Killing of police officials in South Africa – a crisis

Two police officials were killed while on duty in the Kraaifontein area of the Western Cape on 22 May 2011. Once again the killing of police officials became a topic of debate and some interesting viewpoints were put forward. One of these is that police officials are being killed because they are “brutal” in their interactions with the broader public, and behind this brutality is the fact that there is a general lack of management and oversight. This I think deflects many of the issues that are related to the killing of police officials.

While the brutality of police toward civilians hypothesis as a cause of people wanting to kill police officials, may hold some water, the converse could also be true. Police may be acting in a brutal fashion towards civilians, because they are under attack or under siege within communities. However the point made by David Bruce that “[ If criminals]… aren’t going to be tortured by the police… the motivation to violently resist arrest would potentially be reduced,” seems a little over the top. It is a fact that some suspects do face the possibility of being tortured by police when they are captured, but not all do. Many suspects resist arrest mostly because they do not want to be captured, detained, face a trial and possibly spend time in prisons. Their liberty is therefore being taken away from them and many suspected criminals have the delusion that they can get away with it. Therefore these are much stronger motivations for suspects to resist arrest and flee from police and not the prospect of possibly being tortured.

The two police officials killed in the Western Cape recently were attending to a “routine” complaint, where they were gunned down and their firearms taken from them. Therefore they were not making any arrests. It seems as if they did not even manage to get out of their vehicle. Similarly and prior to this, two police officials were gunned down in KwaZulu-Natal while trying to inspect a l iqor licence, also part of their routine duties.

The reciprocal brutality hypothesis is a superficial analysis of the causes and reasons why police officials are being killed and an alarming rate in South Africa. A much deeper analysis is required, and this post will attempt to provide a bit more depth to it.

I find it very interesting when the critics of the police are quick to make the point that the police are inadequately trained, when the police act and kill civilians, especially when dealing with crowds or when acting in self defence. Police are often judged by their critics as having not acted correctly in terms of Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However it is not taken into account that the inadequate training of police could have the opposite effect as well, namely that police officials get killed. It is impossible to write legislation, regulations or even train for each and every scenario that could be faced by a police official in his or her “routine” duties, or even those which may not be as routine. Therefore police officials can only be trained to be vigilant. A leading cause therefore, of police deaths could be because they are not vigilant and are not sensitive to the dangers that may be waiting for them. Unfortunately police officials often have to act on information, which is limited, that they are given. They then have to prepare themselves according to this information. Sometimes this information is extremely limited, and therefore they unintentionally walk into a situation which they might consider “ routine”. In other words they are not vigilant enough and get killed. It is often very difficult for a police official to think about the situation that he or she might have to face, when on their way to a scene or incident, because of the limited information available. When they do arrive, they often have to act and make decisions in a split second, which could mean a decision between life and death. The opposite side of this coin unfortunately is that some police officials are hyper-vigilant resulting in causalities by the police.

A further possible cause of police officials getting killed, is the legitimacy crisis that is being faced by the South African Police Force. There have been a number of scandals that the police have had to face, such as the previous Commissioner facing corruption charges, the current Commissioner facing problems in procurement procedures that were not followed, police killing civilians, police officials facing corruption charges, police being accused of not doing the work that they supposed to do, police officials being considered unintelligent and unable to do what they are supposed to do and therefore their work performance being questioned as well as their authority being questioned. To illustrate this, I witnessed the aftermath of an accident which involved a police vehicle. The police vehicle had disobeyed a traffic law, namely driving against the direction of traffic in a one way street. It collided with another vehicle which was exiting a garage. Of course the police vehicle was “in the wrong” since it had disobeyed a traffic regulation, however the way that the driver of the other vehicle acted in a disrespectful way, testing the patience not only of the police officer, but also one who was called to the scene to start the preliminary investigation. Not only that but a colleague of the other vehicle was just as obnoxious and wanted to tell the police officials attending, how they should do their work. I thought that he would be arrested for interfering with a police official in conducting his duties. What this illustrates is that police officials are constantly reminded of citizen’s rights and that they have a duty to serve and protect, that they have to act in a professional manner, but the powers and authority of the police are often questioned and resisted. I think that it is this de-legitimisation, resistance and disrespect that often lead to police officials loosing their lives. Furthermore, it is the de-legitimisation of the police that is leading to communities not “giving up” cop killers. This de-legitimisation, disrespect and sometimes active aggressiveness towards the police is one of the long lasting and greatest legacies of apartheid and colonisation.

Another legacy and related cause of police officials getting killed is the general malaise in South African society which disrespects human life and human dignity. Many segments of South African society are dehumanised. The poor are dehumanised by their poverty, the homeless are dehumanised by their lack of ownership, foreigners are dehumanised by their strangeness. The dehumanisation of people often leads to demonisation and people become objects, to be disposed of at a whim. Many segments of South African society have been objectified and subordinated under the apartheid and colonisation and have had to adapt to severe forms of structural violence. A consequence of this has be to adopted a similar attitude of dehumanisation and objectification of others and therefore the life of others has become cheap. Due to the fact that the police have traditionally been viewed with much disdain, their lives are made even cheaper and of less meaning than anyone else’s. Furthermore we South Africans are relatively reckless, to the extent that we do not even respect our own personal lives. One merely needs to look at the number of people who are killed on our roads.

A further cause of police killings could be due to the general violent discourses that seem to pervade South African society. These discourses come to the fore in pronouncements that people are willing to “kill for” and “die for” some of our leaders, ideologies and causes. Another violence discourse that continues to arise is the “war on”. We make war on HIV/ Aids, terror, crime, poverty, etc. This war talk does not promote peace and co-existence, but rather promotes violence and the attitude that killing or maiming of others is natural and acceptable. It is strange that many of the critics of the police and police actions have not come out to condemn the killing of police officials.

Therefore there are a number of possible causes of police killings. They are to summarise: in adequate training, although it is difficult to envisage all possible scenarios, but especially coaching police officials to be more vigilant. The police have a legitimacy and credibility crisis, which makes people have disdain attitudes towards the police and police officials have become dehumanised and objectified. This it is argued is a general crisis within South African society, and along with this is the acceptance of violence as a normal means to solve problems or remove problems. The normalisation of violence has a lot to do with the brutal historical legacy of the structural violence of apartheid and colonisation.

The question does arise: How can the killing of police officials be prevented?

At a societal level, South Africa should start creating peace discourses and dialogues through socialisation. Non-violence and non-violent means of problem solving should be celebrated, and not violence.

Education in non-violent communication should be established and constructive conflict resolution and conflict transformation should be on the government agenda.

