In recent months, the growth and activities of People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (Pagad) have captured the imagination of the media, as well as a broad spectrum of frustrated and embattled South Africans who were simply losing hope in the face of burgeoning violent crime. Such community activism in the fight against crime is the foundation stone of the police/community partnership which ultimately underpins most of the government's crime prevention programmes, including the Annual Police Plan and the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS).

However, without either demonising or romanticising Pagad, recent events have clearly demonstrated both the benevolent and the potentially sinister sides of community activism in the fight against crime. To its credit, the NCPS document recognised and anticipated those dangers as early as May, when it stated:

"... the absence of victim aid services has added to the sense of powerlessness of victims, and has contributed to public perceptions that perpetrators lie at the heart of crime prevention strategies in South Africa. Not only does this often generate the quest for informal retributive justice, which is criminal in nature, but it also breathes life into popular resistance to human rights issues which are viewed as serving perpetrators rather than victims' needs. It is of primary importance that the NCPS represents a victim-centred approach to the problem of crime."

The NCPS document went on to say that, along with the absence of effective strategies to empower and assist victims, historical problems surrounding the credibility of the law enforcement agencies, and the slow process of building public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole, had contributed to a vicious cycle of defence and revenge through mechanisms of private and informal justice. This view is very important, because it places 'victimisation' at the heart of potentially destructive social behaviour. Individuals and communities who perceive themselves to be unprotected and under attack could in fact become very threatening – as has been demonstrated by the brutal murder of an alleged druglord on the Cape Flats. It is interesting and ironic that crime divides society so sharply, and yet victimisation knows no boundaries of race, class or political persuasion.

The implications for how victim aid and empowerment strategies are to be viewed are also very important. These strategies are often devalued, and viewed simply as 'remedial' measures which occur after the fact and which contribute little or nothing to crime prevention. But in reality, if untreated, today's victim is potentially tomorrow's perpetrator. Victim aid is therefore about intervening proactively in a cycle of violence, and is a vital dimension of effective crime prevention.

There is probably nothing quite as damaging to the criminal justice system as the perception by victims of crime that instead of representing their needs and interests, the system in fact 're-victimises' them. This occurs in a number of ways:

High levels of corruption within the criminal justice system devastate public confidence in the police and justice departments, and constitute perhaps the most serious form of secondary victimisation. It leaves victims and survivors with the understandable sense that they enjoy no recourse to justice.



The point at which victims report crimes is often the very point at which they lose any 'ownership' of the event and its repercussions. The failure to keep victims informed of the progress of investigations is one widespread manifestation of this. A serious lack of accountability to the victims and a repeated failure to inform them about the prospects, progress and process of prosecutions are others.



Even more serious is the widespread lack of sensitivity and training among police and prosecutors when dealing with crimes such as rape and child abuse. As a result, victims of such 'crimes of shame' are often reluctant to report them, or to pursue prosecutions.



The lack of effective rehabilitation in the prisons system, and the resultant massive levels of recidivism, pave the way for repeat victimisation and constitute the secondary victimisation of society as a whole.

In the light of the above, it is imperative to recognise that victim empowerment programmes are crucially important to crime prevention.

There is another reason as well. The obsession with perpetrator-centred approaches to crime prevention – frequently as a motivation for 'hard' policing and sentencing approaches – often reinforces popular resistance to a growing human rights culture, which is seen as protecting the interests of perpetrators only. Until crime prevention approaches become more explicitly victim-centred, this will service a popular (and potentially even a governmental) willingness to retreat from a commitment to hard-won human rights. The point at which this retreat occurs represents another form of secondary victimisation of the entire society.

Representations of crime by the media also play a role in masking and shaping perceptions of victimisations. Sensational reporting of particular crimes and the tendency to reproduce the visions and needs of organised or audible groups in society may, ironically, serve to hide from public view those less vocal or less well organised categories of victims. In particular, there is a danger that society will constantly fail to appreciate the magnitude and impact of violent crime within the private arena of the home – where the primary victims are women, children and the elderly. It is internationally recognised that the home is the primary learning ground for tomorrow's violent criminals.

What, then, are the challenges which have to be met in order to develop a victim-centred crime prevention approach?

Firstly, the hard challenges of transforming criminal justice institutions have to incorporate – as a matter of priority – a sensitive interaction with and accountability to victims and victimised communities. It is not only the traditional criminal justice departments which need to undergo such change. Key transformative challenges confront the departments of health and welfare, which have to gear up to provide effective victim aid services for the entire population. If these specialised services cannot be provided by the state, then, as a bare minimum, government has to look to subcontracting or subsidising the non-governmental organisations which have developed such services within impoverished communities. A national network of such service providers has to be established.

Secondly, more effective and reliable information is needed instead of the totally inadequate crime information management system which is currently in place. In particular, the time is ripe for thorough and targeted victimisation surveys, so that all victims and survivors of violent crime are given an effective voice.

Thirdly, inadequate rehabilitation strategies have to be improved, so that society will not fall prey to constant repeat victimisation as well as the exorbitant costs to the taxpayer of large-scale recidivism.

Fourthly, the department of justice has to continue its work in developing an effective witness protection programme. Although this is a potentially expensive exercise, such a programme has to be shaped to serve the needs of victims, rather than merely offering protection to perpetrators who have opted to turn state's witness.

Finally, as controversial and as fiscally trying as this might be, South Africa desperately needs some form of compensation for victims of violent crime. This is not unprecedented. The former government established a president's fund, although it was exclusively intended to compensate 'victims of terrorism'. Perhaps if the minister of transport is serious about dismantling the Third Party Insurance Fund, this could simply be reallocated to service the victims of crime.

Endnote

First published in the Sunday Independent, 12 September 1996.