Attitudes to Punishment

Most respondents thought that judicial officers should be responsible for punishing criminals. However, a sizeable minority — especially among rural respondents — felt that the police or the community should punish criminals. There was substantial support for alternative or traditional forms of punishment. This support was especially pronounced among rural and black respondents on the basis that such forms of punishment were part of respondents’ tradition, and that it was an effective way of ensuring that criminals were punished. Most rural respondents also stated that alternative or traditional forms of punishment were actually being practiced in their communities.

Respondents were more or less equally divided between those who saw vigilantism as something negative or illegal, and those who accepted and even welcomed it as something which was necessary because of the criminal justice system’s perceived failure.

Most — especially urban and white respondents — felt that there had been a country-wide increase in vigilantism since 1994. About one out of ten respondents stated that there had been an incidence of vigilantism in their area. Real levels of vigilantism, however, are likely to be higher: only half of black and a third of rural respondents could say with certainty that no act of vigilantism had ever taken place in their community.

While only one out of every twenty respondents admitted that they personally participated in vigilante activity, every fifth respondent said they would consider doing so. Urban and black respondents were most prepared to get involved in vigilante activity. Respondents who had been victims of crime were more likely to say that they would participate in vigilante activity, than respondents who had not been victimised.

When asked what the government should do to reduce vigilantism, the most common response was that the government should improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system so that the public could see that offenders were punished.

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES AND FORMS OF PUNISHMENT

Respondents were asked who they thought should be responsible for punishing criminals. As a first choice, most respondents said magistrates or judges (59%). A significant minority, however, said that it should be the police (28%), or the community (10%).

Rural respondents were more likely to believe that it was the function of the police and the community to punish criminals, than urban and small town dwellers. Coloured and white respondents were slightly more inclined to say that judicial officers should punish criminals than their black counterparts. Significantly more black respondents thought the police should punish criminals. Blacks were the only race group which recorded any substantial support for the community and tribal authorities taking responsibility for punishing criminals.

Just under half (49%) of respondents indicated that they supported alternative or traditional forms of punishment, such as people’s courts, expulsion from a village, fines to be paid to a tribal chief, or restitution and compensation to a victim. The reason most respondents gave for opposing alternative or traditional forms of punishment was that the criminal justice system and the police should be responsible for punishing criminals and that there should be one law for all people (27% of all respondents). The most common reason given for supporting traditional or alternative forms of punishment was that it was an effective way of ensuring that criminals were punished (24% of all respondents).

Rural respondents indicated far more support for alternative or traditional forms of punishment (75%), than urban and small town dwellers (46% and 45% respectively). The justifications given by rural respondents for their support were that such forms of punishment were part of respondents’ tradition and that the role of the traditional leader was important to the local communities (30%). Moreover, they felt that such forms of punishment were more efficient than the police in accessing local information on crime (15%).

Urban (29%) and small town dwellers (21%) agreed with their rural counterparts that alternative or traditional forms of punishment were effective in ensuring that offenders were punished. However, urban (30%) and small town respondents (28%) were more inclined to suggest that there should be one law for all offenders, and that the criminal justice system and the police were responsible for punishing criminals. Only 13% of rural respondents thought so.

Respondents from the urban centres and small towns (both 6%) also suggested that alternative or traditional agents of punishment were not suitably qualified or trained, with half of rural respondents saying so (3%). There were a small number of respondents from all areas who did not support such forms of punishment as they thought it would abuse human rights or result in the imposition of unfair punishment (7% of urban and small town respondents, and 5% of rural respondents).

Far more black respondents indicated their support for alternative or traditional forms of punishment (62%) than white or coloured respondents (37% and 38%, respectively). This support was justified on the grounds that such forms of punishment were an effective way of ensuring that offenders were punished, that traditions and the roles of traditional leaders were important, and that traditional leaders were more efficient than the police in accessing local information on crime. White and coloured respondents who supported such forms of punishment also did so because they thought that they were effective ways of ensuring that offenders were punished. Thirty per cent of white and coloured respondents, and 23% of black respondents, did not support alternative or traditional forms of punishment as they felt that there should be one law for all, and that the criminal justice system and the police should be responsible for punishing offenders.

