Crime exists in South Africa — no one is arguing about that, writes criminologist Daniel Nina.
The question is whether tough measures will deal with it THE liberal press call it “Public Enemy No 1”. Many social sectors are calling to end the moratorium on the death penalty. The well-off and poor communities are scared: blacks and whites are talking about crime.
In the meantime the new government is trying to find a solution to the “crime” problem, advocating a lot of “tough” measures to deal with criminals and the apparent lawlessness that is taking over the country.
To define the causes of crime is not an easy task. Many people will argue that poverty and hunger lead to crime. It is easier to say that crime represents an unacceptable practice in a particular period of time.
In fact, we are dealing with reported crimes — which then make the news about increases or decreases in crime trends. It is important to distinguish between statistics, perceptions and making politics with crime. The statistics are there to be manipulated: they reflect that in a particular historical period people have reported more crime. In the new South Africa the people are more prone to reporting crimes to the police. The increase in crimes reported escalates the impression of more crime — the perception then is that crime has increased, thus allowing many people to “make politics” with crime — fundamentally within a neo- conservative agenda.
The problem remains, however, that the government of national unity lacks a holistic approach to deal with crime: a type of approach that will deal directly with those committing an offense, but which also address the potential causes that lead to criminal activities.
In fact, what the national ministers of safety and security and justice are doing is conceding to the pressures of many sectors which are making politics with crime. Statistics and perceptions are used to justify all sorts of draconian measures.
If we change the terms of the debate on crime we might end up with a different view. For the underprivileged communities , crime is not the number one enemy. In fact, the real “crime” that they experience is the lack of housing, health facilities, education.
For these communities, to have tougher measures on crime does not mean anything more than having a continuation of apartheid policies. The old pass laws, amenities laws, and any other type of segregation/exclusionary measures, only mean more apartheid. Imposing more severe measures such as bail, longer sentences, death penalty and others, is not new in South Africa. It is just an extension of the old regime into the new society. There is hope, however, for the possibility of creating a new way of dealing with crime. It cannot be based on the principles of the old regime. It needs to take into consideration the values of a new society, which is inclusive in its solutions, and which believes that everyone could have a second opportunity to be re-socialised into the acceptable values of the community.
Tough measures, centred on the state as the sole guarantor of order, would not solve the problem of crime and would not make our communities safer. What we need is a radical approach based on a holistic project, in which the state and civil society engage providing solutions to guarantee peace and non-violence, and eradicating the causes that might lead to crime.
In many of the underprivileged communities where I work, people do not talk about crime in the same terms that the police or the media do. People talk about social problems — alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse.
In re-defining the types of “crimes”, these communities have also redefined the solutions to these problem. In fact, they delegate to the police and state courts the role of handling only violent crimes, but keep control of handling social problems. The only thing that these communities would like to see is that the police become efficient in handling those matters that they want them to deal with. In the Western Cape, for example, in many communities the civic leaders, women and elders are involved in negotiating peace with the local gangsters. Not because they want to send the gangsters to jail, but because they are looking for re-integrative measures that could deal with the social problems which led to gangsterism.
In practical terms this has meant the reduction of the level of violence between conflicting gangs and to engage in a process of providing a different alternative to those involved in gangs. In certain occasions, the communities have called the police to “remove” those involved in violent crimes. But in many occasions, the communities have kept control and the solutions at the community level.
Another important measure is that taken by a few non- governmental organisations, including the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders (Nicro), Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute of Criminology (University of Cape Town), to deal with juvenile justice. As it has been argued in the working document, incarceration for a juvenile offended should be the last resort. Family conferences, social workers and peer pressure, should be used to re- socialise the offender.
This project on juvenile justice is probably the first institutional attempt to deal with criminal activities within a holistic approach. In the case of the juvenile offender it recognises that a wrongdoing has been committed. However, it goes beyond providing just a punitive measure. It provides a mechanism for re- establishing individual discipline and reintegration into the community.
These two non-state initiatives are leading the way for a different approach to dealing with crime. We would not be able to “eradicate crime”. However, we would be able to learn how to manage it and to remove the causes that lead to criminal activities.
To have tougher measures would only mean to continue within the framework of the old regime — and that is not what we fought for.
Daniel Nina is a national consultant to Nicro and a research associate at the Institute of Criminology (UCT)