Introduction

While both the government and the public have become increasingly concerned about rising crime, neither the state nor other social agencies are doing anything much about addressing the plight of the victims of crime.

The coalescence and institutionalisation of initiatives on crime has begun, as shown by the launch in 1995 of the Business Initiative Against Crime (BAC). However, it is argued here that the time is ripe to launch broader social initiatives and lobbying efforts surrounding crime, especially in respect of its victims.

To some extent, the activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission may be regarded as an attempt to address the problems of the victims of crime in this case, victims of acts regarded as crimes against humanity. However, while these may eventually have some impact on local attempts to assist the victims of crime, through creating a general awareness of their existence, the commission's activities fall outside the ambit of this paper.

The impact of crime on its victims in terms of trauma and secondary victimisation ie, unsympathetic or inappropriate responses which actually worsen its effects1 is highly significant, and is exacerbated by several factors that are inherently South African.

These relate particularly to the police and other agents of the criminal justice system, which were previously regarded as victimising institutions by the majority of South African citizens.

Victims of crime have certain emotional and practical needs, including trauma counselling, advice and referral, information on court procedure, and compensation. If these needs are not urgently addressed, and the victim's position in the criminal justice system not drastically reformed, South Africa's transition could be further undermined. It is argued that if agencies of civil society and the criminal justice system are mobilised around the victims of crime, this may help to create a basis for a long-term crime prevention strategy.

This paper documents the emergence of victim movements internationally, with specific reference to Britain and the United States (where much of the research in this field has been conducted), and compares it to South African trends. Against this background, it is argued that the current impetus towards consolidating the fragmented victim movement should be strengthened.

International trends

Following World War 2, a growing awareness of and interest in victimisation developed in Europe, especially Britain, and the United States. To an extent, academic research on this topic has been encouraged by the growth of numerous dynamic and influential groups set up to help victims and promote their interests. Innovations in policing policy, measures for assisting victim witnesses before and during trial (such as volunteer Witness Friends accompanying victims to court) and financial compensation by the state and the offender all attest to the combined influence of academic research and effective lobbying, ensuring that crime can no longer be discussed without considering the victim.2

In a number of overseas countries, national organisations offer a variety of emotional and practical services to assist the victims of crime. These multi-disciplinary initiatives are known as `victim movements', and can be identified in relation to:

• victim services, both formal (state) and informal (NGO and voluntary organisations);
  
  

• changes to the victim's status in the criminal justice system; and
  
  

• international declarations on victims of crime (such as those by the United Nations and the Council of Europe). In South Africa, awareness of the needs of the victims of crime as well as services for them are found to compare unfavourably with those elsewhere in the world.

Five stages of development

Although this is by no means conclusive, a five-stage analytical framework in relation to social problem movements, ie `socially shared activities and beliefs directed towards the demand for social change in some aspect of the social order'3, proves to be useful in identifying international trends in the development of victim movements.

The stages are incipiency, coalescence, institutionalisation, fragmentation and demise. Each stage is briefly described, with reference to South Africa.

Incipiency

The incipiency stage of a victim movement is identified as that in which initial, generally unco-ordinated, sympathetic efforts are directed at victims. At this stage there is neither recognised membership nor established leadership. One example used to characterise this phase is the resurgence of the feminist movement in the 1970s. In this period, organisations in Britain and the United States established `hot lines' and refuges and other support services for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence.

Despite lagging a decade behind People Opposed to Women Abuse (Powa) established the first shelter of this kind in 1981 South Africa has generally followed a similar trend, focusing on victimised women and children before a broader awareness of victims of crime occurs. For various historical reasons, even services in this field remain fragmented. Due to a lack of resources, with overseas funding having all but dried up and the thorny issue of applying for state funds being fraught with new problems, the survival of these specialised services is continually threatened.

Coalescence

This stage in the growth of a social problem movement is marked by the gradual development of alliances, and growing co-operation between formal and informal organisations. These emerge from a sympathetic public as a result of the perceived failure of the government to address the issue effectively in this case, to fight crime and help its victims.

This stage is exemplified by the emergence in the early 1980s of Victim Support (previously the National Association of Victim Support Schemes) in Britain, and the National Organisation of Victim Assistance (Nova) in the United States. While these organisations differ markedly from one another in some respects Victim Support is overtly non-political, while Nova is strongly rights-oriented both are national umbrella bodies to which autonomous and independently situated local support services for victims are loosely affiliated. Among other things, membership of such a body provides standards for service provision, supplementary funding (since it is partially funded by the state), and a forum for lobbying around victim-related issues.