Respect for humanity, human life and human dignity should be normalised throughout all segments of South African society.

Each case study of police officials who have been killed can provide the police with valuable lessons to be learnt, so as to prevent a recurrence of a similar event. However the police need to increase their legitimacy and credibility. Therefore cases of police brutality need to be investigated, and the perpetrators need to face the same punishments as other killers.

Richard Records

4 June 2011

[contact-form]

Early in the morning I received an sms from the Democratic Alliance.  It said that I should vote, which was quite honourable, but it said that I should vote for the DA to win the city of Cape Town.

I have never supported the DA, and have never given them my cellphone number to them.  I have also never voted for the DA and will not, I have my reasons, which I might write about in a later post.  However the burning questions are: where and how did the DA get my cellphone number?  I spoke to a few of my friends and work colleagues, and found that they had also received smses from the DA during the day yesterday.  So this leads to a further question, how much did the DA pay to get this information, in addition to the questions above.

It seems as if the DA has decided to embark on a campaign which replicates the one used by Obama in his Presidential campaign.  However, I am not really sure how ethically sound this sort of campaign really is.

Now the conspiracy theorist in my arises and it seems as if the DA got the cellphone numbers from the various cellphone network suppliers – Vodacom, MTN and Cell C, or had an arrangement with them to “broadcast” its message to cellphones within the Cape Town and even Western Cape area.  There is also an alternative to this, which is linked to RICA, which I have written about earlier.   This campaign in my mind illustrates the danger of RICA being misused or even abused, because clearly the DA has either paid for this broadcast, or paid for the cellphone numbers to make this broadcast.  Therefore the information that is held by the cellphone network companies, is up for sale.  Or the DA called in a few favours – read corruption- in getting the cellphone numbers of many inhabitants in the city of Cape Town.

I think that this is unethical anyway, since this tactic is a blanket tactic and does not really give me a choice in whether I want to receive – let alone read – the sms or not.  Therefore I for one feel that my privacy and the freedom that I have to choose a party has been removed from me by this bullying tactic.

I might have considered voting for the DA, however after receiving the sms early yesterday morning, I decided against it and voted for another party.  After receiving another sms just after 17:00 on election day, I was glad that I had not voted for the DA.

Richard Records

Introduction

I have written two posts that are relevant to this post. In the first post I asked whether white liberals are inherently racist and the second defends affirmative action in South Africa. Both posts dealt with the reproduction of white privilege. Subsequent to that I was “pointed” to a blog which summarises the work of Eduardo Bonilla-Silva “Racism without racists: Colorblind racism and the persistence of inequality in the United States.” The conceptual frameworks highlighted frames this post.

Essentially Bonilla-Silva argues that white culture is the dominant culture, which isolates and insulates whites from the social reality of their racism and the racialised experience of others, who have not been classified as white. This is evident in the Unites States of America, however much of this dominant culture of whites is evident within the South African context. Dominant white culture becomes naturalised and normalised within society, in terms of spatial, social, political and economic segregation and marginalisation.

Bonilla-Silva has constructed four conceptual frameworks of white’s inherent racism or what has been called “colour-blind racism”. These frameworks are: abstract liberalism, naturalisation of inequality, minimisation and cultural racism. As mentioned above these have been described in terms of US frameworks and therefore I would argue that a fifth framework is applicable in the South African context, which I will call the discourse of the “swart gevaar” – black danger as was espoused by the old National Party and PW Botha. Although this discourse was supposed to have died with the end of apartheid, much of it lives on in current South African conceptualisations.

Abstract liberalism.

According to Bonilla-Silva, abstract liberalism uses discourses which claim that race is no longer an indicator or signifier of privilege. Instead privilege is gained and maintained through “hard work” and attainment. In other words merit becomes the indicator or signifier of privilege and position in society. This is essentially based on the Protestant Work Ethic of Calvinism in the advancement of capitalism, as postulated by Max Weber. Essentially salvation is predicted by hard work therefore by merit. Furthermore abstract liberalism discourses maintain that the playing fields have been levelled through the gains made by the civil rights movement in the US and the liberation movement in South Africa. Racism is therefore an individual’s own prejudice.

There are two variations of abstract liberalism, namely the notion of meritocracy and laissez-faire policies. The notion of meritocracy as mentioned above emphasises merit and achievement as an indicator of privilege. It obscures the fact that racialisation has brought about privilege and that racialisation maintains privilege. The historical trajectory of privilege is denied. Laissez-faire policies argue that market forces create balance and therefore privilege is as a result of the market and that the state should not interfere should inequality be experienced. Therefore affirmative action is discouraged, since this is viewed as interfering in the market. Affirmative action is also viewed as racism in reverse.

There have been numerous calls from mostly the white community for affirmative action policies to be abolished in the South African context, that equity targets are hampering the South African economy and that the labour market should be de-regulated. There is an increasing emphasis on merit, that people should gain access to wealth through hard work, and qualifications. However as indicated in previous posts, the life chance access is limited to a small minority of South Africans, while the majority are excluded or have access to limited life chances.

Naturalisation of inequality.

Inequality between racialised groups is viewed to be natural and inevitable. This discourse views segregation to be based on individual preferences and self regulation. There is no or little effort in bridging the divide. This naturalisation does not take disproportionate of investments in education, housing, health care, social welfare, service delivery and the expectancy of real estate practices into account. The history of these disproportionate investments are ignored. For example “Bantu” education of the past apartheid has had a long lasting effect, which cannot be eliminated in a decade or more. Previously black South Africans were viewed and not deserving for a good education. Instead they were given an education that would prepare them to be semi skilled labourers. Currently schools in black townships are under-resourced when compared to schools in white areas. They are unable to compete or even produce a workforce that is able to compete with contemporary white school leavers. Similarly the best health care organisations are located in white areas, while mediocre and poorly resourced facilities are located in black areas and therefore blacks have access to poor health care facilities. The naturalisation of inequality becomes even more apparent in the South African situation when informal townships are constructed close to affluent, white, areas. One of the first motivations for these townships to be removed, often forcefully, is that the establishment of the informal township will have a negative impact on the real estate market. In other words the value of these properties will be drastically reduced. The current inequalities have become naturalised in South Africa. Black townships are still mostly populated by blacks, they are still “ dormitory” towns, where there is little or no recreational facilities and far from places of work, resulting in high transport costs.

Minimisation.

