: The Impact Of Crime On South Africa's Poor (Monograph No 14) Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies 1997; HSRC survey cited in Louw & Shaw, 1997).
In addition to these differences in the level of risk borne by different people in different socio-economic circumstances, there are also fairly large differences in the regional spread of crime, as the table below demonstrates.
Source: SAPS Semester Report 1/99
In the table, provinces where the average per capita level of crime varies by more than 20% from the national average have been highlighted. It appears from this that Gauteng has a far higher level of violent crime, especially murders, attempted murders, rapes and aggravated robberies, than would be predicted purely on the basis of its population alone. Similarly, the Northern Cape and Western Cape have much higher per capita levels of rape, assault and indecent assault. By contrast the Northern Province has crime levels well below those of the national average.
That said, there should be some caution exercised in reading these figures as it is widely acknowledged that the distribution of policing resources is also heavily skewed in SA, and it is likely that some of the apparently lower levels of crime in places like the Eastern Cape may simply reflect the difficulties associated with reporting crime and recording it accurately in those areas.
There is very little written in South Africa specifically about the physical impact of violent crime. Most studies that look at the impact of violence tend to focus more broadly on what can be termed medical-related trauma. Trauma in this sense of the word, which can include violent crime, motor vehicle accidents and accidental injury, is considered the single largest cause of productivity loss in South Africa and is unparalleled by any other disease as a cause of potential years of life lost.[5] More than 16 per cent of all deaths are due to trauma and this is significantly higher than the World Health Organisation's global figure of 5,2 per cent (J W van der Spuy and B de Wet ‘Trauma - Today and Tomorrow’ (1991) 79 South African Medical Journal 61-62). Trauma is the second largest cause of overall deaths (after circulatory diseases) in South Africa, whereas in the United States trauma is ranked in fourth place (Trauma Review, 1993, cited in Louw & Shaw, 1997).
As was noted, not all trauma-related injury and death can be attributed to violence or violent crime. However, it does seem that much of the trauma seen in South Africa is related to violence. In 1990, of the trauma cases recorded in the Cape Metropolitan area, 34 per cent of injuries and 53,2 per cent of deaths were caused by violence (Trauma Review, 1993 cited in Louw & Shaw, 1997).
Violence-related deaths and injuries place a significant burden on the health care systems and, for individuals, result in disability, pain and suffering (Marais, 1998). Trauma has a major impact on the financial situation of families, as well as on the national fiscus and economy (J W van der Spuy ‘The economic impact of trauma’ (1996) 6(2) S.A. Bone and Joint Surgery 5-11). A study done at the Trauma Unit at Groote Schuur Hospital on a sample of 969 patients who had sustained gun shot injuries in 1993 showed a cost of R3 858 331 to the hospital (J W van der Spuy and M Peden ‘The Cost of Treating Firearm Victims’ (1998) August Trauma Review at http://www.mrc.ac.za). However, medical costs account for only 13% of the total cost of firearm injuries to society according to economists in the USA. The intangible 87% is due to lost productivity as a result of temporary and/or permanent disability or premature death (Peden & van der Spuy, 1996).
Clearly, therefore, the sheer volume of crime, as well as the proportion of violent crime, ensures that crime in South Africa is inordinately expensive to the society and individuals. Violent crime affects all people who are victimised by it, but some argue that it takes its toll on the health and lives of the poor in particular (Louw & Shaw, 1997). In the most extreme cases, the death of income-generating family members appears to be one of the most severe shocks, and causes vulnerable households rapidly to become poverty-stricken (cited in Louw & Shaw, 1997).
A list of the headings under which the economic costs of crime might be summed up might include a range of items. It is important to note that while all of these represent costs to individual victims, some are not losses to the economy, reflecting, instead, a transfer of income from one person to another. Examples of this include expenditure on private security: Although this represents an expense to the potential victim who pays for the service, it represents income for security companies’ shareholders and staff. That said, victims might consider the following set of costs as reflecting the sorts of losses they incur both in trying to prevent their own victimisation, and in recovering from their victimisation:
• productive years lost by victims who are killed or seriously injured, as well as those who emigrate to reduce their exposure to the risk of violence;
• working days lost during convalescence (which can take many years, especially in the case of violent crimes, rape and, especially, child abuse);
• reduced productivity following violent victimisation, resulting from post-traumatic stress and damaged morale (especially in the case of violent robberies committed in the workplace);
• working days lost assisting the investigating officer and attending court;
• working days lost replacing lost and damaged property; and,
• Taxes used to pay for the provision of the services of the criminal justice system which go elsewhere;
• Insurance premiums and payments for private security;
• Lost and damaged property;
• Medical costs;
• Lost investments and economic opportunities flowing from the increased costs of doing business in a high crime environment and from the reduced levels of business confidence, as well as the lost opportunities attendant on the closure of otherwise solvent businesses in the face of criminal victimisation; and
• Reductions in the pleasure derived when activities are avoided as a result of a fear of crime.
