INTRODUCTION

South African policy-makers currently find themselves doing a balancing act: on the one hand, upholding a hard-won commitment to human rights – including those of suspects – and on the other, addressing the angry (if not legitimate) calls for vengeance and retribution by many South Africans who have been victimised by crime and want some experience of justice. This article will explore the tensions created by a climate of crime control which calls for tougher sanctions for criminals, and the innovative approach of the Government's National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) which holds on to the principles of restorative justice, alternative sentencing and victim empowerment. The objective of 'putting victims on the agenda' in terms of a national programme on victim empowerment, is given particular attention.

CRIME IN TRANSITION

Political and social transformation have affected South Africa profoundly and this process has been far from painless. While political violence has ended – except in parts of KwaZulu-Natal where violence continues to simmer – the transition to democracy has been characterised by rising levels of crime. It has been convincingly argued that the roots of rising criminality lie in the apartheid system and there is little doubt that the increase in crime in real terms (despite problems with statistics) from the mid-1980s, cannot be divorced from the political, social and economic changes which ended apartheid.2

Increases in crime in South Africa are consistent with other countries undergoing similar transitions to democracy: as change proceeds, society and its instruments of social control – both formal and informal – are reshaped and vacuums of social authority create spaces within which criminals operate. Important to note is that the impact of crime on South Africans is not uniform and that increases in levels of criminality affect different parts of South Africa in different ways. This implies that, since not all citizens are exposed to equal dangers, different strategies should be used in different areas to counter criminality. Official police statistics do not currently reflect these differences and a national victimisation survey is urgently needed to

accurately determine the distribution of crime across the country; and


determine the actual incidence of crime as opposed to the reporting of it.

Such a survey will assist police managers in the allocation of limited resources through targeted and informed interventions. In Britain, for instance, the biannual British Crime Survey found that four per cent of respondents were being victimised forty per cent of the time – information which clearly assists police in making decisions on how and where to allocate resources to those who are most clearly at risk.

Countering high levels of criminality has increasingly become a central focus of government policy. The NCPS, released in May 1996, argues for a closer integration and transformation of the criminal justice system as a prerequisite to adequately fight crime. There are serious problems in the criminal justice system with regard to the detection of crime, prosecution of offenders and the system of incarceration. For instance, in 1995 only a quarter of all robberies were resolved, one fifth of all housebreakings, one tenth of all vehicle thefts and about half of all murders.3

The NCPS represents a major step forward in the debate on criminality in South Africa placing the concentration on preventive – as opposed to reactive – measures to counter crime. Implementation, however, has been slow, which is hardly surprising given the bureaucratic nature of its committee structure and departmental battles over turf resulting from the way in which funds for projects are allocated. While blockages in the criminal justice system have been identified and business plans drawn up to allow spending on the problem areas to commence, it has been a slow and often contested process.4 Effective management of resources allocated by the recent budget to safety and security, justice, corrections and welfare could produce tangible spin-offs in the fight against crime by implementing specific projects identified to alleviate blockages in the criminal justice system.

VICTIMS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Recently, the needs and rights of victims of crime have come into the public eye as the outcry and mobilisation around the horrific spate of high-profile rapes has brought into sharp relief the largely insensitive manner in which victims of crime – not only rape victims – are treated by the criminal justice system. January's NCW??? news lead story on the rights of women refers to the "trauma of reporting" and "unsatisfactory procedures" on the part of the criminal justice system which inhibit women who have been sexually violated from reporting their cases to the police.5

Instead of active participants in the process of justice, victims, or 'witnesses' as they become known, are treated as obstacles in a process conducted mainly between the state and the offender. Requests for information and updates on progress of cases are largely ignored and restitution from the offender, let alone state compensation, particularly for victims of violent crime, is almost non-existent. In addition, counselling and referral services for victims of crime are largely fragmented, under-resourced and offer a limited service mainly to victims of sexual offences. The Ncedo Care Centre in Port Elizabeth for survivors of rape and sexual abuse, referred to in January's NCW news, is an exciting development in the provision of victim services.

The Democratic Party's call for an amendment to the Constitution's Bill of Rights to include the rights of victims, throws light on what South Africans are gradually realising: there is an imbalance between the rights of victims and those of the accused within the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system, however, does not serve any of its clients well and is disempowering for both victims and offenders or indeed anyone coming into contact with it.