The minimisation discourse maintains that the victims of racism or racialisation are over sensitive to racist and racial discourses and narratives. Furthermore these sensitivities viewed as being used to manipulate others. In other words the accusation is made of using the so called “race card”. The claim is once gain of reverse racism. Therefore the victims of racial inequality are ignored and racism is denied.

Cultural racism.

The social construction of racism and racialisation becomes rigid and the victims of racism are blamed for the situation that they are in. Here culture becomes the indicator of inequality, similar to the culture of poverty discourses. Culture therefore becomes the marker of political, social and economic inequalities, while race and racialisation are ignored and denied.

The above are essentially description of white racist and racialised conceptual frameworks that are evident in the United States of America, however these can also be applied to the South African situation. However there is an important difference between the USA and South Africa and therefore there is the possibility of a fifth conceptual frame. This important difference is essentially the transition from apartheid to the current democratic dispensation. The transition brought about black majority rule in South Africa, which is not the case in the USA – although the US has recently elected its first black president. The fifth frame is entitled the swart gevaar, or black danger. This discourse was originally postulated by the National Party during the days of apartheid. The discourse framed South Africa being the last beacon of hope in terms of white minority rule in Africa. It was the last stand in Africa for capitalism and the onslaught of communism that was a threat to South Africa and hence the rest of the world.

Swart gevaar

The black danger was for whites, that revenge would be taken and white civilisation would become a thing of the past in South Africa. Therefore black culture was viewed as barbaric, inferior, primitive and should the black majority take over the country, it would be reduced to ruins. The economy would be ruined, crime and violence would become rampant and morality as defined by whites and the West would be no more.

These discourses have become evident since the transition to democracy and black majority rule, which have been used by whites, many of whom consider themselves as liberal.

There are a number of variations of this discourse, namely the crime situation, the situation of violence, the lack of service delivery and the demonisation of black culture.

The dominant discourse in relation to the crime situation is that since black majority rule has become a reality in South Africa, the government has lost control over crime and is unable to prevent and reduce crime. Crime which occurs in white areas and against the rich and middle class is sensationalised within the mass media, while crime in black areas and against the poor is ignored and even down played. Furthermore, the government is criminalised further by accusations and suspicions of corruption. If crime, and especially violence, is reported in poor and black areas, it is used to illustrate the “ barbaric” nature of the black community.

This is similar to the dominant discourse in relation to the situation of violence in South Africa. Violence against whites (the rich and the middle class) is sensationalised, unless it illustrates black barbarism.

The discourse in relation to the lack of service delivery is focused on corruption and the lack of the government providing services to poor communities. However it ignores the change to neo-liberalist economic macro economic policies, where many aspects of service delivery have become privatised.

The above discourses essentially neglect and ignore the fact that crime prevention and service delivery previously targeted white communities during apartheid. During apartheid crime prevention focused on upholding apartheid and protecting white communities, while black communities were hardly ever policed in terms of “normal” crime. Therefore police force deployments were unevenly distributed. The unequal distribution is still evident in many cities in South Africa. Similarly, white communities received better service delivery from municipalities than black ones. Blacks were not considered citizens of South Africa, with the advent of the so called independent states. Therefore the apartheid government delivered rudimentary services to black townships.

The discourses in relation to the demonisation of black culture has a long history, especially when the missionaries arrived in Africa. However currently many cultural prescripts have been constructed as abnormal and unchristian. For example the slaughtering of animals – to appease or give thanks to ancestors – has become demonised and considered primitive. Narratives include that abattoirs have been created for slaughtering and that slaughtering in white neighbourhoods is unhealthy and unethical. Another example of demonisation of black culture is polygamy. Polygamy is considered an aberration and unchristian by many in the white community.

As has been indicated above, the dominant white culture has become naturalised and taken for granted. It has therefore become rigid in its application towards other cultures and discourses.

Conclusion

Four white conceptual frameworks were discussed, which were postulated by Bonilla-Silva. These were considered to be applicable to both the United States of America and South Africa. However these frameworks have neglected the fact that South Africa has transitioned from apartheid to black majority rule or a democratic dispensation. Therefore a fifth framework was postulated, namely the swart gevaar discourse, which has mutated from apartheid.

Richard Records

[contact-form]

Rogelio Bezerra, from the visuals, was a semi-skilled worker living in poverty. He was persuaded to sell his kidney for around 6 000 US Dollars, which is roughly R42 000. A lot of money for someone who is poor. He made the trip to South Africa, Durban in particular and underwent the operation. He was duly arrested as he walked out of the hospital and the money was confiscated. He was interviewed in Brazil, where he said that he had hoped to start his own business, however he had lost everything.

The Police Captain, Ivan Bonifacio, who was allegedly a member of Brazil’s notorious “Death Squads” was the Brazilian connection, was interviewed using a hidden camera and admitted to killing a number of people. He clearly viewed the poor with contempt. He is alleged to have recruited the “donors” or sellers. He also acted as an interpreter in South Africa.

One of the South African doctors, who agreed to be interviewed one Professor John Robb, mentioned that he did not know that the kidneys he was removing were in fact being soled (the sale of organs is apparently a criminal offence in South Africa), and when he became suspicious and asked questions, he was reassured that everything was above board. He also mentioned that since this story broke, he has become stigmatised and has not been awarded more honours and scholarships. He and other doctors are facing court action and could be convicted of this offence. The operation was performed at medical aid rates, plus a percentage.

Enter Netcare!! The hospital group reported increased profits, and denied that it knew of any illegal activity, instead it conveniently shifted blame to the doctors. Apparently it has paid a fine, but I am not sure whether the amount was mentioned or what offence the fine was paid for. The CEO apologised, but it was not really clear what he was apologising for either.

The organ recipient, or buyer, sent a note to the seller saying that he was grateful and thankful for the kidney and that he would like to meet some or other time. This has not happened.

From the above we can see that there are serious problems with this, in terms of morality and justice.

1. Firstly, Netcare’s pursuit for profits has clearly outstripped its concern for the care for the poor. It seems as if the needs, human dignity and rights of the poor can be merely trampled on in pursuit of profits by Netcare. Both Netcare and the doctors viewed the sellers as objects for organ harvesting. Nothing more and nothing less. The poor are therefore a form of agricultural produce which is placed on the market. Once the kidney was removed or harvested, the individual was merely shipped off back to Brazil to become a burden on its medical care system. In the case of Rogelio Bezerra, he was humiliated by being arrested, being sent back penniless, and having health problems associated with having to function with one kidney. He has no recourse and an apology from Netcare smacks of contempt. In my mind the only right thing to do, would be for Netcare to take care of all those victims’ medical expenses and some form of payment should be made to all of them as reparations.

