Experiences of Crime and the State's Response

The survey results indicate that, within a two-year period, every third adult inhabitant of the Eastern Cape became a victim of crime. The probability of an average person falling prey to crime generally, and to certain crimes specifically, is significantly affected by his or her race, gender, area of residence and income. For example, the average white person in the Eastern Cape is twice as likely to become a victim of crime than a coloured person. Whites, however, are primarily affected by property crimes, while blacks and coloureds are affected almost equally by property and violent crimes.

Respondents reported two out of three crimes to the police. Reporting rates were significantly affected by the race of crime victims, and to a lesser extent, their area of residence. Whites and residents of small towns were most likely to report crime to the police, coloured people and rural residents were least likely to do so. Of those crime victims who reported crime to the police, less than one-third were satisfied with the police’s response. Whites were the most satisfied with the police’s response, while rural respondents were almost twice as likely to be satisfied with the police compared to their urban counterparts.

One out of three crimes reported to the police went to court. Considerably more crimes which were reported to the police in rural areas went to court, compared to those which were reported in urban areas or small towns. Rural crime victims who testified in court, however, were less likely to be satisfied with the outcome of the court proceedings than crime victims residing in urban areas or small towns. Moreover, while proportionately more black than white crime victims went to court to give evidence, the latter were more likely to be satisfied with the outcome of the court process. 

All respondents were asked whether they had been victims of crime in the past two years. Just over one-third (34%) of the respondents stated that they had been. Rural respondents reported the highest incidence of victimisation with 40% stating that they had fallen victim to crime over the same two-year period. Just over a third of urban respondents, and 32% of the respondents residing in small towns reported falling victim to crime.

The most common crimes that affected the respondents who had been victims of crime were theft (38% of crimes reported by the respondents), housebreaking (21%), robbery (18%) and assault (13%).

According to the Victims of Crime Survey undertaken by Statistics South Africa (SSA), 15% of individuals living in South Africa experienced at least one individual crime, and 21% of households experienced at least one household crime, over a one-year period (1997).1 According to the survey, burglary was the most frequent crime (experienced by 7% of respondents in 1997), followed by theft of property and stock theft (each 5%), assault (4%) and fraud (3%). The SSA survey revealed that more men (16%) than women (13%) were victims of crime in 1997. Moreover, whites and coloureds (17% of both groups were victimised in 1997) had been victims of crime more than blacks (14%), or Asians (11%). Members of these race groups were not affected uniformly with regard to the ratio between property and violent crime. Almost half of all blacks were victims of violent crime (46%). This was significantly lower for members of other race groups: 38% for coloureds, 28% for Asians and 27% for whites.

Urban respondents who had been victims of crime were most likely to be victims of theft (37%), robbery (20%) and housebreaking (19%). The pattern was similar for residents of small towns: theft (31%), housebreaking (30%) and robbery (18%). Rural respondents experienced a higher prevalence of violent crime: assault (27%), theft (24%) and stock theft (20%).

Male respondents reported higher levels of victimisation (38%), than their female counterparts (30%). Men were more likely to be victims of assault (17% compared to 13% of female respondents) and robbery (22% compared to 12% of women). Women, however, reported higher levels of victimisation as a result of theft (37% compared to 29% of men).

A higher proportion of white respondents were victims of crime (47%), than black (34%) or coloured respondents (23%). White respondents experienced higher levels of victimisation in respect of property crime than coloured and black respondents who suffered more from violent crime. That is, the proportion of property to violent crime for white respondents was 73 to 27. For black respondents, it was 52 to 48, and for coloured respondents 56 to 44 (figure 1).

There is an almost direct relationship between the victimisation rates of respondents and their level of education. Almost half (45%) of the respondents with a tertiary or post-matric qualification had been a victim of crime. This decreased to 39% for respondents with 12 years of schooling, and 22% for those with between six and 11 years of schooling. Some 27% of respondents with less than six years of schooling indicated that they had been victims of crime.

