Conclusion

The attitudes to punishment survey of Eastern Cape residents revealed a high level of ignorance of crime levels and the nature of crime in the country, and a widespread belief that criminals are not punished harshly enough. It would be easy to blame much of this on a poorly educated populace in the Eastern Cape and an underresourced criminal justice system which is incapable of effectively fighting crime. However, a comparison of the findings of the Eastern Cape survey with those of a 1996 survey about attitudes to punishment in England and Wales reveals a surprising similarity in opinion and perceptions among respondents in both countries.1

In both surveys, the majority of respondents had the mistaken belief that crime had increased substantially. Even though levels of reported crime had decreased over an 18 month period prior to the survey, 47% of the respondents in the British survey thought there was a ‘lot more crime’ compared to the previous two years. In the Eastern Cape, 83% of respondents thought that there was a ‘lot more crime’ in South Africa compared to 1994, while the number of reported crimes had increased by only 8% over that period.



Respondents in both surveys overestimated the proportion of recorded crime involving violence. In the British survey, 78% of respondents thought that 30% or more crimes recorded by the police involved violence or the threat of violence, when only 6% of crimes recorded by the police at the time of the survey were violent or sexual in nature. In the Eastern Cape, just over half of the respondents thought that 80 or more out of every 100 crimes involved violence or the threat of violence. In fact, some 32% of crimes reported to the SAPS involved an element of violence.



In the British survey, 82% of the sample thought that judges were out of touch with the public (66% among Eastern Cape respondents); the figure for magistrates was 63% (68% in the Eastern Cape).



Some 79% of the respondents in the British survey thought that sentences were too lenient. In the Eastern Cape, 85% of the respondents thought so.

Compared to South Africa, England and Wales have low levels of (especially violent) crime, and an adequately resourced criminal justice system staffed by well-trained personnel. Moreover, in comparison to the residents of the Eastern Cape, the public in England and Wales are better educated and have access to a variety of media to remain informed about new government crime-fighting initiatives, crime levels and sentencing trends.

The fact that many of the responses in both the British and the South African survey are similar, indicates that people’s views on crime and punishment are largely independent of actual levels of crime (levels of reported crime for England and Wales decreased in the 18 months prior to the British survey), and the effect crime has on people’s lives (as crime has arguably had a greater impact on people’s lives in South Africa than in Britain).

RURAL-URBAN DIVIDE IN ATTITUDES

The Eastern Cape survey results show that there are considerable disparities in attitudes to punishment between rural and urban respondents. Compared to their urban counterparts, rural respondents were considerably more likely to say that it was the function of the police and the community to punish criminals. Rural respondents also indicated far more support for alternative or traditional forms of punishment than urban respondents. Rural respondents who had been victims of crime were least likely to report crime to the police, primarily because they relied on the community or themselves to solve the crime.

Rural respondents had different expectations of the criminal justice system and the state’s role in the fight against crime. They also placed less importance on constitutional rights and the fair treatment of crime suspects and convicted offenders. Compared to rural respondents, urban respondents were about three times as likely to think that it was important for the criminal justice system to respect the constitutional rights of accused persons. Rural respondents were also the least likely to think that it was important for convicted offenders to be treated fairly by the criminal justice system.

The rural-urban divide in people’s attitudes towards punishment and the criminal justice system has important implications for the state’s approach to crime-fighting. If the state wants to persuade all its citizens to participate in the criminal justice process it needs to adopt different crime-fighting approaches for different communities. A crime-fighting strategy for an urban environment might fail in a rural area because of different local conditions. Moreover, not only should crime-fighting strategies be devised that take local conditions into account, they should also be marketed with local attitudes in mind. A crime-fighting strategy which is not understood and accepted by rural citizens is unlikely to work in the country’s rural areas. Centrally developed crime-fighting policies which are applicable uniformly to the whole country are likely to fail in a country with as disparate a population as South Africa’s. This is particularly important in respect of the department of justice’s policy on community dispute resolution, and the state’s response to vigilantism.

PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT

Many respondents’ perceptions of various aspects of the criminal justice system were wrong. For example, respondents overestimated the increase in crime since 1994, and the extent of violent crime. This could have clouded their attitudes towards punishment for criminals and the effect of sentences on crime levels. There was a widespread belief among respondents that harsher sentences and a more efficient criminal justice system would drastically reduce crime levels.

Although tough sentences have a deterrent effect, they are unlikely to address many of the factors that cause (especially violent) crime. Many violent crimes occur within the family relationship or among people who know each other.2 There is, for example, little an efficient criminal justice system can do to prevent acquaintance rape or domestic violence. Moreover, harsher sentences are likely to have a positive effect on levels of crime only if more criminals are caught.

The public needs to be informed about what the criminal justice system can and cannot do. The perception that an efficient criminal justice system, and ‘quick-fix’ measures such as harsh laws and capital punishment, can put a stop to crime needs to be dispelled. The state should be forthright about the criminal justice system’s limitations, and should seek the co-operation of civil society and the public in the fight against crime. Truthful and timely information also needs to be disseminated about criminal justice performance indicators such as crime levels, and prosecution and imprisonment rates.

To bolster people’s confidence in the ability of the state to combat crime, the public have to be informed about what is being done to strengthen the criminal justice system. New legislative initiatives (such as the minimum sentencing legislation), and operational improvements to the criminal justice system have to be marketed to the public.

KNOWLEDGE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

There appeared to be considerable ignorance among a large portion of respondents about the criminal justice system, its role and responsibilities, and the different functions of its component parts (police, justice and prisons). If people are to have confidence in the criminal justice system, and make use of its services to protect themselves and their assets from criminals, they need to have at least a rudimentary understanding of how the system works. Moreover, if people are to co-operate with the criminal justice system, they need to have the confidence, for example, to provide the police and the prosecution service with information and evidence against criminals and their activities. Such confidence can be fostered only by telling the public what the role and duties are of, for example, police officers and prosecutors.

The public also have to be educated on how judicial officers arrive at their sentencing decisions and what goes on in the country’s prisons. The widespread belief that sentences are too lenient and that prisoners have an easy life in South African prisons must be dispelled if confidence in the criminal justice system is to be restored, and calls for draconian measures against criminals are to be countered.

DRACONIAN VERSUS CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

The survey revealed that the potential for members of the public to engage in vigilante activity is considerable. While few respondents admitted to participation in vigilante activities, many indicated their willingness to do so under certain conditions. Respondents also took a draconian approach towards the punishment of criminals, with a majority favouring a reintroduction of the death penalty, corporal punishment for juveniles, and forced manual labour for prisoners.

However, most respondents thought it was important that the criminal justice system respected the constitutional rights of accused persons and treated convicted offenders fairly. There seems to be a tension between respondents’ desire to deal harshly and mercilessly with criminals, on the one hand, and to afford convicted criminals constitutional rights and protection, on the other.

It would appear that crime levels and feelings of insecurity have not reached levels in the Eastern Cape that would erode public confidence in the Constitution and the rule of law. Most respondents wanted tough action against criminals — without sacrificing constitutional liberties. However, the position of respondents is precarious. A worsening crime situation, for example, could push many respondents firmly into a draconian position where they would be indifferent to the state trampling on the constitutional rights of criminals, provided that such an approach lowered the crime rate. It is incumbent on politicians not to take a populist stance and thus encourage the public’s desire for revenge against criminals, lest this results in a general loss of respect for the country’s Constitution and the rights enshrined in it.