CHAPTER OVERVIEW

A minority of respondents felt that the criminal justice system was performing well or had improved since 1994. While black respondents were more positive, even among this segment of the respondents a majority still thought that things had either not improved or they were unsure whether things were better or worse. Almost no white respondents thought that things had improved since 1994, or that the criminal justice system was performing well.

Most respondents were critical of the government’s crime-fighting performance. Urban and white respondents were the most critical of the government’s performance, while rural and black respondents were the most positive. A significant majority of respondents felt that, in order to prevent crime, the government should spend more money on job creation rather than the criminal justice system.

Overall, most respondents thought that the courts were independent and impartial. However, only a minority of black respondents felt that this was the case. A quarter of the respondents felt that politicians should influence courts’ judgments and sentencing decisions. Less than half of black respondents were explicitly opposed to such political interference.

A minority of respondents trusted the police and would willingly report crime to them. White and urban respondents were slightly more trusting of the police than their black, coloured and rural counterparts. Most respondents, however, said that they would willingly give evidence in court. The willingness to testify was especially high among respondents from small towns and rural areas.

In their evaluation of the various professions within the criminal justice system, respondents were most critical of the prison service and uniformed members of the SAPS. They were most praising of judicial officers and police detectives. Rural respondents were generally the least positive about employees of the criminal justice system.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Respondents were asked to comment on the statement that ‘the general functioning of the criminal justice system improved after 1994’. Almost half of the respondents (47%) thought that there had been no improvement in the functioning of the criminal justice system, while 30% thought there had been. The remainder (23%) were undecided.

Rural respondents (40%) were most likely to say that the functioning of the criminal justice system improved since 1994. Urban respondents were the most critical, with only a quarter saying that it had improved over the last five years.

There was also a significant difference in the responses of the various race groups. While 41% of black and 34% of coloured respondents said that the criminal justice system had improved, only 5% of whites said so.

Respondents’ views of the functioning of the criminal justice system were directly related to their income, with those in the highest income bracket being the most negative. Thus, 73% of respondents earning more than R5 000 per month did not think the functioning of the criminal justice system had improved since 1994, while only 44% of respondents earning less than R1 000 a month, and 40% of respondents earning no income gave the same response. Similarly, respondents with higher educational qualifications were less likely to state that the criminal justice system had improved than those with lower educational qualifications. Just over half (54%) of respondents with five years of school education or less thought the system had improved, compared to only 16% of respondents with a tertiary qualification.

When confronted with the statement that, ‘on the whole, the criminal justice system is performing well’, a quarter of the respondents said that it was, with half saying that it was not. The remainder were undecided.

Almost a third (31%) of respondents living in small towns were of the opinion that the criminal justice system was performing well. However, only about a fifth of urban and rural respondents were equally positive. Male respondents were almost twice as likely to think that the criminal justice system was performing well (31%), compared to female respondents (17%). Almost a third of black and coloured respondents approved of the criminal justice system’s performance. Only 5% of white respondents expressed their approval. 

Focus group findings

White focus group participants in Port Elizabeth felt strongly that the criminal justice system had not improved since 1994. Their main reasons were that prison sentences had become shorter, bail was given too easily (especially to rapists), the courts were more inefficient, and the police and law-abiding citizens had far less power in relation to criminals than before. Coloured and black focus group participants in Port Elizabeth agreed that criminals had received more rights. However, they were unsure whether this was bad. Some, for example, were supportive of the fact that certain injustices, like the death penalty, no longer existed.

Graaff-Reinet farmers also felt that too many rights were afforded to criminals, and that the Constitution was often interpreted incorrectly, thus favouring criminals. The focus group in Graaff-Reinet comprised black and coloured men (most of whom had a criminal record) who were positive about the criminal justice system, arguing that prison conditions had improved markedly, and that accused persons had the right to legal representation. Coloured and black female focus group members in Graaff-Reinet felt that the police’s performance had not improved since 1994, but that they could not be blamed as the courts consistently postponed cases until they were dismissed. This group also felt that criminals enjoyed too many rights.

Black focus group participants in Grahamstown thought that the structure of the police and the courts had not changed since 1994, and was still ineffective. They felt that it was both a good and a bad thing that the Constitution afforded rights to criminals. White focus group participants in Grahamstown argued that the courts handed down sentences that were too lenient and that too many criminals that were incarcerated in prison were released on amnesties. This group was unsure whether the functioning of the criminal justice system had actually worsened since 1994, or whether this negative perception was caused by the media. Before 1994, the media were restricted in reporting about the failures of the pre-1994 criminal justice system. This was no longer the case, focus group members argued.

Focus group participants in Umtata and Thabankulu felt that the functioning of the criminal justice system had worsened because criminals enjoyed too many rights. As a result, cases were dismissed or remained unsolved because criminals exploited loopholes in the Constitution that could protect them. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S FIGHT AGAINST CRIME

A quarter of respondents agreed, and 58% disagreed, with the statement that ‘the government has done a good job in fighting crime and lawlessness’. Urban respondents were most critical of the government: 63% thought that the government had not done a good job, compared to 58% of respondents in small towns, and 42% in rural areas.