2. The concern expressed by the Doctor is clearly self seeking, now that he has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he wants to say he did not know. In my mind this just does not jell. It is similar to the Nazi soldier who killed many people, to say that he was just following orders, or similarly the excuse used by whites in South Africa that they were ignorant of the human rights abused being committed by the apartheid regime. Should the doctor, who in my mind should be intelligent, have become suspicious, then he should have alerted the authorities if he was unwilling to investigate this further. However the profit motive seems to have overridden his “concern” and “suspicion” since he with the others have profited from these deals. It is my contention that imprisonment is not the answer. Instead some form of community service and payment to the victims should be claimed from these doctors.

3. The Brazilian Police Captain should face the full might of South Africa’s justice system. A warrant for his arrest should be issued and he should be extradited to South Africa and face trial here. A possible charge could be trafficking in human organs or even in terms of human rights abuses.

4. I am not really sure what to suggest be done with the buyers of these organs. But they should not be viewed as victims who are helpless. According to the programme they are relatively wealthy. However it seems as if the medical aids might have some claim against them, since they got these organs through criminal activity. There should be some from of proper and appropriate compensation made by them to the victims.

5. As usual the poor are being used by the wealthy in inhumane ways, to increase the quality of life of the rich, while the quality of life of the poor is neglected or even treated with contempt.

   To conclude, justice needs to prevail, however this should not be merely throwing people in jail. The victims of this atrocity need to considered and this should never happen again.

   Richard Records

I t seems as if the Democratic Alliance in South Africa is consistently showing that it is an anti-poor political party. Surely the Western Cape should have learnt its lesson in the days of Pieter Marias that the DA should never come into power and can only remain an opposition party. They cannot govern, and only serve the interests of the wealthy and business in the Western Cape. There are five reasons why the DA can be considered an anti-poor party.

The first reason is the DA’s insistence that the IRT go ahead, even though the project ran out of funds some time back. At present, and I have written about this previously, the IRT phase 1A only goes as far as Tableview, where the buses seem to be making a U turn, back to the city. Provision is made for “feeder” routes to come to this Tableview “terminus”. Therefore the IRT was never envisaged to provide cheap transportation to Atlantis (a poor area) and was only conceptualised and implemented to favour the rich. The buses are still not operating on this route, even though the infrastructure, such bus stations and lanes have been built.

The second reason is the fiasco that erupted in relation to the “open air” toilets. Here the excuse of the DA was that the ANC hijacked the developments to fulfil their own political agenda. It may be true, however the Major of Cape Town, Dan Plato is on record saying that the reason why zinc enclosures were erected to cover the toilets was because of the surrounding area consists of zinc shacks. Very much like saying: “ well if they don’t have bread, then give cake”. Why is it so difficult for the DA to give some dignity to the poor and erect a brick permanent enclosure? The reason is quite simple, because it is an anti-poor party, and continues to take the little dignity that the poor have, or want, away from them. In the DA’s reasoning, the community agreed to erect enclosures themselves. However they did not, and therefore renegaded on their agreements. What was it for the City to merely erect brick enclosures for these people?

The third reason is the battle in Hout Bay. Here it was over land and people who live in back yards, who had been assured of housing development. There was an agreement that building would not take place beyond a line on Hangberg, for various reasons such as protection from possible flooding. However because of space constraints, people started to build informal dwellings on the fire-break and the City’s “forced removals unit” stepped in. A battle ensured between residents on the one hand and law enforcement officials on the other. The DA’s comments were that it is difficult to negotiate with various groups of people, and that the leadership of the community is disorganised. In other words, bring us your leaders so that they can buy into this process and sell it off to you. Leadership in poor communities is always contested since there are various, and often disparate interests. Why is it so difficult for the DA to consult as widely as possible? Surely valuable lessons were learned during the negotiated settlement, when multi-party negotiations took place in Kempton Park in the early 1990′s.

The fourth reason is the recent debacle around the prohibition of the Cape Minstrels from parading through the city centre to the Bo-Kaap. It is tradition for the Cape Minstrels to parade through the streets of the city on the 1 ^st of January and the 2 ^nd of January. Unfortunately this year the 1 ^st fell on a Sunday and possibly out of respect for Christians, the minstrels decided to rather parade on the 2 ^nd , a Monday. The excuse that the DA gave was that it was disruptive of business in the city. However the parade is an internal and external tourist attraction. They are part of the Capetonian cultural life. Did business really object to the minstrel parade? Or was it a matter of the City wanting to keep the Cape Flats in the Cape Flats. It has also been tradition for the minstrels to parade through the streets of the Bo Kaap, where the parade originated. However it has become trendy now for the white and rich people to start buying property in this area. Has this got anything to do with the prohibition of the parade to continue to the Bo-Kaap. Once again keeping the Cape Flats in the Cape Flats, because of white fear and paranoia.

The fourth is the announcement by the Premier and leader of the DA that the Provincial Development Council would be disbanded. This has raised the furore of civil society

To conclude. Five reasons as to why the DA is an anti-poor party have been given. These can be summarised as follows: The DA does not care about the poor and actively neglects to bring assistance to the poor. The DA thinks that the poor do not deserve dignity. The poor are disorganised and have a hap-hazard leadership, who do not and cannot represent the interests of the poor. The poor are a threat to business and rich white liberals and should therefore be contained and controlled. The poor should not have access to these areas and the traditions and festivals of the poor should be trampled. Finally dialogue should be stifled as much as possible and it seems as if the DA regards consultation and debate as a waste of time.

However the local elections are around the corner and it will be interesting what the DA will do to try to redeem itself and maintain control of the City of Cape Town. I would think that the efforts of the DA would be like always playing cheap politics and trying to score political points through trying to embarrass the ANC and the President.

Richard Records

[contact-form]

Crime prevention: An economics approach

Introduction

In a previous post, I discussed the functionality of crime and showed that crime can bring about an equilibrium within a society. Essentially the argument was that crime maintains work for many parts in society. In this post I will be considering a possible approach to prevent crime through using an economics approach.

One of the basic principles of economics is that the market is a “meeting place” between supply and demand. This post will not consider the economics of crime as such, but will rather focus on the principle of supply in the sense of products and services that are produced by crime and the strategies that are used to prevent these, and the demand for products and services that are satisfied through crime. As will be shown crime prevention strategies by and large focus on the supply side of crime, but little is being done on the demand side of crime, and various types of crime will be used to illustrate this.