Not surprisingly (as there tends to be a positive relationship between people’s qualifications and income), higher income earners were more likely to have been victims of crime than low income earners. Over half (52%) of respondents earning more than R5 000 per month had been victims of crime. Respondents earning less than R1 000 per month were victimised the least (29%). There were no significant differences in victimisation rates between respondents of different age groups.

During the focus group phase of the survey (which preceded the main questionnaire-based survey), community members in five different cities, towns and villages were asked about their personal experiences of crime.

White focus group members in Port Elizabeth stated that there was a high prevalence of crimes that had no apparent motive. These were crimes committed by people who were bored or did not like their victim for personal reasons. Black focus group participants in Port Elizabeth felt that crimes against children, such as child abuse, were very prevalent. Coloured and Asian focus group members in Port Elizabeth stated that gang activities were the cause of most of the crime and anxiety within their areas, and that innocent people were often caught up in the turf wars of gangs.

Farmers in Graaff-Reinet felt that the most serious crimes committed in their area were murder and stock theft. Incidents of petty crimes were on the increase, which was of concern to farmers, as they felt that petty crimes, if left unchecked, lead to more serious crimes.

Coloured and black focus group participants in Graaff-Reinet stated that young people were committing a large proportion of crimes in their area. Moreover, that the high crime rate could be attributed to the large number of unemployed people living in their area who belonged to gangs and consumed drugs out of boredom. Black focus group participants in Grahamstown felt that theft and burglary were the most prevalent crimes. Whites focus group members in Grahamstown felt that the traditional white areas in the town — and the town centre — were relatively peaceful by national standards. Most felt that the majority of crimes were opportunistic in nature, and that theft — especially out of motor vehicles — was the most common crime in their area.

Of the respondents who had been victims of crime, just over two-thirds reported the incident to the police. Respondents living in small towns were most likely to report the incident to the police, with three-quarters doing so. In urban areas, 65% of crime victims reported crime to the police, and in the rural areas just over half (58%) did so. There was a significant difference in crime reporting rates for different race groups. While 80% of white crime victims reported their victimisation to the police, only 66% of black and 52% of coloured respondents who had been victims of crime reported these incidents.

According to the 1997 Victims of Crime Survey conducted by Statistics South Africa (SSA), 53% of crimes were reported to the police.2 The reason why SSA’s survey reveals a relatively low reporting rate could be explained by the fact that SSA’s survey included household crimes. If, for example, a vehicle was stolen (a household crime) from a member of a survey respondent’s household, it was recorded as a crime. It is likely that such respondents were not always aware that somebody else in their household had reported the crime to the police, with the result that the respondents might have thought that the crime went unreported. Moreover, a majority of the respondents in the SSA survey were from non-urban areas where crime reporting rates are generally lower.

Based on the reasons why crime went unreported, respondents were almost equally divided into three groups. Just over a third (34%) failed to report the crime because they ‘did not get around to it’. A further 36% thought that the police were unreliable or would not do anything, while 28% thought that the crime should be solved by the community or by themselves. Only 2% of respondents did not report the crime to the police because they feared for their safety, or were threatened by the offender.

Of the white respondents who did not report crime to the police, three-quarters failed to do so because they thought the police were unreliable or would not do anything, compared to 54% of coloured, and only 8% of black respondents. Most black respondents who failed to report crime to the police indicated that it was not out of a lack of faith in the police. Almost half did not report the crime because they thought that the crime should be solved by the community or by themselves.

Of the rural respondents who did not report the crime to the police, two-thirds said they rather relied on the community, the local community police forum, or themselves to solve the crime. Only 11% or rural respondents who failed to report the crime to the police thought that the police were unreliable or would not do anything to help them. In contrast, 29% of respondents living in small towns, and 50% residing in urban areas who did not report the crime to the police thought the police would be unreliable or unhelpful.