There is no such organistion in South Africa. There are various historical reasons for this, including the divided nature of South African society in general resulting in a lack of legitimate co-ordinating agencies as well as scant resources. However, research conducted among the most visible victim service providers during the past two years indicates that it would be desirable to form such a body.4

Also, until recently the mainstream positivist view of `victims' which assumes that certain persons or groups are objective victims without explicitly considering the interpretive and definitional processes implicated in the assignment of victim status has dominated South African criminology. In terms of a highly relational criminal law definition, victims are seen as `the immediate targets of lawbreakers'.5 During the apartheid era, this had a decidedly negative effect on black South Africans, who were denied appropriate agency response and support from social services and the criminal justice system as they were not recognised as `victims'.

However, it has been pointed out that apartheid legislation can hardly be used as a sound moral base for deciding on deviance and criminality, and hence for defining `victims' and `perpetrators'; this is clearly demonstrated in the case of squatters, who are at once victims of apartheid society and offenders in terms of illegally occupying land.6 For various ideological reasons, victim movements throughout the world choose to concentrate on certain victims, and ignore others and South Africa has been no different.

Institutionalisation

The institutionalisation stage of a social problem movement is closely related to its coalescence. While the ad hoc attempts of volunteers may bring help to victims in specific areas, these organisers often run out of funds or energy, and the activity is short-lived. This has been particularly true of South African organisations.

The principal way of overcoming this danger is to institutionalise such activities by enlisting the support of the local/regional or national government.7 The institutionalisation of a victim movement thus involves the organisation and co-ordination of a broad variety of services, a large base of members and resources, regular lobbying thrusts, and a growing respectability. Given media attention and political interest, a social problem movements attains its greatest power and influence during this phase of its existence.

It can be argued that the time is ripe for the coalescence and institutionalisation of initiatives regarding crime and its victims in South African society. This has occurred to some extent, as exemplified by the launch of the BAC. Sensing the government's inability to counter crime on its own due to insufficient policing resources, among other factors organised business has taken up the challenge issued by government to combat crime.

Workshops organised around crime and corruption have produced numerous practical recommendations to address crime, its causes and effects. For example, recognising the effect that crime has on employees and their productivity, it has been proposed that individual companies should provide the necessary mechanisms for detecting crime victims at work, and providing them with trauma counselling.

These initiatives, which demonstrate how seriously business views crime, have indeed received significant media attention and stimulated political interest. But these are not the only efforts; there are more than 300 groups throughout South Africa organised around crime and related issues. It has been observed how ideologically heterogeneous victim movements are, and that `their demands and achievements do not flow from a well-defined victimological theory, or in fact any social theory at all'.8 Despite, or perhaps because of, this heterogeneity, the combined impact of victim movements throughout the world has been enormous. South African initiatives should strive to achieve as much.

Fragmentation and demise

Ironically, further developments may lead to a social movement's fragmentation and demise. This may occur as the public lose enthusiasm for the cause in question, believing that `things have really improved', or as infighting occurs among the core leadership over new directions the movement should take. Finally, such a movement may disintegrate when the most critical elements of its programmes are appropriated, and its leaders bought off. In the case of victim movements, it can be argued that the endemic nature of crime makes it less likely that interest for their cause will wane, once a public awareness has been established.

Bearing in mind the growth in violent crime in South Africa, and the concomitant growth in the number of directly and indirectly affected victims, it is unlikely that the feeling that `things have improved' will manifest itself for some time. However, the concern remains that the currently fragmented and sectoral initiatives regarding crime and its victims may bypass the essential coalescence and institutionalisation phases, if mobilisation around the issue fails. This is a real possibility, as citizens become increasingly apathetic about the seeming impossibility of combating crime.

However, while it can be argued that, from initial contact with the police to possible court appearances, minimal provision has been made for making the experience of victims of crime less traumatic, recently introduced reforms in South Africa need to be noted. In time, these reforms within the police service and court system may help to alleviate criminal and secondary victimisation.

Victims and the police

As `gatekeepers' to the criminal justice system, police play an important role in shaping crime victims' initial experience of it. While the police depend on victims to report crimes and to Co-operate with them throughout the investigative process, their attitudes towards victims internationally have been found wanting. To address this problem, a variety of measures including the specialised training of police officers, changes to legislation, new administrative guidelines and the establishment of state-funded or voluntary services connected with the police to provide information or counselling services to victims have been implemented exponentially over the past decade.