These costs cannot be and have not all been calculated in South Africa, but it is clear that they constitute a drain on the economy of significant proportions. Moreover, while all South Africans incur these losses, victims of crime incur a disproportionate share of many of them. Lost productivity, for instance, while being a loss to the economy as a whole, is a particularly severe loss to the individuals who would otherwise have earned income from their work.
Empirical and clinical research shows that suffering of victims is not only in the area of physical and economical loss, but that psychological trauma is a major factor as well (Erex & Tontodonato, 1990, cited in South African Law Commission, Discussion Paper, Project 82, p.3). According to current literature, beliefs, expectations and assumptions about the world play a pivotal role in determining the effects of victimisation (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). Janoff-Bulman (1985) asserts that the experience of trauma shatters three basic healthy assumptions about the self and the world. These are: the belief in personal invulnerability (it won't happen to me); the view of the self as positive; and the belief that the world is a meaningful and orderly place and that events happen for a reason. Violence, or trauma that is inflicted by a fellow human being, shatters a fourth belief: the belief that other human beings are fundamentally benign. These four assumptions allow people to function effectively in the world and to relate to others. After an experience of violence, the individual is left feeling vulnerable, helpless, and out of control in a world that is no longer predictable.
There is always a significant subjective component in an individual’s response to a traumatic event. This can be seen most clearly in disasters, where although a broad cross-section of the population is exposed to the same traumatic experience, individual psychological reactions are markedly different. Some of these individual differences in susceptibility may stem from pre-existing social, cultural and psychological factors. Individuals’ reactions are as much about the actual traumatic incident as they are about their pre-traumatic personality structure and their available personal resources, coping strategies and extended support structure.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is the most commonly documented impact of violence and is a diagnostic category used to describe symptoms arising from emotionally traumatic experience(s) (cf. H Hajiyiannis and M Robertson ‘Counsellors’ Appraisals of the Wits Trauma Counselling Model: Strengths and limitations’ (Paper presented at the Traumatic Stress in South Africa Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa) 27-29 January 1999). However, PSTD is not the sole response to traumatic experiences. Other psychological issues may confront the individual after exposure to a trauma (B Hamber and S Lewis ‘An Overview of the Consequences of Violence and Trauma in South Africa’ (Occasional paper) Johannesburg: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation 1997). For example, bereavement-related issues are often paramount if, for example, a person close to the victim was killed. Or, in the aftermath of a disfiguring trauma such as a burn, an individual would have to deal with psychological issues around body-image. In addition, it has also been shown that the exposure to traumatic events can be associated with the onset of psychiatric disorders (Z Solomon, M Mukilincer and H Flum (1988). ‘Negative Life Events, Coping Responses And Combat-Related Psychopathology: A Prospective Study’ Vol 97 No 3 Journal of Abnormal Psychology 302-307).
Dire social circumstances have made it difficult for individuals to deal with or prioritise past psychological traumas. At times, so-called present difficulties (i.e. occupational problems, substance abuse, relationship breakdowns, etc.) are symptoms of long-term traumatisation, which may have been compounded by impoverished living conditions. However, at other times, impoverished living conditions (e.g. over-crowding, hunger, being forced to work away from home, etc.) have heightened the primary trauma and have also in themselves caused a range of new psychological difficulties and problems.
On the whole, services available to victims of crime in South Africa are generally inadequate and limited in their accessibility. Historically, victim support services in South Africa have been provided by community-based organisations (CBOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), but these are limited in their scope and reach. The mainstay of the government’s attempts at victim support was the establishment of the Victim Empowerment Programme (VEP Status Report ‘Status Report With Regard To The Victim Empowerment Programme Covering The Period 1 January 2000 To 31 March 2000’ Department of Welfare 2000) in 1996.