While consensus abounds that a balance must be restored in the criminal justice system, the call to address victims' needs and reorient the criminal justice process away from the offender, may carry certain dangers. For instance, a law and order approach which characterises victims as weak innocents, may manipulate their cause to lobby for harsher penalties, stiffer bail conditions and more oppressive treatment of offenders (mine shafts come to mind) – all disguised under the noble cause of securing a better deal for victims.6 Such measures may convince the public that the state is seriously attempting to combat crime, once again by focusing on offenders, while actually doing little for crime victims. It is often assumed that vengeance is part of the need of what Howard Zehr terms "the experience of justice", although various studies suggest that this is not necessarily so and that the need for vengeance may often be as a result of justice denied. Since the judicial process ignores victims and their needs, stealing their experience and denying them participation, Zehr asks: who can be surprised that victims are so dissatisfied? What alternatives are there but to fear and construct stereotypes about offenders?7 The danger to be considered in South Africa's current climate of crime control, is that a healthy victims' movement may be transformed into a backlash against criminals and that progress over years to humanise the criminal justice system will be reversed.8

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

In the United States, the growing appetite for punishment occurs at a time when the crime rates have been stable or falling.9 In South Africa, the emergence of similar retributive sentiments, such as calls to reinstate the death penalty or tougher bail conditions for suspects, may have something to do with the political process, as well as the role of the media in shaping myths, metaphors, stereotypes and assumptions that structure popular thoughts about crime and justice.10 Research has shown that retributive justice models do not to work. In the US, 3 500 people are on death row and yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the world. New Zealand has doubled the penalties for rape, but this has had no deterrent effect.11

The clearest indication that the system of incarceration is failing, lies simply in the fact that more than half of those who have been imprisoned, will again commit crime on their release. In other words, no rehabilitation is taking place. In South Africa it will be unfortunate if public and political pressures increasingly focus on sending all categories of offenders to prison. Alternatives to prison such as community sentencing and diversion programmes, on the other hand, have found that it is possible to rehabilitate criminals instead of simply incarcerating them. In Europe and North America, as well in New Zealand, parole and correctional supervision are seen as modern alternatives to locking people up. Private sector money in South Africa could possibly be better spent in supporting initiatives which promote alternative sentencing, rather than building more prisons.

Alternative forms of sentencing, however, are virtually unavailable in South Africa and magistrates (undoubtedly influenced by growing public perceptions that the system is criminal friendly) seem unwilling to use those that do exist. What is urgently required, is an investigation into community and alternative forms of sentencing such as diversion programmes in the form of family group conferencing. These restorative options, different from retributive options which are both costly in financial and social terms, can be used for all offences, the only proviso being that the offender pleads guilty. The restorative option encourages people to seek forgiveness and accept responsibility for their deeds, and provides an opportunity to rectify mistakes.12 Indeed, victim satisfaction in the process of justice is far greater. What many victims resent most fundamentally is not that the law was broken, but that their privacy, autonomy and self-worth were disrespected. What they want most from justice is an experience of respect. Only a justice system that treats each actor as a full participant, that encourages communication and empathy, that shames by denouncing the offence, but affirming and supporting both victim and offender can provide a way out of the mess.13

VICTIM EMPOWERMENT

Before turning to the background and mandate of the NCPS Interim Steering Committee on Victim Empowerment, it is important to examine the assumption on which the inclusion of a victim empowerment programme within the NCPS rests, and the term 'victim empowerment', which has found currency in ministerial speeches, as well as President Mandela's opening address to Parliament.

In response to the first issue, the NCPS recognises that, "victimisation lies at the heart of much retributive crime, and that the absence of means of victim aid and empowerment play an important role in the cyclical nature of violence and crime in South Africa. Whilst victim aid is often regarded as remedial rather than a preventative measure in dealing with crime, this view is dangerously misleading. Victims of past and current criminal activity if untreated, frequently become perpetrators of either retributive violence or violence displaced within the social or domestic arena."14

'Victim empowerment' refers to the processes whereby victims of crime are empowered to overcome the extremely harmful effects of criminal victimisation through the necessary material, medical, psychological and social assistance provided by government and voluntary means. Based on the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and the Abuse of Power (Resolution 40/34), victim empowerment means:

being treated with the necessary respect by the police and other role players when reporting a crime;



being kept up to date with timely information on the progress of a case by the investigating officer in charge (during the investigation, court appearances, sentencing and even at release stage);



being referred to community services which may offer counselling and other practical support;



being assisted to deal with complex and confusing procedures in court (for instance, through a witness friend service);



possible participation in the court process (through victim impact statements) instead of a mere witness to the proceedings; and



access to restitution from the offender or compensation from a state-funded compensation scheme.