Property related crime

In terms of property related crime, large amount of goods get stolen during a year within South Africa. These range from theft of motor vehicles, theft out of motor vehicles, burglaries, robberies and other forms of theft. Clearly there is a demand for goods that get stolen and therefore criminals produce this steady supply of goods to those who “demand” these goods. The result is that police and other crime prevention agencies focus on increasing the risk of apprehension of the perpetrators of these crime through investigation of these crimes once they have been committed, or through high visibility policing among other crime prevention strategies. Private citizens attempt to protect their goods from being stolen through target hardening and making it increasingly difficult for thieves to get their goods. These efforts can have negative effects, however this is another topic that will be discussed. The criminal justice system therefore attempts to curb the supply of stolen goods through deterrence and a treatment, or behavioural modification orientation through investigation, apprehension, proof of guilt in a court of law and prosecution, and punishment of perpetrators. However police, crime prevention agencies and the criminal justice system is unable to deal with the demand side of property related crime. The possible exception to this is the prohibition of being in possession of stolen property. However the sentences for this crime are not as significant to act as a deterrent. There are campaigns that attempt to bring a message of “not accepting or buying stolen goods” however these campaigns do not gain much publicity in mainstream media within South Africa.

The question does arise, how does this demand for stolen goods come about? There are a number of possible causal factors for the demand for stolen goods. These can be brought together under an umbrella concept of “ a culture of materialism”. This culture of materialism equates status and prestige with wealth and material goods that one owns. Unfortunately the best technology and goods come at a price that only the rich are able to afford and since South Africa has the highest Gini Coefficient in the world. In other words South Africa has the greatest gap in income between the wealthy and the poor. The result is that the poor essentially feel deprived when faced by the incredible wealth of the rich. However this feeling of relative deprivation is not merely due to the inequality in distribution, it is reinforced to a large extent by media, such as advertising, and other programmes focussing on “the high life”. A combination of these factors lead to an increasing demand for goods. Therefore being able to “own” a sought after commodity, such as the latest cellular telephone does not lead to questions being raised if it is available cheaply. However it is not only the poor who have feelings of deprivation relative to the wealthy. Others feel deprived when another has a sought after item. Along with this that motivates theft or demand for stolen property is the notion of instant gratification of needs that exist in South African and many other societies. There is little consideration of having to work to earn or save to purchase high ended items in terms of the instant need gratification.

Violent crime

South Africa has one of the highest rates of violent crimes, especially in terms of murder, rape, assaults, etc. Alcohol has often been implicated in murders and assaults. Here once again the police and law enforcement agencies have focused on the supply of alcohol, through regulation of trading hours, the legalisation of some illegal shebeens and the closure illegal shebeens and liquor outlets. Attempts are therefore being made to reduce the availability of alcohol. However there is little that is being done in the demand side for alcohol. Liquor producers are not restricted in the amounts of alcohol they can produce, instead this is left to “ market forces”. Messages that are made in an attempt to reduce demand are focussed on driving under the influence of alcohol, and some in relation to anti-social behaviour of those who are intoxicated. However the advertisements that convey these messages are flighted in a lower proportion to those which advertise alcohol. Advertisements convey messages of fun, sociability, adventure and other positive aspects when advertising alcohol which creates an increase in demand.

Drug related crime

The drug trade in South Africa, as in other countries, is big business and like the above mentioned crimes, emphasis is placed on the supply of drugs. The police and community members focus on drug lords and gangs which produce and sell drugs, while there is little attention placed on the demand for drugs. Police often attempt to intercept drugs being transported, stored and manufactured with some successes, while communities often attempt to remove drug lords through attacking homes, or holding vigils in front of drug dens in attempt to deter users from buying. However there is greater tolerance for those you use drugs, and possession of drugs is not viewed in as serious light as trafficking or manufacture of drugs.

Conclusion

An economics approach was taken to discuss some crime prevention strategies. The focus has been on the economics principle of supply and demand. The discussion has concluded that focus has overwhelmingly been made on the supply side of various crimes, while the demand side has been neglected or has had very weak approaches. Crime prevention should however consider the demand side of crimes, such as the demand for goods and services, the demand for alcohol and the demand for drugs.

Richard Records

The posting was entitled “why I am against affirmative action” and was published on Thought Leader on 17 September 2010.

There are essentially three points that I agree with Michael Francis, namely that there is no real biological basis for race classification, secondly that race or racialisation is a social construct that is both socially and politically loaded and thirdly that there is a small elite who have benefited from affirmative action policies.

What Francis seems to neglect is the powerful historical trajectory that the social constructed racialisation of groups has had on South African society. By racialisation, I mean that groups have been classified and socialised into classifications of being white, black, coloured and Indian, and thinking in those terms. The classifications that have been made were based on physical attributes that were constructed by white South Africans, both English colonists and Afrikaans nationalists.

Whites have always had the upper hand, from the time that the Dutch landed at the Cape to establish a refreshment station in 1652.

When the settler population arrived, they gained ownership of land through conquest, barter (buying large tracts of land through exchange for mirrors, beads and guns) and annexation. As more and more settlers arrived, so larger tracts of land was needed and the “First peoples” were driven off the land. The result of this was the whites were able to increasingly become wealthy through ownership of land and resources, such as minerals.

Furthermore when settlers arrived, both Dutch and English, they already had a preconceived conceptual framework of the local inhabitants. These conceptual frameworks were essentially that whites were superior to other “race” groups. This superiority was maintained through various means, oppression, socialisation, education, disposition and forcing the “other race” groups to become second class citizens. Blacks, coloured and Indians were provided sufficient education to make them labourers in households, mines or agriculture, while whites were enabled to have better education.

The consequence of this was that whites were always enabled to get higher earning jobs, thereby increasing not only their life changes (education, health care, jobs, etc) but also increasing the life chances of their offspring. By maintaining this status quo, whites took full advantage of accumulating wealth, from the sweat of other groups.

In the early 1990′s the negotiated settlement political power was handed over to the majority, by the minority white rulers. However economic power remained and still remains in the hands of whites. Wealth is still in the hands of a white majority, while blacks, coloureds and Indians are in the minority, while blacks, coloureds and Indians make up greater percentages of the poor and very few whites are in poverty. It is a social reality that class and racialised groups are embedded and it is sometimes difficult to disentangle these. Blacks who make up the majority of the poor, still have very limited access to life chances. People going to township schools, still do not have the same access to education as those who go to previous Model C schools – located in previously classified white areas. Township schools are under resourced and therefore the quality of education is not the same. Their parents are unable to afford the school fees, either because they have jobs pay a pittance or they are unemployed. Their hope is to possibly get work, which is semi or unskilled, if they decide to stay in school for the full twelve years.