A high proportion of respondents in urban areas (38%), small towns (35%) and rural areas (22%) did not report crime to the police as they ‘did not get around to it’. This could indicate that, especially in the urban areas, many of the crimes were considered to be relatively petty and did not warrant a trip to the local police station. Moreover, as urban respondents expressed a high degree of lack of faith in the police, many might have thought that reporting the crime would not assist them in any way.

Of those crime victims who had reported crime to the police, less than one-third (31%) were satisfied with the police’s response. There was no significant correlation between the race of respondents and their satisfaction with the police’s response. White respondents were only marginally more satisfied with the police’s response (33% of those who had reported crime to the police) than black or coloured respondents (both 29%).

Satisfaction with the police’s response seems to be directly correlated with respondents’ urbanisation levels. Almost twice as many rural respondents were satisfied with the police’s response compared to urban respondents. (figure 2)

Significantly, however, whites were almost twice as likely as black and coloured respondents to have a positive perception of the police because of their ‘good or efficient response’. Blacks and coloureds were more praising of the police because of their ability to apprehend suspects.

Victims in all areas were most likely to be dissatisfied with the police because of a lack of progress in investigating their case, or because their stolen goods were not recovered. Those who expressed satisfaction with the police in the urban centres and small towns said this was because of the good and efficient response from the police. Only a small number of urban and small town respondents were satisfied with the police because the latter had apprehended the suspects. However, just over a third of rural respondents who had reported the crime to the police, said they were satisfied with the police’s response because they had apprehended the suspects.

In the 1997 Victims of Crime Survey conducted by Statistics South Africa (SSA), respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the way the police was controlling crime in their neighbourhood. Nationally, respondents were slightly more likely to be dissatisfied with the police (39%) than satisfied (38%), while 23% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Respondents in the Eastern Cape were more likely to be satisfied with the police (43%) than dissatisfied (33%), while just under a quarter where neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (24%). Moreover, out of all the provinces, residents of the Eastern Cape came fourth in positively expressing their satisfaction with the police, after residents of the Northern Cape (58%), Western Cape (54%) and the Free State (51%). Least satisfied were residents of Gauteng, where only a quarter expressed their satisfaction with the police.3

Of the respondents who reported crime to the police, just under one-third (29%) ended in court to give evidence. The number of rural victims who reported crime to the police and testified in court, as a proportion of all rural respondents who reported crime to the police, was 79%. It was considerably lower for respondents in small towns and urban areas (both 22%).

However, while rural respondents were most likely to testify in court, they were least likely to be satisfied with the outcome, with only 36% saying they were satisfied. Most indicated that they were not satisfied with the outcome as the suspects were not punished or imprisoned, or because justice was not done. Half of urban, and 64% of small town respondents who testified, were satisfied with the outcome, mainly because the offenders were sentenced and imprisoned.

Of the black respondents who reported crime to the police, 37% testified in court; for coloureds, the corresponding proportion was 29%; and for whites, only 20%. While whites were least likely to testify in court, of those who did, over three-quarters (78%) were satisfied with the outcome, compared to only 50% of coloureds and 37% of blacks. 

Crime reporting levels in the Eastern Cape are higher in small towns than in urban areas. There could be a number of reasons for this. It is possible that, in a small town, people have a more personal relationship with the police than in a large city. That is, small town residents will know where their local police station is, and it will not be more than a few minutes’ drive for them to get there (which is often not the case for city residents). Moreover, the volume of reported crime at a police station in a small town is likely to be lower than in a larger city. Complainants might consequently receive a more personal and attentive service in a small town police station compared to one in a city. Small town respondents were the most likely group to be satisfied with the police’s response to their reporting of a crime because of the good or efficient response of the police (22% of all small town respondents who reported a crime to the police), compared to urban (18%), and rural (7%) respondents.