The VEP is one of the key components of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS National Crime Prevention Strategy (Document produced by an Inter-Departmental Strategy Team consisting of the Departments of Correctional Services, Defence, Intelligence, Safety and Security Justice and Welfare May 1996)). The NCPS advocates a victim-centred approach to combating and preventing crime and violence. Within this broadly restorative justice strategy it is argued that victim empowerment and support can make an important contribution to crime prevention. VEP emphasises crime as a social issue rather than a security issue. The ultimate purpose of the programme, as captured in the VEP mission statement, is to provide a caring and supportive service to victims of crime that is accessible, timeous and thorough, thus contributing to a sense of empowerment and an environment conducive to peaceful communities.
Effective victim empowerment would mean that services for victims of crime would be:
Currently, the programme is co-ordinated and implemented by the Department of Welfare together with an inter-departmental and inter-sectoral Victim Empowerment Management Team, which consists of the Departments of Welfare, Health, Correctional Services, Justice, Education and the South African Police Service, relevant NGOs and provincial coordinators.
Since the inception of the VEP, the number of available services for victims has increased. The Department of Welfare has developed national projects aimed at achieving the objectives of the VEP. These include the following:
• guidelines for voluntarism in victim empowerment;
• expansion and/or duplication of a one-stop services project including domestic violence projects;
• research and co-ordination;
• undertaking victim of crime surveys;
• programmes which prevent and respond to violence against women;
• programmes for perpetrators of violence;
• programmes for establishing shelters for abused women and children;
• training social workers and lay-counsellors in the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act;
• developing a resource directory on domestic violence for referral purposes;
• programmes which prevent and respond to rape and sexual offences;
• integration of victim-empowerment, economic and HIV/Aids programme; and
• establishing trauma response units
At provincial level, the Department of Welfare is partially funding various NGOs and CBOs that are implementing the VEP. In some provinces they have appointed Project Managers to oversee the functioning of these funded projects. Furthermore, the Department of Safety and Security has been involved in training its police in trauma management and victim-empowerment. A number of police stations have opened Trauma Centres to assist victims of various crimes. The Department of Health has also taken an initiative in training the primary health care practitioners in victim empowerment and trauma management in different provinces. In addition, the Department of Justice has made legal provisions to counteract domestic violence in rural communities.
Besides these government-driven initiatives, there are various NGOs and CBOs which are providing services to victims of various crimes and some of these have been involved in training and providing expertise to the projects initiated by the government. A number of trauma clinics exist across the country and various primary level health care professionals have been trained by NGOs to provide frontline assistance. Research has shown that partnerships, between NGOs, community stakeholders, community police forums, government departments and others, are considered crucial to improved support for victims (Independent Projects Trust ‘No Excuses: Implementing the Victim Empowerment Programme’ (2000) No 20 (Winter) Crime and Conflict 12-15).
There have also been some developments regarding the establishment of a Victims’ Charter in South Africa. In 1998, the Department of Justice developed the first draft of the Victim Charter. This was based on international standards of victims’ rights. This draft will be developed into a more comprehensive charter once the comment of a variety of stakeholders has been gathered. The types of rights focused on in the draft charter include:
It is hoped that the Victims’ Charter will educate victims about their rights and improve the accountability of service providers who interface with victims (e.g. hospital staff, police, etc). The Victims’ Charter will be considered to be part of a holistic policy on victim empowerment, which will play a role in reducing incidents of secondary victimisation, experienced by victims within the criminal justice system. The draft charter also aims to ensure that the justice system strikes a balance between the rights and dignity of victims and the rights of accused persons.
Specifically, in terms of the right to compensation and restitution, it is important to note that the draft charter does not include a broad right to compensation, i.e., a unilateral right to compensation from the state if one is a victim of crime. At this stage the right to compensation (restitution) only exists in so far as the victim has a right to receive restitution from the offender, with the court having discretion about whether or not to grant a compensation order to this effect. The right to redress for damages through normal civil law channels is also stipulated.
A number of successes have been achieved thus far, including the building of partnerships that have resulted in the participation of various role players in co-ordinated projects based on a shared concern for victims. An integrated business plan has been developed and approved, which consists of inter-sectoral and departmental objectives with detailed action steps and performance indicators for each step. A victim survey was conducted by Statistics South Africa (Statistics South Africa, 1998), which has provided information on the nature and prevalence of victimisation in the country.