Just under a quarter of respondents (23%) said that alternative or traditional forms of punishment were actually being practiced within their communities. The most common types of these forms of punishment occurred when the community (59%) or community elders (35%) decided upon the punishment, and expulsion from the village or area (7%).

Rural respondents were far more likely to have alternative or traditional forms of punishment in their area (87%), than urban (14%) or small town (12%) respondents. Moreover, considerably more black respondents reported the use of such forms of punishment in their areas (43%), than white (4%) or coloured (3%) respondents.

A South African Law Commission discussion paper on community dispute resolution structures offers the following explanation for the high levels of support that alternative forms of justice enjoy among black South Africans. “Over the years, South Africa’s formal legal system has been perceived by certain sections of the population, notably black South Africans as illegitimate (because of its association with the apartheid government), as repressive (through its implementation by the police force) or as an expensive process in which the cost of justice is prohibitive. For many, a foreign, dominant, Western legal system, is seen to be superimposed on an intuitive, indigenous legal system. It is seen as alien, inaccessible and inappropriate for dealing with conflict which most South Africans experience in their daily lives. Many of the peculiar problems facing the black community stemmed from the largely ineffective administration of the justice system in black areas. The legal problems as well as problems of social adjustment encountered by urban blacks were not being solved. It is therefore not strange that people resorted to self-help in the form of unofficial or folk institutions. In urban areas different forms of community courts were instituted. ‘Community courts’ has become the contemporary term used when referring to popular justice structures, or the many types of informal tribunals existing outside the formal legal structures, such as street committees and yard, block or area committees operating in urbanised African townships and informal settlements. Effective government is largely dependent on a legal system that is respected by those it is intended to serve. The challenge facing the democratic state is therefore to ensure that the justice system is acceptable and accessible to the larger community. A great need exists to create an alternative but uniform system where the resolution of community disputes can be handled much more effectively and in less time than in formal courts.”1

When asked what they thought an act of vigilantism was, almost one-third of respondents did not know. This was primarily because no appropriate words for vigilante or vigilantism exist in Xhosa and Afrikaans (the home languages of most respondents). Just over one-third (35%) of respondents thought that vigilantism was a criminal act or a form of illegal punishment. One-fifth thought it was a form of local punishment meted out because the criminal justice system or the police were inefficient. Others (12%) suggested that vigilantism involved community protectors or community anti-crime actions. Urban respondents were more likely to say that vigilantism was the work of community protectors or community anti-crime actions (18%).

Black respondents were less likely to see vigilantism as a criminal act or a form of illegal punishment (21%), compared to white and coloured respondents (46% and 53%, respectively). White respondents, in particular, associated an act of vigilantism with people who caused chaos or damage (only a negligible number of black and coloured respondents thoughts so). By contrast, a majority of black respondents associated vigilantism with the local punishment of offenders because of an inefficient criminal justice system or police service (36%), and with community protectors or community anti-crime actions (17%).

Overall (across all race groups), there is an even split between those who saw vigilantism as something bad or illegal, and those who saw it as something acceptable or even positive — local punishment because of the criminal justice system’s failure, or a form of community policing. Moreover, there seemed to be somewhat of a blur between vigilantism and community policing in the minds of some respondents.

Some 60% of respondents thought that there had been a general countrywide increase in vigilante activity since 1994. Only 18% thought there had not been an increase, with the remainder being unsure. Urban respondents were far more likely to suggest that vigilantism had increased since 1994 (70%), than small town and rural respondents (58% and 32%, respectively). Moreover, while almost four out of five white respondents thought that vigilante activity had increased, just over a half of coloured and black respondents thought so. Younger respondents were also marginally more inclined to think that vigilantism had increased, compared to older respondents.

Only 13% of respondents said there had been an incident of vigilantism in their community. One-quarter of respondents were unsure, while 61% said there had never been an incident of vigilante activity in their community. Only half of black respondents could say with certainty that no act of vigilantism had taken place in their community, with 20% saying there had, and 31% being unsure. In comparison, almost three-quarters of white and coloured respondents stated unequivocally that no acts of vigilantism had ever taken place in their communities, while 8% of coloured and 4% of white respondents said there had. Nine out of ten respondents who said that there had been incidents of vigilantism in their community, said the last incident occurred during the past year.

