Vigilantes Supported as Crime Levels Soar
(Published in the Sowetan, 2 June 2003)
The necklacing of suspected criminals in Braamfisherville once again reminded
South Africans of the levels of crime facing this country and the extent to
which communities are prepared to go to curb crime. While it is accepted that
crime in South Africa is rampant and that the criminal justice system is battling
to cope crime, the question is whether communities should be taking law into
their own hands. What role should communities have in fighting crime? Where
communities do make positive contribution to crime fighting, what are the limitations,
both in terms of jurisdiction and meting out punishment?
The widespread occurrence of vigilantism in South African urban and rural
areas appears to be fuelled by the perceived failure of the criminal justice
system to deal with the problem of rampant crime. Vigilante groups such as
the People Against Gangsterism and Drugs in the Western Cape and Mapogo-a-Mathamaga
in the Northern Province have flagrantly disregarded the law in their “fight
against crime”. Several hundred people have died in the hands of self-appointed
crime fighters and many others have been injured. Vigilante organisations and
groups continue their criminal actions while the official crime-fighting agencies
appear helpless.
Vigilantism re-emerged strongly in the post-apartheid South Africa’s
urban, peri-urban and rural communities. The phenomenon is more pronounced
in criminogenic areas such as Braamfisherville. These areas are characterised
by poor infrastructure – no street lights, no street numbers, no electricity.
Community cohesion is poor as people come from different areas and all are
new to the area. Police stations are located far from residential housing,
and there are poor police/community relations. State-provided housing is vulnerable
to break-ins, and often houses are not fenced. Very few members use any form
of target hardening, such as burglar guards on windows and doors, or concrete
walls around their property.
The situation is further exacerbated by the perception that the government
and the new constitution have afforded criminals rights at the expense of victims.
Community members claim that the police have become weak and incapable of fighting
crime. The notion of state-provided justice is still alien to many people.
In the absence of service from the criminal justice system, communities feel
compelled to rely to the only methods that appear to have worked previously.
These methods seem to have some support in almost all communities. The recent
refusal of the community to identify community members responsible for the
necklacing of two suspected criminals in Braamfisherville, near Soweto, bears
testimony to this.
This ambiguous attitude towards vigilante groups allows them to assume the
moral high ground and expect automatic indemnity for their crimes. They begin
to operate with impunity and expect the police and the courts to turn a blind
eye to their atrocities. For example, organizations such as Pagad and Mapogo
operated with impunity for quite a while before the government took tough measures
to curb their activities.
One of the main weaknesses of South Africa’s criminal justice system
is that few crimes are followed by arrest of suspects, and even fewer lead
to a successful prosecution. It is this situation that creates the perceptions
that the criminal justice system is ineffective and fails the victims of
crime.
Although there are no direct measures to deal with vigilantism in South Africa,
over the last five years the one legislation that refers to it is the terrorism
legislation. The Terrorism Bill of 2000 defines terrorism in a way that could
include acts of vigilantism and provides a mandatory minimum sentence for such
acts. Legislation, however, does not necessarily guarantee the safety and security
of communities. There are several measures that, if implemented could provide
for short-term to medium-term solutions. These include:
-
Improving service delivery by the police and the courts to the communities
they serve, including providing professional assistance to complainants,
and giving feedback to complainants on the progress of the complaint.
-
Engaging with the community in ways not connected to making arrests
in any particular case, such as providing information on how the system
functions
and where communities can constructively engage with the system.
-
Improving court processing time so that communities can see that arrests
yield results, be they acquittals, suspensions, or convictions.
-
Including local government in efforts to ensure that proper services
and infrastructure are in place.
-
Encouraging homeowners to take measures to protect their homes
through various measures intended to ‘harden the target’.
-
Encouraging community members to reduce their own chances of
becoming a victim by refusing to buy property that might be
stolen.
In some communities, no crime is small. A piece of bread stolen at Europa
supermarket at the Melrose Arch might be considered a petty crime, but a piece
of bread stolen at a household in Braamfisherville could carry a community
death sentence. In some communities, all crime must be taken equally seriously.
The perception that “criminals have more rights than others”,
and that there is little political will on the part of government to deal with
the crime problem has resulted in citizens that are largely tolerant of repressive
actions against suspected offenders. These perceptions should be reversed by
boosting people’s confidence in the system.
Makubetse Sekhonyane
Senior Researcher, Crime and Justice Programme, ISS
