Chapter 8

INJURY

Injuries that occurred as a result of an incident were recorded in the survey for both victims and offenders. Injuries were broadly categorised, as indicated in the tables below, ranging from emotional to fatal injuries. Five categories of injury were measured: none, emotional, slight, fatal and firearm injury.

An injury was only recorded in the survey if it was mentioned in the docket. It was felt that the incidence of injury — as provided in the dockets — was much lower than in reality. Both emotional and slight injuries were underreported. Although substantial emotional injury would be associated with most crimes, for instance, this was seldom mentioned in the docket, resulting in gross underreporting of emotional injury. In addition, slight injuries (such as bruising, spraining and grazing) were also underreported.

The dockets provided very detailed accounts of the more serious injuries, such as fatal and firearm injuries. Most of the murder, attempted murder and assault dockets provided police photographs and medical reports of injuries sustained as a result of the crime.

Based on the extent of the survey, it was decided not to record detailed information about the seriousness of injuries. Only the most serious injury was recorded. Thus, there was no information available on multiple injuries. This information was included in the case dockets, usually with photographic evidence, as well as medical reports detailing every aspect of the injury.

In this survey, the interest rather focused on whether or not an injury was sustained, and how severe it was. No attempt was made to itemise the nature of injuries in terms of where they occurred on the person, tools causing injuries, or the cost as a result of treating such injuries. All of these would provide useful information, and future research should be commissioned around this aspect.

The injury level as measured, provides an indicator of the outcome of the incident. The comparative experience of victims and offenders in possession of firearms, as opposed to those victims and offenders who were not in possession, especially in robbery incidents, provides important insights into the utility of a firearm for use in self-defence.

The findings on the robbery incidents were the most reliable. Comparatively speaking, significantly more victims than offenders were injured in robbery and theft incidents. Just fewer than 3% of robbery and theft offenders were injured, while between 8.3% and 31.7% of robbery and theft victims were injured. Most surprising was the finding that more injuries occurred in common robberies (31.7%), than in armed robberies (17.2%) and hijackings (22.5%). There is no clear reason for this anomaly. It might be expected that victims confronted by armed offenders have a greater chance of injury than when confronted by unarmed offenders, such as in the case of common robbery. Yet, a low level of injury occurred among offenders in robbery and theft incidents. The injuries can best be described as isolated and minor, while victims, on the other hand, experienced a wide range of injuries. Only a relatively small proportion of these victims experienced firearm injuries and only in one incident was this fatal. The low level of injury could be attributed to the high level of compliance shown by victims when confronted by armed offenders.

Nature of violence used in incident

Broadly speaking, the nature of the violence used in incidents was classified according to three types: those incidents where no violence or threats occurred; those where only threats were used; and those where only violence was used.

It is self-evident that, in those crimes where the victim was not present at the time the crime was committed, lower levels of violence and intimidation usually occurred. For example, during a home burglary, the victim is not present and therefore has a low chance of injury. On the other hand, the type of intimidation and violence used is more pertinent to the analysis of those crime types in which the victim and perpetrator interface, such as in armed robbery, murder and assault cases.

The extent to which threats were used in armed robberies and hijackings was similar, at 73.8% of armed robbery incidents and 74.4% of hijacking incidents, while the use of threats in common robbery was lower (32.5%). It is probable that higher levels of compliance are achieved from victims in armed robberies and hijackings because of the presence of a firearm, while the victim in a common robbery may feel more able to challenge the offender. Half of the common robbery incidents involved violence, raising interesting questions about the common perception that armed robbery and hijacking are more violent crime types than common robbery.

Table 44: Type of threats and violence used in incidents (percentage)
Category	Armed robbery	Common Robbery	Hi-jacking	Murder	Attempted Murder	Theft of a firearm	Pointing a firearm	Dis-charging firearm in built-up place	Pos-session of illegal firearm	Assault	Negligent loss of firearm	Pos-session/ use of firearm under influence of alcohol
No violence/ threats	2.3	16.9	0	0	3.4	88.7	4.6	32.1	93.8	0	100	60
Only threats	73.8	32.5	74.4	5.3	2.3	6.5	82.8	17.9	0	23.5	0	20
Violence used	23.8	50.6	25.6	94.7	94.3	4.8	12.6	50	6.3	76.5	0	20
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Cases (n)	214	83	78	57	88	62	87	28	16	17	6	5

Table 45: Level of injuries experienced by offenders (percentage)
Injuries	Armed robbery	Common Robbery	Hi-jacking	Murder	Attempted Murder	Theft of a firearm	Pointing a firearm	Dis-charging firearm in built-up place	Pos-session of illegal firearm	Assault	Negligent loss of firearm	Pos-session/ use of firearm under influence of alcohol
Yes	2.9	2.8	0	8.5	6.9	3	3.7	3.8	0	5.3	0	0
No	97.1	97.2	100	91.5	93.1	97	96.3	95.2	100	94.7	100	100
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Offenders (n)	455	179	190	71	101	33	107	26	29	19	6	6

Injuries experienced by the offender

Table 46: Nature of injury sustained by offenders (percentage)
Injury	Armed robbery	Com-mon Robbery	Hi-jacking	Murder	Attempted Murder	Theft of a firearm	Point-ing a firearm	Dis-charging firearm in built-up place	Pos-session of illegal firearm	Assault	Neg-ligent loss of firearm	Pos-session/ use of firearm under influence of alcohol
None	97.1	97.2	100	91.5	93.1	97	96.3	95.2	100	94.7	100	100
Emotional	0.4	1.1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Slight	2	1.1	0	1.4	6.9	3	0	3.8	0	5.3	0	0
Fatal	0	0.6	0	5.6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Firearm	0.4	0	0	1.4	0	0	3.7	0	0	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Offenders (n)	455	179	190	71	101	33	107	26	29	19	6	6
Cases (n)	223	87	80	57	93	63	92	32	17	18	6	7

With regard to injuries experienced by offenders, it is likely that the information represented in the dockets is more accurate for crimes in which the victim and the offender interface, than in other crime types. Across all crime types, the level of fatal injury sustained by offenders as a result of the use of a firearm was low. Firearms do not significantly impact on, or pose resistance to the intended actions of offenders. Regardless of whether the victim was armed or not, the offender is, in the vast majority of the cases, not injured, specifically not by a firearm. This finding raises interesting questions about whether the possession of a firearm is a useful deterrent in crime, in terms of neutralising the threat of an offender to inflict an injury.

