REPEAT VICTIMISATION

The incidence of crime in Cape Town between 1993-1997 indicates that 17 per cent of victims had been victimised more than once, either by the same crime type (repeat) or another type of crime (multiple). Repeat victimisation is a phenomenon which is important to record as it raises a number of questions about crime prevention and how limited resources can be targeted most effectively.

Figure 19: Repeat victimisation by crime type (1993 - 1997)



There are certain factors which play a role in when and where criminal victimisation occurs. By isolating those most at risk, policy-makers are pointed towards priority areas in which to intervene. Being aware of these could possibly play a role in preventing repeat victimisation, although there are some circumstances which may be impossible to avoid. As victimisation patterns differ for different groups, so multiple victimisation has a varying impact with not all crime types having the same frequency of revictimisation, nor with all people being affected in the same way.

Twenty-eight per cent of assault, 26 per cent of vehicle theft, 24 per cent of burglary and 24 per cent of robbery or mugging victims were repeat victims. Respondents who recorded family members who had been murdered, had a 25 per cent chance of having another murder victim in their family. Victims of hijacking were the least likely to be victimised again.

Repeat victimisation and race

There are remarkable differences in repeat victimisation across different races, with coloured people far more likely to become repeat victims than Africans and whites, especially when it comes to assault. This raises a number of questions about protection and lifestyle and points to the fact stated earlier that, in 37 per cent of cases, victims of assault and their perpetrators were known to each other by name.

With regard to repeat victimisation, it appears that coloured people living in Cape Town are disproportionately at risk across crime types, compared to Africans and whites. Coloured victims have more than a 40 per cent chance of being revictimised by the same crime. The question must be asked why coloured people are at a much greater risk of revictimisation than other groups. When it comes to property crime, one reason may have to do with protection: 87 per cent of coloured people have no form of protection for their dwellings.

Figure 20: Repeat victimisation of coloured respondents by crime type (1993 - 1997)



Only a small proportion (5,2 per cent) of African respondents are at risk of being repeat victims of robbery or mugging, and 2,4 per cent of burglary and vehicle theft, while whites in Cape Town are likely to be once-off victims of hijacking and murder. However, 9,3 per cent of whites had been repeat victims of assault and burglary, followed by robbery (5,9 per cent) and vehicle theft (3,7 per cent).

BEHAVIIOUR CHANGES

Respondents were asked:

whether they had changed their behaviour as a result of the crime;


how these changes manifested themselves; and


whether they felt safer as a result of making these changes.

Other than assault and murder, it appears that the majority of victims had changed their behaviour as a result of the crime, making them feel safer. However, 63 per cent of assault victims were unlikely to change their behaviour. To the extent that assaults happen in the home environment, these victims may be unable to change their behaviour because of domestic circumstances. Since the question dealing with murder was put to the families of murdered victims, this may explain the low rate of behavioural change in this regard.

Figure 21: Behaviour changes as a result of crime by crime type



Half of the victims of vehicle theft had not changed their behaviour as a result of the crime. Considering that vehicles are stolen in a number of places throughout the day and night and, as a non-violent crime, may be considered less serious, victims of vehicle theft who had changed their behaviour had installed protection and security. These measures made them feel positive and safer.

Crime can lead to high levels of fear. Across crime types, victims had become more fearful and paranoid following the incidents and had taken active precautions by changing their behaviour. The exception was victims of vehicle theft. Victims of vehicle hijacking and assault expressed the most fear: 71,9 per cent of hijacking victims had changed their behaviour, with 67,7 per cent feeling more fearful and 27 per cent taking active precautions to prevent revictimisation. As a result of taking these precautions, 70 per cent of them felt safer. Almost 50 per cent of those who felt the crime had affected their behaviour had become more fearful and paranoid than before, and 33 per cent were taking active precautions and changing their behaviour. As a result, the majority (65 per cent) of assault victims did feel safer. Africans and coloured people who had changed their behaviour did not feel as safe as whites who had. Of robbery or mugging victims, 60 per cent had changed their behaviour as a result of the crime, with 52,7 per cent feeling more fearful and paranoid. Of these, 38,2 per cent were taking active precautions, and 80 per cent of them felt safer. A significant proportion of sexual harassment victims (78 per cent) stated that they had changed their behaviour since the incident, and were more paranoid, scared, aware or did not walk alone anymore.

PROTECTION MEASURES

Although a wide variety of measures are employed by individuals to safeguard their households, protecting dwellings with physical means is not always a priority for victims of crime or for the general public, according to survey data. In developing countries, 40 per cent of victims felt that physical protection measures were of limited value, even though they believed that their chances of becoming victims of burglaries in the next twelve months were very good.36 In South Africa, people are more inclined to allocate responsibility for protection from crime to the government and the criminal justice system. This is often the case among those who cannot afford to safeguard their properties with sophisticated measures. Government agencies cannot reasonably be expected to carry the full burden of ensuring public safety. But the breakdown in effective law enforcement is such that attempts at community and personal crime prevention will have limited success without the significant improvement of the ability of formal state structures to combat crime.