A total of 66 VEP projects have been established at a provincial level. The majority of these aim to operate on the basis of ‘24 hour one-stop service centres’. Victims receive a range of services rendered by trained professional and/or volunteer staff. Each project reaches at least 20 victims per month, which means that 1 320 victims per month have access to services that did not exist in the past. A resource directory on domestic violence has been compiled. A number of VEP training programmes for primary health care practitioners, police and social workers have been conducted. (VEP Status Report, 2000).
However, there are a number of gaps in the implementation of the VEP. Service delivery for certain groups and in certain areas remains limited. The majority of the projects funded by the government are concentrated in the urban, peri-urban and semi-rural areas; the rural areas still remain under-resourced.
In terms of broad successes, there has been a general increase in victim support services at a level of basic psychological first aid. This may be sufficient for many victims. However, research suggests that a percentage of people exposed to violence may develop post-traumatic stress disorder, which requires more specialised intervention (M J Scott and S G Stradling Counselling for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. London: Sage 1992). There is a serious gap in the provision of professional services and those that do exist are based in major cities. Rural and outlying areas do not have access to such services.
Another shortcoming of existing victim support services is the failure to evaluate levels of service delivery and an absence of defined standards. This makes it difficult to determine whether existing services are adequate. In certain provinces, provincial VEP managers and a national VEP manager have not yet been appointed. This has resulted in ineffective co-ordination of VEP strategies in certain areas. A further obstacle is that state service providers such as police, social workers and primary health care practitioners are expected to include victim empowerment as part of their day-to-day job function, in addition to their other responsibilities. Most frontline workers are already overstretched and under-resourced without this additional responsibility. This impacts on their ability to dedicate the necessary time and energy to the delivery of effective victim empowerment services.
A further gap in the delivery of effective victim empowerment relates to a shortage of resources within the various sectors, which leads to increased levels of secondary victimisation. Examples of this include shortages of cars to investigate crimes, a lack of private interviewing rooms for police and social workers in certain areas and unavailability of district surgeons, to name but a few.
In conclusion, it is evident that victim empowerment as a philosophy and approach has, to some degree, been entrenched in several government departments. A number of new programmes have also been set up to service victims of crime and improvement is evident in some areas, but few of these have been evaluated in detail. However, a significant gap persists between policy-making and implementation. Inter-sectoral co-operation remains an ongoing problem and an imbalance exists between various departments in their engagement with providing victim support and services. The provision of services to victims is undermined across the board by a general lack of resources, resulting in on-going inconsistencies in the number of services available to victims of crime in the urban areas relative to those in the rural areas. Overall, psychosocial services for victims of crime remain underdeveloped.
[1] Whilst writing this report National Police Commissioner, Jackie Selebi, ordered his communications officials countrywide not to publish police crime statistics until further notice. The moratorium on the statistics is said to be about giving the SAPS ‘breathing space’ while taking stock and redesigning its entire approach to the way it counts and assesses crime in South Africa. Only the national quarterly statistics will be made public during the period the moratorium is in force, and only by SAPS headquarters in Pretoria (Business Day, 14 July 2000).
[2] The table outlining international crime rates indicates that the homicide rate in Brazil is 9.7 per 100 000. This seems to be incorrect. The government of Brazil's Datasus web site (www.datasus.gov.br) puts the figure in 1998 closer to 26 per 100 000. In 1998 there were 41 916 reported homicides.
[3] This statement needs to be qualified by the fact that black South Africans tend to be much less likely to have insurance and much more likely to mistrust the police, potentially increasing the rate of under-reporting property crime.
[4] This figure could be distorted because the rich are also more insured than the poor and consequently may report crime more.
[5] MRC Trauma Research Programme at http://www.mrc.ac.za
[6] Thanks to Suzette Kotze from the Department of Welfare, Victim Empowerment Programme, for her comments on this section.
[7] Information on the Victims’ Charter was extracted from a progress report issued by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Subject: South African Victim Charter of Rights, August, 2000. Thanks to Marie Swart for supplying this information.
SAFLII:
|
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/za/other/zalc/dp/97/97-CHAPTER-2.html