A fifth of rural respondents stated that there had been an incident of vigilantism in their area in the past, with one-half being unsure, and 30% saying there had not. A majority of respondents living in small towns and urban areas said there had never been an incidence of vigilantism in their area (63% and 68% respectively), while 14% of urban and 11% of small town respondents said that there had.

Vigilante activity in the areas where respondents lived, was more likely to result in violence than in the peaceful resolution of the conflict. In the majority of cases, the victims of vigilante activity were beaten (55%), killed or shot (18%). In 10% of the cases, the victims were banished from the area, forced out of their village, or taken to the police (7%). Victims of vigilante activity in the urban areas and small towns were more likely to be beaten than rural victims who stood the greatest chance of being shot or killed.

Only 5% of all respondents indicated that they had ever participated personally in vigilante activity. (A further 7% indicated that members of their household or their friends had participated in vigilante activity.) Respondents who had participated personally in vigilante activity did so mainly to retrieve their stolen goods, or participated in instances where suspects of serious crime got away with it (i.e. they were not caught by the police or convicted by the courts). Black respondents were most likely to have been involved in vigilante activity. A slightly higher proportion of female respondents admitted to participation in vigilante activity than male respondents. Women were more inclined to participate in vigilante activity to retrieve their goods, while men were more likely to do so if suspects of serious crime got away with it.

One-fifth of respondents who had never been involved in vigilante activity said that they would consider doing so. They said they would do so if a close family member was raped or murdered, or became the victim of some other serious crime (56%), where the police were ineffective and the offender got away with the crime (28%), or where a serious crime was committed in the local community (13%). Urban and small town respondents who had never been involved in vigilante activity were twice as likely to suggest they would consider it, compared to rural respondents. Black respondents were more likely to say that they would consider participating in vigilante activity (23% of black respondents who had never taken part in vigilante activity), compared to their white and coloured counterparts (18% and 14% respectively). Female respondents were somewhat more likely to suggest that they would participate in vigilante activity than men.

Respondents who had been victims of crime during the previous two years were significantly more likely to say that they either had or would participate in vigilante activity (31%), than respondents who had not been crime victims (20%). 

When respondents were asked what the government should do to reduce vigilantism, almost one-fifth did not know. One-third suggested that the government should improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system so that people knew that offenders were being punished. Other responses included punishing vigilantes or arresting them (12%), increasing the size of the police (10%), training vigilantes and integrating them into the criminal justice system (8%), and refusing bail and imposing harsher sentences on criminals (7%).

Almost half of rural respondents (45%) did not know what the government could do to reduce vigilante activity. The most common response from respondents in urban and small town areas was to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system so that offenders were punished (41% and 32%, respectively). A significant number of respondents from small towns and rural areas suggested that vigilantes should be punished (16% and 12%, respectively), with less support for this option from urban respondents (7%). However, 15% of urban respondents thought the government should increase the size of the police, while only 8% of rural and 6% of small town respondents thought so.

White respondents were more convinced that the government should improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system. Coloured respondents were more in support of punishing vigilantes, while black respondents indicated relatively more support for increasing the size of the police, or integrating vigilantes into the criminal justice system (table 3). 

Most white focus group participants in Port Elizabeth felt that it was ‘wrong and barbaric’ for people to take the law into their own hands. They did indicate, however, that they understood why people engaged in vigilante type activities: because they had lost faith in the legal system. Most black focus group participants in the city were opposed to vigilantism as innocent people might be punished without a full investigation into their alleged criminal conduct. Anti-crime organisations were more acceptable as they did not punish suspected criminals, but took them to the police. Coloured and Asian focus group participants in Port Elizabeth all felt that vigilantism was a good thing provided it was controlled: ‘It is illegal but has become a necessity.’

Farmers in Graaff-Reinet felt that people took the law into their own hands because the courts and the correctional system were ineffective. Little policing took place in black areas and the formal criminal justice system was weak in such areas, with the result that vigilantism was prevalent there. Black and coloured male focus group participants in Graaff-Reinet stated that the public should assist the police, but left the punishment of criminals to the courts. Most female black and coloured focus group participants in Graaff-Reinet argued that vigilantism was wrong. The group suggested that the government should introduce a system where criminals were dealt with immediately, so that their court cases were not postponed. Corporal punishment should be reintroduced.

