Over half (59.6%%) of the sample were victims of at least one crime between 1993 and July 1998. Stock theft was the most prevalent crime type, followed closely by burglary.



The theft of cattle and sheep may be more organised and motivated by ‘greed’ rather than ‘need’ as in the case of other types of stock theft.



The vast majority of all victims believed crime, with the exception of stock theft, is committed by people living in their areas. The majortiy of victims of violent crime (72%) knew the perpetrators — 58% by name and 14% by sight; 54% of those reporting vandalism knew the offender.



Less than a quarter of all victims changed their behaviour after victimisation. The implications for crime prevention are important, since people are usually required to alter their daily activities in some way to reduce their likelihood of becoming a victim.

More than half of the sample (59.6%) had experienced at least one crime between 1993 and 1998. In 1997 — the most recent twelve month period covered by the survey — 20.2% of the sample were victimised.

Over the five year period, the most common crime was stock theft (17% were victims), followed closely by burglary (16%) (Figure 1). One in ten rural people surveyed experienced vandalism — mostly directed against a vehicle (Table 8). Property crimes were far more prevalent among the rural sample than violent crimes. Of the violent crimes, the most common offences reported to the survey were assault and murder. A few people reported robbery (24) and sexual assault (19).

 

Stock theft was defined in the survey as "the theft of stock owned by the household only." The discussion below of the details of the crime refers to the most recent incident of stock theft (as opposed to all incidents reported between 1993 and 1998).

Livestock and poultry were kept by the vast majority of rural households (81%). The most common type was poultry followed by cattle, goats, sheep, pigs and donkeys (table 10). Except for those who kept poultry, respondents were most likely to own small numbers of livestock (table 11). In the case of those who owned cattle, for example, 41% had between six and ten cattle and 30% owned between one and five cattle. Only 6% of respondents who owned cattle kept more than 20 animals.

When asked how many of each type of stock were lost in the most recent incident of theft, more cattle were reported stolen than any other livestock: 633 cattle were taken, 178 sheep, 171 goats, 42 pigs, 20 chickens/ducks and 11 donkeys/horses. Stock was most likely to be stolen in small numbers (figure 2).

Figure 3: Whether perpetrators were locals or outsiders according to victims of stock theft (n=126)

Burglary victims were more decisive than stock theft victims on the question whether the crime was committed by locals or by people from outside their area. The majority (74%) believed that locals were behind the burglaries, with a quarter (24%) saying both locals and outsiders were involved. Only three respondents (3%) thought outsiders alone were responsible.

As in the case of stock theft, the vast majority of burglary victims (86%) believed the perpetrators were motivated by private financial gain. Three respondents attributed the burglaries to political conflict, two to faction fighting and five could not think of possible motives.

Impact of burglary

Respondents were asked to describe how the burglary had affected their families and themselves. The financial impact was overwhelming: 68% of victims alluded to economic consequences which were no doubt exacerbated by the fact that only 2% of the victims had insured their household contents against theft. Among those who mentioned financial impact, 33 said they could not replace the stolen goods, four said they required the stolen items for survival, and another four had to borrow money from their neighbours or from money lenders.

The emotional impact of the crime was reported by a quarter of burglary victims. Twelve said they were fearful, seven mentioned depression, four explained that their whole family had suffered from shock as a result of the incident, and two cited anger and revenge. Only one person mentioned the physical impact of the burglary in the form of requiring hospitalisation.

Despite the negative impact of the burglary, only 16% of victims changed their daily routine as a result of the crime. Of these 21 victims, 13 said they felt safer as a result.

Violent crime and robbery

For the purposes of this survey, crimes that involve violence are divided into two groups: assault, murder and sexual assault are analysed as one group and are referred to as ‘violent crime’. Robbery and carjacking (a subcategory of ‘robbery’) are considered separately and are referred to as ‘robbery’.