People in townships do not have the same health care as those in middle class and wealthy suburbs, since they have to rely on the public health system, while whites (who make up the majority of the middle class and the rich) are able to afford superior private health care.

Clearly the playing fields are not level. Those who do happen to make it through their school careers, through lots of sacrifice and dedication and happen to go to university still have to prove themselves and counter the stereotypes and prejudices of the university system. If they eventually get the professional qualification that they work harder for than many white counterparts, they are still at a disadvantage when it comes to the applications for work. They have to work extra hard at making a good impression at the interviews.

These lived realities in South Africa seems to be missed or neglected by Francis. So yes although there is no biological basis for race, the social constructed racialisation of groups is still just as powerful as it was in 1948.

I do believe that we should become a non-racial, non-racist and non-sexist society, and that by using racial classifications does not essentially further the non-racial, non-racist and non-sexist cause. However racialisation and racism did not originate all of a sudden in 1948, when the National Party came into power, these pre-date formal apartheid. Therefore to expect that the playing fields can be levelled after approximately sixteen years of democracy and majority rule is wishful thinking.

Affirmative action was successfully used by Afrikaner nationalists when they came into power, and the question arises, why should it not be successful in the upliftment of the masses? The answer seems to be that the political and economic circumstances are quite different now, to what they were then. When the National Party came into power the economy was a lot stronger and could to an extent support a welfare programme. Since 1996 the ANC government has consistently moved towards the neo-liberalist agenda and although the economy has grown, job creation has not and the anticipated “trickle down” effect has not occurred. On the contrary the Gini coefficient has increased and the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. Therefore wealth is not being redistributed and the poor – the majority being black South Africans – get even poorer and the rich – the majority being white South Africans – get even richer.

Finally equity reports have indicated that white males still occupy the upper echelons of management in business. Government and the state have transformed (with possibly the exception of the government of the Western Cape under the Premiership of Helen Zille), however it seems as if big business still lacks the will to transform to reflect the demographics of the country, thereby excluding blacks from gaining equal access to life chances.

There is a small elite of black South Africans who have benefited from Black Empowerment. I would argue that this was mostly through contacts that were built by those who were in exile, while those who had to remain in the country have not really benefited. However this is possibly an area which should be and could be researched. What has happened though, is those who have been able to escape the trap of poverty and the township lived experience and who have made it to the top are viewed with suspicion and to an extent contempt.

Therefore, until the playing fields are leveled and people have equal access to well resourced schools, universities, health care, jobs, etc affirmative action should remain in place. It may not be perfect, but it is better than nothing at all.

Richard Records

The drive to have cellular telephone users register has intensified with many “special deals” being advertised and competitions where persons can win prize money have been put in place to lure users to register.  The deadline for registration is December 2010, after which those who have not registered will be simply cut off.

Although I am not a legal person, there seem to be a number of conflicts in current and proposed legislation.  The Protection of Information Bill and the Access to Information Act spring to mind.  Much has been written about the Protection of Information Act, which is still in its formulation stage at present.  Focus has largely been on the fact that government now wants to be enabled to protect its information through classifying it as secret.  It apparently makes provision for it being a criminal offence to be in possession of previously classified information and makes it difficult for whistle blowers to approach “investigative journalists”.  Furthermore focus has also been on the proposed Media Tribunal which many suspect will muzzle the print media.  However this proposed act seems to go against the spirit of the Access to Information Act, which was formulated in the spirit of transparency.

My understanding of the Access to Information Act is that it was formulated in the spirit of increased transparency, whereby citizens have been enabled to get information – especially that which concerns themselves – from government.  I am uncertain as to whether this is extended to private organisations though.  The formulation of this legislation was primarily done after the fall of apartheid, where previously information was classified as secret and an individual could not gain access to any information held by the state.  It was part of the veil of secrecy that was cast during the dark years of apartheid to protect that regime.  The formulation of the Access to Information Act was to counter the tendency of the state to have a laarger mentality.  However this seems to have been reversed by the new proposed act, where if state bureaucrats believe that information is sensitive, it can classify that information as secret and individuals are technically unable to get that information.

This seems to lead to a bit of a dilemma.  On the one hand individuals have the entitlement to have access to information, they have to give personal information to banks and cellular phone companies – where the state can gain access – but on the other hand the state can restrict its information.  It just seems like a bit of a double bind.

Richard Records

Verashni Pillay asserts that whites often say that they were forced into the army to join the army, during apartheid.  This is factually incorrect.  White males were conscripted into the army by the apartheid state.  When white males reached the age of sixteen, they ironically were forced by law to make an application to join the South African Defence Force.  To add to this irony they had a “choice” as to which arm of the defence force they “wished” to serve in namely; Air Force, Army or Navy.  A white male was not really able to resist this, the choice was either to serve the state in the South African Police, Merchant Navy, or study further which merely postponed the inevitable, or flee the country, become a conscientious objector on religious grounds, or serve time in prison.  It is easy to say now that more men should have objected to cripple the army because then there would be a shortage of human resources and reserves, however the apartheid state made it very difficult for those to resist conscription.  Furthermore the war was couched in terms of the fight against communism.  It was also the height of the Cold War.  However conscription and the “volunteering” to go to the army was also used to maintain white privilege.  Denial of wanting to serve in the army is similar to the denial of supporting and voting for the National Party during apartheid.

Therefore apartheid was not only a racialised or racist ideology aimed at suppressing black aspirations, but was also an economic ideology to maintain white privilege.  Many liberal whites were public critical of apartheid, but they privately supported the system, since the status quo was being maintain.

It is interesting that Verashni Pillay make the point that although many white liberal males will wear Madiba shirts, but will not necessarily date a black woman.  It is interesting that she has considered white men only in this regard and I would argue that within the white community and especially the white liberal community a white male having a relationship with a black woman would not be resisted or frowned upon as much as a white woman dating a black man.  This leads to another point that I would like to make, or rather a question.  Why has it become a criterion in South Africa of white integration to have a number of black friends or have photos of people in one’s photo collection?  In my mind this is not a measure of white integration (yes integration) into South African society.  It does not prove white “liberalness” by arguing that “I have many black friends” or having a range of black faces in a photo album.  At present we work together, maybe even travel together, but we do not socialise with one another, or at least not that often because we do not live next door to one another and we do not share the same lived experience.  There are of course some exceptions to this generalisation.  However just as a point of interest consider and observe who has conversations and interactions with whom at office parties and cocktails.