Figure 22: Whether households were protected in Cape Town by race



Respondents were asked what forms of protection they used to protect their own dwellings. A multiple response of fifteen different types of protection was provided. The types of protection measures used by victims in their homes vary according to affordability, the type of dwelling in which they live, as well as the types of crime which are the most prevalent. In Cape Town, 85 per cent of people had no protection whatsoever. This finding raises some questions in relation to the type of personal security measures people can afford and potential measures which could be taken to enhance personal safety. In Cape Town, those most at risk of criminal victimisation have the least or no protection.

Survey findings suggest that 92 per cent of Africans, 87 per cent of coloured people and 30 per cent of whites have no forms of protection. Of the 85 per cent of people living in Cape Town who have no protection for their homes, 56 per cent claim not to have been victimised by any type of crime over the last five years. Identifying these people may provide some indication of the most effective protection measures.

Forms of protection

Of those respondents who did have some form of protection for their dwellings, whites (70 per cent) were significantly more likely to be protected than coloured people (13 per cent) and Africans (8 per cent). The five main types of protection are dogs (43,8 per cent), window grills (39,9 per cent), burglar alarms (33,3 per cent), high fences or walls (19,9 per cent) and special security doors (15,9 per cent).

Although the least protected of all groups, Africans were the most likely to have dogs (70,2 per cent), followed by window grills (34 per cent), high fences or walls (25,6 per cent), axes (20,1 per cent) and special doors (14 per cent). These are relatively affordable types of physical protection. Coloured people and whites are more likely to use more sophisticated (and expensive) protection. Traditional weapons (7,2 per cent) only appeared significantly as a form of protection for Africans. Although only 13 per cent have some form of protection, coloured people were the most likely to have window grills (44,4 per cent), followed by dogs (35 per cent), burglar alarms (28,5 per cent), a neighbourhood watch (12,6 per cent) and high fences or walls (9,9 per cent). Guns (9,9 per cent) were slightly more likely to be used as a form of protection by coloured people, compared with whites (7,9 per cent) and Africans (6,9 per cent). Although the proportion is very small, gangs as a form of protection only appeared significant for coloured people (3,7 per cent). Whites have the most protection and were the most likely to use the following measures: burglar alarms (54,1 per cent), dogs (39,7 per cent), window grills (36,5 per cent), high fences or walls and special doors (31 per cent), and a neighbourhood watch (20,9 per cent). Intercoms (18,9 per cent) and armed response services (14,5 per cent) are more sophisticated and expensive forms of protection which whites are mainly able to afford.

Sophisticated (and expensive) measures, such as burglar alarms, armed response services and intercoms, are more popular among victims living in the suburbs (former coloured and white) than in townships or informal areas. This also applies to the use of guns and the participation in neighbourhood watch schemes. (However, it is likely that more people actually possess firearms, but may have been reluctant to report this to the survey, should these weapons not be licensed.) By far the most common protection measure for victims living in townships is a dog: 67 per cent reported having them for protection.

Those who had some form of protection were asked whether they felt safer as a result of taking these precautions, and 80 per cent reported that they did feel safer with some measure of protection. However, levels of safety vary across Cape Town. Whites are more likely to feel safer as a result of having some form of protection, while coloured people and Africans are more likely not to feel safer having taken precautions. This may relate to the fact that these people experience different crimes, some of which are unlikely to be prevented through physical security measures. Whites, for example, largely suffer property crimes which 'target hardening' can impact on. Africans and coloured people, however, are the most at risk of violent crimes. Since many of these occur in the home or between people who know one another, physical security measures will do little to make victims of these crimes feel safer. This is supported by the finding that 18 per cent thought they could do nothing to enhance their personal safety.

All respondents were asked what else they felt they could do to enhance their personal safety. More than half (52,6 per cent) felt that they could do nothing else to enhance their personal safety. On the one hand, this can be interpreted positively: people feel they have taken sufficient forms of protection. For instance, the majority of whites (68,7 per cent) are likely to feel there is nothing more they can do and of those who do feel they can do something more, further hard security measures (23,4 per cent) are suggested. In particular, coloured people (42,7 per cent) and Africans (33,5 per cent) feel these measures would enhance their personal safety. Whether this is purely a wish list or whether respondents would have such protection already if they could afford it, is unclear. However, since the vast majority of Africans and coloured people are known not to have any form of protection, it is concerning that just less than half feel there is nothing further they can do to enhance their personal safety. This may relate to affordability or to the perception that only improved policing and criminal justice solutions will enhance safety. Across race groups, hard security measures (35,3 per cent) are seen as likely to enhance personal safety.