In South Africa a tradition of reactive policing has led to the police being isolated from the broader community. However, the current focus on community policing is aimed at addressing this problem. While this change in policing style may offer some relief for victims with police being urged during training to be `compassionate, caring and wise' this has yet to be experienced on a broad front. In South Africa specialised services do exist for victims of certain crimes, such as sexual assault or child abuse.

Specialist units have been established countrywide whose members have been trained, under certain guidelines, to deal with these victims in a confidential and sympathetic manner. However, the training covering sexual assault and the social aspect of rape has been criticised as being `too theoretical and cursory'.9

In line with international trends, beyond such specialist areas of innovation, little has changed with respect to police attitudes towards victims of crime. However, an initiative has recently been launched at SAPS headquarters to seriously consider issues surrounding victim support.

Courts and concerns

As has traditionally been the case elsewhere in the world, South African criminal procedure is primarily focused on apprehending the offender rather than consoling the victim. Since deterrence rather than restitution forms the pivot of the justice system, the victim tends to be the most marginalised of all the role players in crime.

Should a criminal be caught, cases are conducted as a matter between the state and offender. In effect, the state `steals' the conflict from the victim and offender, making crimes committed crimes against the state.10 The victim is often a mere witness to proceedings, considered an `item of evidence' or a `non-person'.11 Besides this having consequences for issues of compensation and restitution, the victim is left with the feeling that justice is on the side of the offender. Since the system is not designed to deal with the practical, financial, medical or mental health problems victims may face, they may resort to retributive action and take the law into their own hands should things not improve.

Over the last 20 years the role of the victim within the criminal justice system has been `rediscovered', and measures have been introduced to counter any secondary victimisation that may occur. Internationally, reforms have been introduced to ensure that victims are not treated as mere witnesses but are provided with information on the outcome of their case, as well as knowledge of various forms of compensation and counselling. In the United States, certain measures have been instituted that accommodate more active victim participation in the criminal justice process through, for example, `victim impact statements' or `victim statements of opinion'. These measures are by no means uncontroversial.12

While consensus exists that balance within the criminal justice system must be restored, the call to address victims' needs and reorient the criminal process away from the offender towards the victim may carry with it certain dangers which South Africa policy-makers would be wise to heed. For instance, a `law and order' approach that characterises victims as weak innocents may manipulate their cause to lobby for the following: harsher penalties, stricter measures (for example stiff bail conditions), and more oppressive treatment of offenders all disguised under the noble cause of securing a better deal for victims.

These measures may create the impression that the state is seriously trying to combat crime, but really do little for the actual victims of crime. The danger may exist that a healthy victim movement may be transformed into a backlash against criminals, and that progress realised over the years in humanising criminal policy and the criminal justice system will be reversed.13

Victims and compensation

One area over which growing concern is being expressed is the need for some form of restitution or state compensation for victims of crime. According to the Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar, the increase in violent crime has made the whole area of justice for victims, including expeditious restitution, particularly relevant. This issue, as well as the current state of play, deserves brief attention.

The primary rationale for state compensation rests on the argument that since the state's primary obligation is to maintain law and order, and the commission of crime may be said to result from a failure to fulfil that duty, compensation is therefore payable.14 While the general outline may be similar, compensation schemes internationally differ according to the definition of crimes they cover, the degree of loss or harm, the obligation to co-operate with authorities, as well as the extent to which the victim's conduct is taken into consideration. In most other countries the notion exists that compensation is not a right, but a reward given to `deserving' victims. Consequently, compensation schemes only reach a small proportion of victims; most either remain unaware of their eligibility for such compensation, or are not encouraged to apply.

Usually, only victims of violent crime receive compensation from the state, which may include amounts allocated for the long-term effects of trauma suffered during a criminal attack. In Britain each claim is individually assessed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. An attempt by the British government to introduce a tariff scheme for compensation was rejected on the grounds of illegality. However, under the proposed tariff scheme (based on the average of claims made over the previous five years) awards of £3 000 for serious indecent assault and between £7 500 and £10 000 for rape/buggery were being considered. Amounts awarded to victims of violence for shock or mental disorder ranged between £1 000 and £20 000, depending on the severity and long-term effects involved.

There is no such scheme in South Africa. While Section 300 and 301 of the Criminal Procedure Act (1977) deal with compensation and restitution claims, research shows that the courts are reluctant to use the powers at their disposal, and in most cases victims are left empty-handed.15 Since it is the state that acts on behalf of victims in criminal cases in South Africa, the state is usually the beneficiary of the fine. Often victims are unable to institute civil charges, thus forfeiting any possible monetary restitution.