Two-thirds of rural respondents who did not report crime to the police, failed to do so because the crime was solved by the victim himself, the community, or the community police forum. This is not necessarily bad, provided that the victim or the community do not take the law into their own hands. The limited extent of vigilante activity in rural areas of the Eastern Cape (see chapter on attitudes to punishment) would indicate that this is not (yet) the case to any large extent. Nevertheless, it does indicate that a significant minority of rural crime victims in the Eastern Cape seek the help of their community, rather than the South African Police Service (SAPS), when there are victimised by criminals.

Taking cognisance of the above, the SAPS in the rural Eastern Cape should develop community policing structures that place a high premium on community participation, and improve the operational effectiveness of its detective service. The police’s task should be made easier by the fact that rural respondents had a relatively positive view of the police. It is not because of a lack of faith in the police that rural respondents do not report crime to the authorities. Only one out of ten rural respondents did not report crime because he or she thought that the police were unreliable or unhelpful. Moreover, rural respondents who did report crime were most likely to be satisfied with the police’s response.

Just over half of coloured respondents reported crime to the police — the lowest reporting rate for all three race groups. Unlike black respondents, few coloured respondents did not report crime to the police because they relied on themselves, their community, or a community police forum to solve the crime. In fact, only 15% of coloured respondents who did not report crime to the police relied on themselves or the community to solve the crime. Most coloured respondents failed to report crime because they thought that the police were unreliable or would not do anything. This might have to do with the fact — as was expressed by coloured focus group participants — that criminal gangs in coloured areas have an almost omnipotent status. Many coloured crime victims seem to think that the police are powerless to combat the activities of criminal gangs in their areas. The police need to make a determined effort to ‘retake the streets’ in many of the traditional coloured areas of the Eastern Cape. The people in these areas need to be convinced that the state and its police service have a monopoly over the use of force, and that the police has the ability to protect the public.

Less than a third of respondents who reported crime were satisfied with the police’s response. There were two main reasons why respondents were dissatisfied with the police’s response, both of which could be attended to. Firstly, over a third of dissatisfied respondents were unhappy with the fact that there had been no progress with their case, or that their stolen property had not been recovered. Secondly, respondents were dissatisfied because the police did not investigate their case or took too long to investigate or to react to the complaint.

A key police issue that needs attention is its detective service. Through better resource allocation and better training, the SAPS should be able to improve the operational effectiveness of its detective service, thus improving its detection rate and speeding up its case-solving rate.4 Some cases are almost impossible to solve. Property-related crimes without witnesses and other forensic evidence (such as fingerprints left behind by the culprits) are extremely difficult to solve. The police should endeavour to explain this to crime victims, and at the same time, bolster the police’s image by assisting and advising victims on what to do to minimise the risk of being victimised again. As will be shown in a discussion of focus groups’ comments on the police (to follow below), the public has considerable sympathy for the police and the resource constraints it has to work under. It is likely that many victims of crime whose cases are not solved, will not react negatively to the police, provided they are treated sympathetically and informed of the difficulties the police have in solving their particular case.

Out of the respondents who reported crime to the police, rural respondents were substantially more likely to end up testifying in court. This tends to indicate that the police’s ability to solve cases in such a way that they end up in court, and the prosecution service’s ability to prosecute such cases, are better in rural areas than in the towns and cities of the Eastern Cape. While rural police stations and courts may be poorly resourced, they are arguably better able to deal with the cases that come their way because of the lower volume of cases they have to deal with compared to urban centres.

The fact that a crime victim’s case ends up in court does not guarantee that such a victim will be satisfied with the outcome. While rural and black crime victims were most likely to testify in court, they were least likely to be satisfied with the outcome. However, white and small town crime victims were least likely to testify in court, but were the most satisfied with the outcome. An explanation for this is that, while urban courts take on proportionately more cases, the quality of the detective work and the prosecution, and the resources available to them to do their job adequately are not as good in rural areas as it is in the towns and cities.