In surveyed armed robbery incidents, two offenders were injured with a firearm. The level of injury experienced by offenders in armed robberies, common robberies and hijackings was negligible.

Table 47: Total injuries sustained by victims (percentage)
Injury	Armed robbery	Common Robbery	Hi-jacking	Murder	Attempted Murder	Theft of a firearm	Point-ing a firearm	Dis-charging firearm in built-up place	Possession of illegal firearm	Assault	Negligent loss of firearm	Pos-session/ use of firearm under influence of alcohol
Yes	17.2	31.7	22.5	89	56.3	8.3	21.2	24.1	33.3	78.9	0	25
No	82.8	68.3	77.5	11	43.7	91.7	78.8	75.9	66.7	21.1	100	75
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Victims (n)	267	101	89	73	103	60	99	29	6	19	13	4

In the murder dockets, 8.5% of offenders (4) involved in the incidents were killed. In each case, this occurred as a result of the use of a firearm. In murder incidents, one offender was injured with a firearm (in addition to the four offenders killed with a firearm).

In the pointing of a firearm, three offenders were injured, while one offender was slightly injured in the assault incidents.

Injuries experienced by victims

With regard to the number of injuries, higher proportions of victims were usually slightly rather than seriously injured. By definition, those crimes that are physical in nature (such as murder, attempted murder and assault) represent the highest proportion of injury to victims.

Greater proportions of common robbery victims (31.7%) were injured as opposed to victims of armed robbery (17.2%) and hijacking (22.5%). The majority of these injuries were categorised as slight injuries. This challenges conventional thinking that armed robbery and hijacking claim more injury to victims. In addition, the seriousness of the injuries is also relatively higher in common robberies. It was found that 5% of the victims in common robberies were seriously injured and 3% were injured with a firearm. Perhaps the absence of a firearm in common robbery incidents, among other factors, increases the willingness of the victim to resist the offender. Other factors that also impact on the willingness of the victim to resist could include the number of victims and offenders involved in the incident, the number of other weapons, the location where the crime occurred and the value of, or sentiment attached to property being stolen.

The highest proportion of injury to victims occurred in murder and attempted murder incidents. More specifically, 73 victims and 70 offenders were involved in the 57 murder incidents surveyed. Of the 73 victims, 57 were fatally wounded (78.1%), six were injured with a firearm (8.2%), one victim was slightly injured, another emotionally injured and eight victims were not injured. In attempted murder incidents, 56.3% of the victims were injured.

The motive for pointing a firearm varies from case to case. In the dockets analysed in this survey, the motive was usually intimidation, threat and in reaction to an event that excited rage. However, the motive was never directly to cause injury to the victim, or to steal property from the victim. Despite this, 21.2% of victims in these incidents were injured. In terms of the impact of the injury on the victim, the outcome is at similar levels to those of hijacking. Yet, the penalties to the offender pointing a firearm are significantly lower. Usually, they are fined, and such fines are significantly reduced if the offender pleads guilty.

Table 48: Nature of injury sustained by victims (percentage)
Injury	Armed robbery	Com-mon Robbery	Hi-jacking	Murder	Attempted Murder	Theft of a firearm	Point-ing a firearm	Dis-charging firearm in built-up place	Pos-session of illegal firearm	Assault	Negligent loss of firearm	Pos-session/ use of firearm under influence of alcohol
None	82.8	68.3	77.5	11	43.7	91.7	78.8	75.9	66.7	21.1	100	75
Emotional	0.7	3	1.1	1.4	1.9	3.3	2	3.4	16.7	5.3	0	0
Slight	13.1	20.8	18	1.4	11.7	3.3	18.2	0	16.7	57.9	0	25
Serious	0.4	5	1.1	0	0	0	1	0	0	5.3	0	0
Fatal	1.9	0	0	78.1	0	1.7	0	3.4	0	5.3	0	0
Firearm	1.1	3	2.2	8.2	42.7	0	0	17.2	0	5.3	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Victims (n)	267	101	89	73	103	60	99	29	6	19	13	4

There is an inconsistency in terms of sentences handed down by the court: these do not always tally with the injury suffered by the victim. Some of the firearm-related crimes show injury levels similar to, or even in excess of the more violent robbery crimes. For instance, of the 29 victims involved in discharging a firearm in a built-up or public place, seven (24.1%) of the victims were injured. The qualitative evidence suggests that a similar trend could be demonstrated in the other crimes that transgress the Arms and Ammunition Act. For instance, of the four victims involved in incidents of the possession of a firearm under the influence of alcohol, one of them was injured. In the incidents of possession of an illegal firearm, two of the six victims involved in the incident were injured.

It is problematic that there is no correlation between the level of injury that was sustained and the level of punishment meted out to the offender. Perhaps this can be attributed to the fact that it is difficult to assess or measure injury and how this would translate into victim compensation.