Interestingly Carol Freeman starts her piece with the phrase that Vareshni Pillay usually writes an insightfully and thought provokingly, and continues to assert that she knows Ms Pillay personally and respects her, however assertions at the end of her “defence” are that ….”these trivial, tabloid-style attempts to be controversial for the sake of it and let’s get back to focusing on the things that matter … “  In my mind this merely confirms the racist attitude of white liberal racists

Carol Freeman asserts that there is a false dichotomy between those who are overtly racist, and those who are accidentally and inadvertently racist.  This “false” dichotomy is only in the mind of Ms Freeman, since most whites in South Africa are racist at worst or have some form of racialised thinking.  Racism and racialisation (race thinking) has had a long history within Europe and South Africa.  Racism was not invented by Afrikaners at the advent of apartheid in South Africa.  Racism and racialisation was brought by whites to South Africa when van Riebeek landed at the Cape in 1652 and was refined and propagated during colonisation by the British.  The result has been that race and racialisation have been part and parcel of white world views and outlooks and is still reinforced within current social interactions, debates and discourses.  The race and racialised word view or conceptual framework has been based on European anthropology and biological science where everything has had to be classified into some form of category.  For example various races were socially constructed, with whites being civilised and cultured and therefore being on top of the hierarchy (in the minds of Europeans and South African whites).  Each “race” group has then been divided into tribes, which have been categorised into various ethnic groups, sometimes with disastrous consequences especially when one tribe or ethnic group became a preferred group of the colonial power, the genocide of Rwanda is evidence of this.  Whites have and still consider themselves to be superior over others in terms of what is socially constructed as civilisation, culture and intelligence who of a different “race” and racialised group.  Therefore whites are sometimes overtly racist, but they are also sometimes covertly or inadvertently racist.

Carol Freeman points out that satire is used to inform and educate, to encourage self examination and to offer a critique.  She maintains that Verashni Pillay has not been successful, but merely Carol Freeman’s post on Thought Leader points to the fact that it has been successful.  It has brought about a certain amount of self examination by white liberals or whites generally, however this self examination has been clouded by many previous debates and discourses, which leads me to consider the two major themes, or discourses of Carol Freeman’s post.  The first discourse I have labelled denial of privilege and the second I have labelled now that things are equal we should move on (a sort of you have to forgive and move on).  These two discourses are interlinked.

Denial of privilege

The denial of privilege is closely associated with the denial of racism.  Carol Freeman describes herself as a classical liberal (linked to Wikipedia) which essentially means that she follows the neo-liberalist agenda of discouraging government intervention in the market and the removal of restrictions on a “free market”.  The current South African government has moved from a central planning to a neo-liberal economic policy, which has stimulated South Africa’s economic growth but also increased the gap between rich and poor.  Wealth has always been unevenly distributed in South Africa, with the most wealth being distributed among whites and the poorest sections of South African society being black.  This historical legacy of apartheid is being perpetuated within South African society and neo-liberalists (or liberal whites) are maintaining this status quo.

It is interesting that Ms Freeman then continues to acknowledge that she has enjoyed advantage, yet does not interrogate this advantage in greater depth, instead she maintains that liberal whites make use of the economic and power advantage to “fight for a cause beyond myself.”  However she does not mention what this cause is.  There is a brief hint at this cause where it is mentioned that educated whites, who have enjoyed the privilege of a proper education will plough those skills back into the country through their economic activity and labour.  She continues by listing various professions such as doctors and nurses, working in the private sector, journalists, civil engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs.  All of these are high income generating professions, where it is almost impossible to “rub shoulders” with fellow black citizens of the country, especially the poor.  The consequence is that white liberals or whites in general are unable to understand the lived experience of the poor and the majority of fellow black citizens.  The children of whites will therefore not be able to engage and interact with the poor since they will have better access to life chances and therefore racism and racialisation remain intact and gets continuously perpetuated.  My question is will Ms Freeman like any other white liberal be prepared to send her children to a school in the townships, travel on public transport, turn down work because there is a candidate who has applied for the position who comes from a disadvantaged group, move to and live in a township or impoverished area and allow her daughter to marry a black male.  Of course the answer to all these questions are no, the reason that will be given is a question, “why should I if I can afford to live where I want, send my children to the best schools, travel in my own car?”  However the point is not many blacks can actually gain access to the professions that she has listed, because they have not been given equal opportunities.  Previously, like now access to life chances has not been equal.  Black South Africans have always and are still being given access to life chances that equip them to enter low skilled and low paying work in the employ of whites and then they are treated in child like ways.

Ms Freeman argues that a black bourgeoisie has been established, however this is a very small fraction of the total South African population and furthermore wealth is still within the hands of whites in South Africa.  When the black bourgeoisie is encountered it is often encountered with suspicion that wealth has been obtained through criminal behaviour, such as theft, corruption, plundering, been giving this on a platter, but never through hard work.  Unlike hard working whites, blacks are lazy is part of the world view of many whites.

Therefore whites are not oblivious of their privilege they actively deny it.  Whites have always had better access to life chances, such as education, housing, security, better paid employment, and freedom of movement and freedom from being dehumanised.  This is still being maintained in the current South Africa, however while it was on the statute books during the days of apartheid, it has become economic segregation in the current South Africa.  Whites still hold the economic levers of power, which can be traced back to the negotiated settlement and the regime of Nelson Mandela.  During these phases of South Africa’s history political power was transferred to the majority and black South Africans, however economic power (and to an extent real power) remained and remains in the hands of whites.  The ruling elite remains subservient to the holders of economic power.  Successive governments have always had to balance the aspirations (and anger of blacks) and the so called fears of whites.  As soon as whites start to feel uncomfortable about their position of privilege or are reminded of it then the argument of “white” guilt comes to the fore and the accident of being “born with a white skin” is used to deflate the aspirations of blacks.  It is then that the second discourse is used, namely now that all things are equal lets move on.

Now that all things are equal lets move on

When whites eventually acknowledge that they are privileged then they often argue that South Africa has enjoyed a democracy – pointing to the transfer of political power – for a number of years now and that the playing fields should be levelled.  Everyone should now be treated equally and South Africans should forget about race, racialism and racism, and work together in the “Rainbow Nation” to achieve a greater good for the country.  This is essentially used when debates and discussions around affirmative action, equity and black economic empowerment occur.  However the playing fields are not level, and they will not be level for a very long time.  The majority of blacks are unable to gain better access to life chances.  They are still being housed in dormitory suburbs and towns, the education system in townships is of poor quality because they are under resourced, the public health care is exceptionally poor – while whites can enjoy the privilege of going to private health care – and blacks are still being employed in low skilled work and therefore do not gain access to the wealth of the country.  When the few blacks are able to break through all these barriers and have had to prove themselves over and over again (even more than their white contemporaries) then white liberals like Ms Freeman grudgingly accept this as the cross that they have to bear.  Whites have never had to prove themselves because they have always been considered as superior by fellow whites.