Violent crime: assault, murder and sexual assault

The following definitions of these crimes were used in the survey:

Assault includes any incident in which the victim was personally attacked or hurt. This may have occurred in the home or elsewhere in a public place, and may have been committed by someone known to the victim such as a relative, friend or family member or by a stranger.



Murder includes the deliberate killing of someone in the respondent’s household or immediate family residing in the same house as the respondent.



Sexual assault includes any action in which an individual is forced either by threats or the use of force, to perform sexual acts against his/her will. These acts may include — but are not restricted to — sexual intercourse, and can occur in the victim’s home, someone else’s home or a public place. The perpetrators may or may not be known to the victim.

 Nature of violent crime and weapons used

The demographic profile of the victims of assault, murder and sexual assault is as follows:

Assault: of the 41 victims who described incidents of assault in detail, 26 (63%) were women and 15 (37%) were men.



Murder: of the 39 people who described the most recent incident in which a member of their household was murdered, 31 said that one person was killed. Most of the victims (30) were males. Equal numbers of victims were between the ages of 19 and 30 as those between the ages of 31 and 50 years. Only six victims were older than 50.



Sexual assault: of the 25 survivors whose details respondents provided to the survey, 12 were below the age of 20 and ten were between 20 and 30 years old. Only three women were over 30 years. Most respondents (21) described the incident as rape; three said it was attempted rape, and one called it ‘offensive behaviour’.

When asked what they were doing at the time of the incident, victims were most likely to be at home relaxing, completing household chores, or travelling to or from work or church (figure 5). This data matches that above on where violent crimes occurred.

Although victims were more likely to be alone when they were attacked, a significant minority were in a group: over half (55%) were alone and 45% were in company. A similar trend is evident with respect to the numbers of offenders: 55% of victims reported only one attacker; 37% recalled between two and four attackers, and 8% reported more than five perpetrators.

Violent crimes were most likely to be carried out with the use of sheer force: in 36% of cases, respondents said physical strength was used. Knives were used in a quarter of incidents (25%) with firearms and pangas/axes reported with almost equal frequency (table 14). The majority of victims (68%) sustained injuries as a result of violent crime.

The vast majority of violent crime victims knew the perpetrators: 58% said they knew the attacker by name and 14% recognised the offender by sight. Only 27% did not know who had committed the offence. Of those who knew the perpetrators by name, 46% identified the perpetrators as a family member; 34% were a spouse or intimate partner, and the remaining 20% were identified as friends or colleagues.

Given that many victims knew their offenders, it is not surprising that 61% of respondents believed people from their area were responsible for these crimes. In this respect, 27% attributed these violent offences to both locals and outsiders, 9% were unsure and only 4% thought outsiders alone were responsible.

The fact that a third of violent crimes occurred in the home and that 50 of the 66 perpetrators known by name were either family members, spouses or intimate partners suggests that much of the violent crime takes the form of domestic violence. This explains why few respondents associated violent crimes with political conflict, faction fighting or private financial gain (table 16). Alcohol abuse is likely to be one of the factors linked to violent crimes of this nature: 39% of respondents thought the incident was related to the consumption of alcohol; 30% disagreed and 31% were unsure.

As would be expected, emotional impact was mentioned by more victims of violent crime than of property crimes covered above. Half of the 66 violent crime victims (50%), who spoke about impact, described depression, shock and anger experienced by themselves and members of their households after victimisation. Financial considerations were nevertheless mentioned by 21 respondents, most of whom noted the impact of the loss of a breadwinner as a result of a murder.

As was reported by stock theft and burglary victims, few victims of violent crime (16%) indicated that their daily activities changed after the incident. Four said they no longer walked alone at night, one stopped drinking in public places, another moved to a new village and one respondent reported separating from her spouse.

Robbery

Only 36 victims described their experiences of robbery in detail. The analysis below therefore reflects only the experiences of these victims and not those of robbery victims in rural areas in general.

The following definitions for robbery and carjacking were used in the survey:

Robbery: the theft of any item from the respondent’s person, where force or the threat of force is used.



Carjacking: the theft of the person’s car, van, or bakkie from the respondent’s person using force or attempted force.