Black focus group participants in Grahamstown spoke approvingly of a vigilante group in their area which apprehended suspects only if they could be identified and there was strong evidence against them. For example, in a case of theft, the stolen item should be found in the suspect’s possession. Or, in the case of rape, the victim should obtain a medical certificate to show that she was raped. White focus group participants in Grahamstown opposed vigilante activities, but felt that it was growing because the criminal justice system was not working. Most coloured focus group members in Grahamstown stated that they might get involved in vigilante activities if the criminal justice system did not improve, or if they became victims of violent crime.

Umtata focus group participants agreed that the community should not mete out punishment, but should take information about crime suspects to the police. However, the police sometimes did not do their work properly and used excuses, such as the fact that they did not have any vehicles. The police did not arrest certain suspects because of corruption within police ranks, or out of fear of revenge. Thabankulu focus group members agreed that it was wrong for members of the public to take the law into their own hands, but it was sometimes hard to resist doing so. 

A significant minority of the respondents felt that it should not be the courts’ responsibility to punish criminals. Many felt that it should be the police’s responsibility to punish criminals. Almost half of the respondents indicated their support for alternative or traditional forms of punishment. This indicates that a large number of Eastern Cape residents do not understand the proper role and purpose of the courts as being the arbiters of punishment for criminals. Significantly, a large proportion of the public in the Eastern Cape have a fundamentally different understanding of the concept of justice and the basic role of the criminal justice system — especially regarding the issue of punishment — compared to government policy makers and officials of the criminal justice system.

This has far-reaching implications for the state’s ability to combat crime and maintain law and order successfully in certain parts of the Eastern Cape. If, for example, only a minority of rural respondents believe that the courts should be responsible for punishing criminals, and three-quarters support alternative or traditional forms of punishment, then the state will have some difficulty in selling its crime-fighting initiatives to rural citizens. Moreover, many rural residents in the Eastern Cape have conceptions of justice fundamentally different from those held by the state. It would consequently help little for the state to become more effective in its crime-fighting capabilities. Many rural respondents support alternative or traditional forms of punishment not because they perceive the state to be ineffective (although that does play a role), but because they believe that traditional forms of crime control and punishment are more important to them and their communities than anything the state can do.

The state therefore has the difficult task of not only educating many of its rural citizens about the role and purpose of the criminal justice system, but also of persuading rural residents that some of their traditions and customs are not compatible with the values of a modern state’s criminal justice system based on the rule of law and constitutionally entrenched individual rights. The state consequently has to change people’s values and attitudes which have developed and become entrenched in rural citizens’ communities over centuries.

The government needs to take cognisance of the fact that a fifth of the respondents who had never been involved in vigilante activity, were prepared to do so under certain circumstances. The fact that urban respondents were the most prepared to get involved in vigilante activities should be of concern. The rapid growth of Pagad (People Against Gangsterism and Drugs) in the greater Cape Town region, and Mapogo-a-Mathamaga in Pretoria shows that urban people, despondent as a result of high levels of crime and the state’s apparent ineffectiveness to combat it, are easily persuaded to give their support to vigilante organisations.2 It is vital that the government listens to the reasons why respondents would be prepared to participate in vigilante activities: high levels of serious and violent crime, the state’s ineffectiveness in apprehending and convicting criminals, and the perceived lack of punishment for criminals. Should the criminal justice system be unable to address these concerns, it is likely that vigilante activity in the Eastern Cape will increase, especially in urban areas.

Notes

South African Law Commission, Community dispute resolution structures, discussion paper 87, project 94, 1999, pp. 3-5.



Mapogo-a-Mathamaga was formed in the Northern Province in 1996. It is the largest formal self-defence/vigilante organisation in South Africa, and claimed to have a signed up membership of 40 000 in mid-1999. See A D Smith, In a jungle of crime, the leopard changes its spots, Sunday Independent, 25 July 1999. (For information on Mapogo-a-Mathamaga’s growth in Gauteng, see E Ngobeni, Vigilante group sweeps the suburbs, Mail & Guardian, 21 January 2000.)