Empowerment for victims of crime thus occurs through recognising and responding to their needs and rights. Calls for victims' rights recognise that these basic needs are not met by the criminal justice process and that secondary victimisation – where a victim of crime comes into contact with unsympathetic treatment from the police and court officials and feels doubly victimised by the experience – often occurs.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Until recently, the South African state made no conscious effort to recognise the needs and right of victims of crime. Initiatives to provide support and services to victims of crime are largely fragmented and at least a decade behind developments elsewhere in the world. The development of the NCPS, however, has provided an exciting window of opportunity to mobilise all relevant roleplayers from civil society and the state to address the needs of previously neglected groupings, including victims of crime.

In August 1996, a two-day national consultative workshop on victim support and empowerment issues, co-hosted by the South African Police Service's RDP Victim Support Programme and the Crime and Policing Policy Project at the Institute for Security Studies (formerly the Institute for Defence Policy), was held at the World Trade Centre in Kempton Park. The purpose of the workshop was to add flesh to the bones of the NCPS programme on victim empowerment. At this workshop, an interim steering committee was elected from the largely representative participants to take the mandate agreed on by the participants, forward.15

Co-ordinated by the Department of Welfare, this committee involves several non-government organisations (NGOs), including the National Network of Violence Against Women, and relevant government departments, and has been hard at work to draft a business plan to access an amount of R30 million set aside from the RDP fund for victim empowerment. Building on the mandate from the August workshop, the business plan is in its final stages with project outlines drawn up around the following twelve issues (not in order of priority):

establish the National Victim Empowerment Coalition;



conduct a national victimisation survey;



audit existing services for victims of crime;



draft a victims' charter;



review existing policies and legislation affecting victims;



establish national, provincial and local networks and co-ordinating mechanisms;



develop and implement training and development programmes/ guidelines for criminal justice officials, as well as volunteers;



develop a national awareness strategy around victim empowerment;



formulate a South African model for victim empowerment and service delivery;



ensure an adequately resourced environment conducive to victim empowerment;



conduct research on issues and trends pertaining to victim empowerment; and



establish pilot programmes for victim empowerment.16

CONCLUSION

It is too early to comment on the potential successes and pitfalls of this ambitious programme which will bring substantive changes to the way in which victims of crime are treated by and perceive the criminal justice process. What is crucial however, will be for Government, in consultation with civil society partners, to pay more than lip service to these initiatives and start implementing the victim empowerment programme objectives with urgency. A dedicated programme manager is needed to co-ordinate this initiative, as well as adequately budgeted for expert project teams to operationalise the afore-mentioned objectives.

The key to the reduction in crime levels lies in the strengthening of South Africa's institutions of criminal justice. Without an equitable and adequate system of law enforcement and criminal prosecution there is the danger that high levels of crime and violence will become institutionalised in the social fabric of the society. However, what is also clear, is that only by a clear focus on the needs and rights of crime victims and an adequate response to them, can Government hope to restore faith in the criminal justice system as a system of justice for all South Africans.

ENDNOTES

An earlier version of this article was presented to the annual Conference of the National Council of Women of South Africa: Democracy on a Tightrope, Johannesburg, 20 March 1997.



M Shaw and P Zwane, Peace and Stability Situation Analysis, unpublished report, UNDP, February 1995.



Ibid.



Ibid.



The Rights of Women: Violence/Rape, NCW News, 65(1), January 1997.



L Camerer, Settling the Score, Indicator: Crime and Conflict, 4, Summer 1995.



H Zehr, Rethinking Criminal Justice: Restorative Justice, unpublished paper, Auckland, 1995.



E A Fattah (ed.), From Crime Policy to Victim Policy: Reorienting the Justice System, Macmillan Press, London, 1986.



Zehr, op. cit.



Ibid.



R Rossouw, Once were Criminals, Weekly Mail and Guardian, 30 June 1995.



Ibid.



Zehr, op. cit.



SAPS, National Crime Prevention Strategy, South African Police Service, Pretoria, May 1996.



See L Camerer and J Nel, Putting Victims on the Agenda: Proceedings of a National Workshop on Victim Support and Empowerment, ISS Monograph Series, 7, 1996.



Shaw and Zwane, op. cit.