Most of the robberies reported to the survey took the form of a ‘mugging’. Of the 30 victims who described incidents of robbery in detail, 14 said that belongings or money were stolen from them; three said a wallet was taken, and another three reported the loss of a handbag. Five said food and clothes were stolen from their homes and another five reported the loss of tools or equipment. Only six respondents described a carjacking in detail.

None of the property that was stolen from the 36 victims who described robbery in detail, was covered by insurance.

When and where robbery occurred

Of the 36 victims describing robbery, 25 (69%) said the crime was committed on a weekday — in most cases, Friday. The remaining offences occurred at the weekend. The most likely time for robberies was after 12h00: 16 victims reported being victimised between 12h00 and 18h00, and 13 said the crime occurred between 18h00 and 0h00. The remaining seven robberies happened in the morning between 6h00 and 12h00.

Over half of the victims were robbed while in their village: 23 (64%) reported this to be the case. The remaining nine said the crime occurred when they were at home and four were walking in the street at the time of victimisation.

Nature of robbery and weapons used

Seventeen victims of robbery were alone when the crime was committed — the remaining 13 were in a group. In 25 of the 36 cases, there were between two and four offenders. Eight victims reported one offender and one said there were more than five.

Violence was used in half of the incidents of robbery; in the other half, victims reported being threatened only. The most likely weapons were knives (used by 34% of offenders), followed by physical strength (31%) and guns (26%). Six victims were unable to see whether the assailant carried a weapon or not. Only nine victims (25%) sustained injuries as a result of robbery. The majority were unharmed.

As in the case of the other crimes covered above, most robbery victims believed that the crime was committed by people from their area: 21 respondents (70%) said that locals were responsible; eight named both locals and outsiders and one was unsure. The motive for the crime was believed to be financial gain in 34 of the 36 cases.

Impact of robbery

As in the case of other crimes involving property, robbery victims were most likely to describe the financial implications of the crime: 12 victims mentioned various financial issues; ten described emotional consequences such as fear, depression and anger, and three said the impact was minimal.

The victimisation experience was unlikely to result in victims changing their behaviour, however. Only 11 (32%) described changes to their daily activities. Of the nine who gave details about these changes, five improved the security around their homes, three said they no longer walked alone at night and one had to find a new job as a result of the loss of income incurred by the robbery.

Deliberate damage or destruction of property

In the survey, deliberate damage to property covered acts of vandalism committed against a house/kraal, crops, livestock, farm equipment, fencing or a vehicle.

Although 74 people in the sample reported having been a victim of vandalism between 1993 and July 1998, only 26 respondents described the most recent incident in detail. Trends cannot be drawn from such a small sample, and the details below therefore describe the experiences of the 26 victims only and not those of vandalism victims in rural areas generally.

When and where vandalism occurred

Eighteen of the 26 victims said the crime was committed on a weekday, with the remaining six occurring over the weekend. Eleven incidents of vandalism occurred at night between 18h00 and 00h00, with seven reported from 12h00 and 18h00, and three each from 00h00-06h00 and 06h00-12h00.

Twelve of the 26 crimes were committed at the victim’s home and ten reportedly occurred in the victim’s village. The remaining four incidents took place either in the grazing land or kraal. At the time of the incident, fifteen of the victims were at home, either relaxing or engaged in household activities. One respondent was away at the time and another was engaged in recreational activity.

Nature of vandalism and violence used

During the course of the incident, 24 of the 26 victims said violence was used. Nevertheless, only two respondents sustained injuries as a result. In two incidents, up to seven other people were injured.

In 12 cases, weapons were not visible to the victim. Equal numbers of victims that did notice the perpetrator’s weapons (3 in each case) mentioned firearms, knives and axes/pangas.Ten of the incidents were committed by only one offender, eight by between two and four perpetrators and four by more than five. Fourteen victims reported knowing the offenders, seven by name and seven by sight. Not surprisingly, when asked if they thought the offenders were locals or from outside the area, eighteen respondents believed they were locals. Six said both locals and outsiders were responsible for vandalism and one implicated outsiders only.