The use of language by Ms Freeman is of interest:

“I saw for myself the opportunities open to my “non-white” contemporaries at university through “previously disadvantaged only” scholarships and again, when starting out in the job market, through hiring practises that favoured those of a darker skin tone to myself. But being an adult means taking the rough with the smooth, knowing that we all have our cross to bear even when some may appear significantly heavier than others”

From the above can be seen that privilege is being denied and that black fulfilment of black aspirations begrudged and is viewed as a form of a hand out.  Interestingly “non-white” implies the lack of whiteness, which has various meanings, such as being uncultured, uncivilised, uneducated, lazy and relying on the goodwill of others.

The issue of racism and racialisation becomes trivialised by Ms Freeman when it is called “petty infighting” and arguing that it is time to “tackle more important issues” such as HIV /Aids, crime, poverty, etc.  The problem is that unless racism and racialisation are not tackled and resolved, South Africa will never be able to move forward.  For example crime has only become a serious issue because it has affected the white middle class and the wealthy.  During apartheid whites lived in a secured environment.  Police resources where unevenly distributed with a bias to white areas.  Furthermore there were other legislative measures which controlled movement.  Crime generally and violent crime was endemic in townships, however it was contained within those areas.  With the advent of South Africa’s new found democracy restrictions were lifted and crime exploded out of the townships.  When crime was rife in townships, not much was said about liberal whites about it then.  However now that they are affected and feel insecure (white fears) then crime has become an issue.  Crime is currently still problematic within townships, however police resources are still geared towards white areas, and when these fail or are being more evenly distributed the white middle class and wealthy are able to employ private security.  The problem is that crime as an issue has become racialised since white lives and property seem to be more important than black lives and property.

Poverty as a “more important issue” to be tackled and thereby trivialising racism and racialisation is not seriously interrogated by Ms Freeman.  This is used as a means to say “now lets move on”.  She seems to forget that the majority of the “million children born into poverty every year in South Africa” are black, born in townships and informal settlements.  These children will not get better access to life chances, because their parents have not been given opportunities to better themselves nor had equal access to life chances.

The question arises:  What are white liberals – especially those of the neo-liberal persuasion – going to do about improving the life chances of these children?  I seriously doubt that there is much that they are willing to do, because it might mean that the economy be planned centrally.  There needs to be a more equitable distribution of wealth in South Africa’s society.  However once this becomes an aspect then “white fears” arise.

A possible answer to this is creation of work and a reduction of unemployment.  However eyes turn to government to create jobs for the poor, not capital or neo-liberal whites, who maintain their positions of privilege at all costs.

Self description

I am a non-black South African male.  I reside in the so called liberal city of Cape Town.  I don’t listen to Johnny Clegg (in fact I prefer Rock) or wear Madiba shirts.  I try to confront my racialised world view as often as possible and confront my stereotypes as often as possible.  I could be labelled as being politically correct, but equality and equity are values that I strive for.  I believe that South Africa can become a truly non racist, non racialised and non sexist society.  I believe that people and their cultures should be treated with respect and empathy, if they treat others with respect and dignity.  I am a liberal, but in the socialist sense of the word.  The tone of our skin is an exterior, what is of more importance to me is empathetic understanding of personality and character.  I have married across the so called colour line and been involved in interracial relationships.

Richard Records

Most thinking in relation to crime is that it is a result of social disorganisation and resultant anomie.  However this post will argue that crime does in fact serve a number of functions in society, to bring about greater order.

The statement that crime serves functions within society should not be viewed as detracting from the serious nature that some crime has within society and that it has serious consequences for most victims, especially in the case of violent crime.  Furthermore by stating that crime serves functions within society does not imply that crime should not be combated or that criminal activity should be condoned.  Instead it serves to consider possible interventions to reduce and prevent crime, which will be discussed in future posts.

In South Africa crime is “big business”, from corruption to drug dealing, from burglaries to cash in transit heists, from theft to fraud, and from illegal shebeens to taxi wars over lucrative routes.  There are huge profits in crime and unfortunately with the current criminal justice system, crime does seem to pay those who are willing to take a chance in committing crime.  Therefore there is an economic functionality in crime and criminal activity.

Before the statement of crime being functional to South African society as being written off as being ludicrous perhaps an illustration might be of assistance, and even possibly a bit of magical thinking.

Imagine, if you will, that one day at the stroke of some magical wand South African society would wake up one day to find that crime ceased to exist.  This may be a wonderful, blissful idea and one might think of it as heavenly, because everything should be ordered and peaceful.  However South African society would fall into a state of disarray since it would be faced with even larger amounts of people facing unemployment.  For example South Africa would not need such an ever increasing in size Police force (or is it a still a Service), since crime would no longer need to be combated, reduced or investigated.  South Africa would also not need any criminal courts to prosecute perpetrators of crime, therefore there would be no need for prosecutors or even a prosecuting authority.  Courts might only exist to hear civil matters and civil disputes, therefore there would also be a reduction of magistrates and judges.  There would also be no need for the Department of Correctional Services, since South Africa would not need to place criminals in prisons.  Furthermore, the security industry would collapse and hundreds of thousands of security guards and armed response officers would face unemployment, while the insurance industry will become severely strained with the reduced need for people to insure their property against damage and theft and therefore their profits would be reduced because of reduced income from premiums.  Road accidents will be reduced since many of these are due to someone breaking some regulation (crime) of the road.  The medical industry will be in a crisis, since many injuries are related to criminal activity.  The result is that specialised medicine in terms of trauma would become almost unnecessary, only required for real accidents.

Therefore if for some strange reason South Africa were to suddenly eliminate crime, society would fall into disarray.  The implications are that crime in South Africa has certain functions, namely to order society and to employ large numbers of people.  Not only does crime serve a function of employment negatively (in other words to prevent crime people are being employed) but also positively since crime generates income for people who would otherwise not be employed.  For example gangs have a division of labour, they sell goods and services to various communities, even though their trade is considered illicit and their economics are illegitimate.  Thieves generate an income and “produce” for a market through their labour.  Therefore crime also distributes goods and services in various communities.

The functions that crime serves have important implications for prevention and prevention strategies and how these are conceptualised and implement.  These will be discussed in forthcoming posts.

Richard Records