During the past six months the Law Commission has closely examined the entire sentencing procedure. Also, a Private Member's Bill on a Fund for Victims of Violent Crime been tabled.16 This bill, which proposes a central fund into which all court fines (except those paid to local authorities) as well as forfeited bail money should be paid, has been approved in principle by the Minister of Justice. In effect, the costs are not directly borne by the state but are defrayed from fines imposed by the courts on criminals currently about R80 million a year.

It is envisaged that compensation claims will be assessed by a Board of Trustees - a multidisciplinary group of experts appointed by the Minister of Justice for a five year period. If successful, victims of violent crime or their dependants could receive amounts ranging from R200 to R30 000. While fraught with numerous problems, including limited resources and determining the criteria according to which the amounts per crime are to be determined, overseas research indicates that victims of violent crime are not necessarily interested in how much they are paid, but rather that society recognises that they have suffered a loss.17

As the next step, and as a precursor to legislation, the Department of Justice intends drafting a white paper on the issue to be released during the next parliamentary session. Since similar schemes have been implemented the world over in an effort to ameliorate the social damage caused by violent crime, and restore to victims the retribution exacted from criminals by the state, there is no reason why such a scheme cannot work in South Africa.

Conclusion

What may initially seem like a reactive measure, one that focuses on the symptoms rather than the cure, mobilising around the victims of crime may yet prove to be one of the most effective measures for curbing growing crime rates in South Africa. Sympathetic policing tactics, reinforced by continual training on how to treat crime victims, are a first step towards restoring the widespread loss of faith in the criminal justice system, which will make citizens more likely to report crimes and co-operate with the police.

Providing victims who go to court with the necessary information and awareness of procedures will serve to reduce secondary victimisation, which will in turn affect broader societal perceptions of courts as places where justice is seen to be done. A `victim support service co-ordinator', ie a court social worker whose activities include preparing and informing sexual offence victims of court procedures, is present at the world's first sexual offences court in Wynberg, Cape Town, but this type of service needs to become commonplace in South African courts.

While numerous problems in respect of compensation claims including issues arising from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's committee on reparation for victims of apartheid remain to be addressed, a state-funded compensation scheme is clearly essential if citizens are to remain committed to the social contract and not resort to counter-violence. By focusing on the victims of crime, consciously mobilising around them and addressing their needs, an important start will be made to restoring the ravaged moral authority of South Africa's criminal justice system.

Notes and references

M Maguire & J Pointing (eds), Victims of Crime: A new deal? Oxford University Press, Milton Keynes, 1988.



L Zedner, `Victims', in M Maguire (ed), The Oxford handbook of criminology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.



See A L Mauss, Social problems as social movements, Lipcott, Philadelphia, 1975.



See L Camerer, `A comparative perspective of victim support services with specific reference to South Africa', unpublished M Phil thesis, Exeter College, Oxford, 1995.



M Cloete, `The study and field structure of criminology as a subject', in M Cloete & R Stevens (eds), Criminology, Southern Books, Pretoria, 1990.



D Hansson, `Broadening our vision: a challenge to South African mainstream victimology', in W Schurink, I Snyman & W Krugel (eds), Victimisation: nature and trends, HSRC, Pretoria, 1992.



See M Maguire, `Victims' needs and victim services: implications for research', Victimology 10, 1985; J Shapland, `Victims, the criminal justice system and compensation', British Journal of Criminology 24, 1984.



J van Dijk, `Ideological trends within the victims movement', in Maguire & Pointing, Victims of crime: a new deal?



J Rauch, `An independent assessment of basic training on the police response to rape', in
P Skiwward, S Jagmanth & B Grant (eds), Women under the criminal justice system in South Africa, HSRC, Pretoria, 1992.



See N Christie, `Conflicts as property', British Journal of Criminology 17, 1977.



Shapland, `Victims, the criminal justice system and compensation'.



See A von Hirsch & N Jareborg, `Gauging criminal harm: a living standard analysis', Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2, 1991.



E A Fattah (ed), From crime policy to victim policy: reorienting the justice system, Macmillan Press, London, 1986.



Council of Europe, Convention on compensation for victims of violent crime, Strasbourg, 1983.



D J McQuoid-Mason, `The role of legal aid clinics in assisting the victims of crime,' in Schurink, Snyman & Krugel, Victimisation: nature and trends.



J Selfe, Fund for Victims of Violent Crime Bill, South African Parliament, 1995.



Maguire & Pointing, Victims of crime: a new deal?