Possible motives for vandalism offered by victims were private financial gain (9), other reasons (8), political conflict (4), conflict over resources (3) and faction fighting (2).

Impact of vandalism

Ten victims mentioned emotional consequences such as depression, anger and fear. Five victims said the vandalism had affected them economically, four said the crime had no real impact on them, and two said they took the law into their own hands as a result.

Only six of the 26 victims changed their daily activities as a result of the incident. Four mentioned measures to enhance their own security, including keeping someone at the homestead at all times, not walking alone at night and getting watch dogs. Another two had sought employment to supplement the loss of income as a result of the vandalism.

Discussion of key points

The extent of victimisation in the rural areas covered by the survey is not dissimilar to that reported in the national victims of crime survey. It is also not surprising that the most common crime in rural areas is stock theft, followed by burglary. Owning stock is one of the characteristics that distinguishes the rural population from that of urban areas. Burglary was the most common crime recorded in the victims of crime survey, as well as in the four city victim surveys conducted by the ISS in Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town and Pretoria between 1997 and 1998.

Stock theft

Some indicators suggest that the theft of certain types of stock (cattle and sheep) may be organised and motivated by opportunities for resale, rather than by ‘need’ — an intuitive explanation for crime in poor areas:

A large number of cattle were reported stolen (633 in all). In the case of sheep, large numbers were stolen at a time (Figure 2), which makes stealing ‘for the pot’ an unlikely explanation.



Victims of stock theft were least likely of all victims to say that people from their area committed the crime (Figure 6). The involvement of both outsiders and locals in stock theft supports the argument that this type of crime is more organised and less opportunistic than the others covered in the survey.

Stock was most likely to be stolen from the vicinity of the homestead at the time when people were most likely to be at home. This could suggest that the crimes were well planned — and that the presence of people was not a potential obstacle — or that little deters offenders from committing stock theft, whether physical security to protect the target, or consequences of the criminal justice system.

Preventing stock theft is likely to be difficult. The vast majority of respondents (87%) did not change the way they handled their stock after victimisation. Furthermore, over half of the victims of stock theft did not protect their stock from theft in any way. Of those who did, most either built stronger kraals or used traditional methods of protection. More sophisticated measures or lifestyle changes were probably unaffordable for most of the rural respondents.

Common indicators across crime types

When crime occurs

Victims of all crimes covered in this discussion were most likely to say the offence was committed on a weekday with Friday being the most common day of the week. The most likely time was in the evening between 18h00 and 0h00 in the case of stock theft, burglary and the deliberate destruction of property. Violent crimes and robberies were most likely in the afternoon and early evening.

Familiarity with offenders

Victims were asked whether they thought offenders came from their own areas or from outside. The vast majority of all victims, with the exception of those reporting stock theft, thought that crime was committed by locals. The second most likely response was that locals and outsiders together were responsible for crime. This suggests that many victims have some idea of who the perpetrators are.

In the case of violent crime and the destruction of property, victims were directly asked whether or not they knew the perpetrators. In this respect, 72% of violent crime victims knew the perpetrators — 58% by name and 14% by sight. Of those who knew the attackers by name, 46% identified them as family members. In the case of vandalism, 54% of victims knew the offender. Many victims therefore know who is responsible for committing crimes against them, suggesting important points of intervention for the police and courts — securing a conviction should be easier — and for crime prevention — domestic violence requires interventions other than law enforcement.

Motives for the crime

In the vast majority of cases, victims believed the motive for the crime was financial gain (Figure 7). Not surprisingly, violent crime was most likely to be attributed to other motives. Factors explaining domestic violence are probably the ‘other’ motives: a third of violent crimes were committed in the home and 50 of the 66 perpetrators who were known to the victim were family members, spouses or intimate partners. Although mentioned by only 50 respondents in total, political conflict and faction fighting were factors in violent crime and vandalism.