White respondents were considerably more critical of the government’s performance. Only 8% of whites were positive about the government’s performance. For coloured and black respondents, the proportions were 25% and 32% respectively. High income earners and respondents with tertiary academic qualifications were the most critical of the government’s performance.

Younger respondents were more critical of the government’s performance than their older counterparts. Thus, 65% of respondents aged 18 to 30 years thought that the government had not done a good job in fighting crime and lawlessness since 1994, while 55% of respondents aged over 30 years thought so. Women were less positive of the government’s performance than men. While 29% of male respondents thought that the government had performed well, only 20% of female respondents thought so.

Respondents were told that, in order to prevent crime, the government can spend money in different areas. If the government had money for one of these areas only, which one should the money be spent on? The majority of respondents (66%) identified job creation as the most important area where the government should spend money, followed by the criminal justice system (17%) and education (8%).

There were, however, considerable differences in the answers, depending on where the respondents lived and what racial group they belonged to. Virtually all rural respondents stated that, in order to prevent crime, the government should spend money on job creation (87%) or education (12%). Not one rural respondent suggested that state spending should go toward improving the criminal justice system. Respondents in small towns and urban centres did not differ much in their responses. Approximately two-thirds of these respondents also selected job creation as the government’s spending priority, followed by spending on the criminal justice system (about a fifth of these respondents), and education and social responsibility projects.

Of black respondents, 72% thought job creation should be the government’s spending priority. Fewer coloured (67%) and white respondents (53%) thought so. The reverse applied in respect of government spending on the criminal justice system. Almost a third of white respondents said this should be the government’s priority, but only 21% of coloured, and 8% of black respondents said so (figure 5).

 

The amount of money spent on the three core components of the South African criminal justice system (police, justice and prisons) increased considerably in the 1990s. Spending increased from R4.3 billion in 1990/91 to R23.5 billion in the 1999/2000 budget year – an increase of 450%. Over a similar period (1990 to 1999), the consumer price index increased by 159%. The proportion of the national budget devoted to the criminal justice system more than doubled over a twelve-year period, from 4.8% in 1987/88 to 10.8% in the 1999/2000 budget year.1 Some 22% of the 1999/2000 budget was allocated to education, 11% to health, and 9% to social security and welfare spending.2

Focus group findings

Coloured and black men in the Graaff-Reinet focus group discussion felt that young people committed a large proportion of crimes in their area. They also said that the high crime rate could be attributed to the large number of unemployed people living in their area. Because many young people were unemployed and bored, they joined gangs. People in positions of authority such as parents, teachers, and even police officers were scared of gangs and did little to stop their activities.

According to the participants, unemployed juveniles left Graaff-Reinet to find work in the bigger cities such as Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. They were often unsuccessful in their quest for employment, and joined gangs to survive. During the holiday season, many of these gang members returned to Graaff-Reinet from the cities resulting in an increase in crime as rival gang members crossed swords. Coloured and black women in Graaff-Reinet also cited unemployment, gangs and drugs as significant contributors to crime in their area.

Black focus group participants in Grahamstown felt that unemployment was the primary reason for crime in their area, with theft and burglary being the most prevalent crimes.

JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Most (57%) of the respondents agreed with the statement that ‘the courts are independent of, and impartial to outside influences such as the press, politicians and public opinion’. However, a significant minority (24%) disagreed with the statement.

The differences in the responses between inhabitants of particular areas were negligible. Answers varied in respect of the respondents’ race, however. While 68% of coloured and 62% of white respondents thought that the courts were impartial, less than half (49%) of black respondents thought so. The proportion of black respondents (32%) who explicitly stated that the courts were not impartial, was almost twice that for white and coloured respondents (figure 6).

Almost a quarter of the respondents (23%) agreed with the statement that ‘politicians should influence courts’ decisions on what sentence they impose’. Some 63% of respondents disagreed with the statement, while a further 12% were unsure. Urban respondents were most likely to oppose political interference in courts’ judgments (73%), followed by respondents from small towns and rural areas (56% and 53%, respectively). White respondents were the most opposed to political interference (84%), followed by coloured (78%) and black (44%) respondents.

When given the statement ‘politicians should influence courts’ decisions in finding accused persons guilty or not’, 63% of respondents disagreed and 23% agreed. Urban respondents were the most likely to disagree (73%), followed by those living in small towns (57%) and rural areas (55%).

A third (34%) of black respondents thought that politicians should influence the decision by the courts to find accused persons guilty or not. Only 14% of coloured and 12% of white respondents thought so. Some 45% of black respondents said there should be no political interference in courts’ judgments, compared to 78% and 84% of coloured and white respondents, respectively. The remainder of the respondents were undecided on this issue.

Focus group findings

All focus groups participants in Port Elizabeth felt that the criminal justice system was mostly impartial and independent. They did express some concern, however, that influential and powerful people were treated preferentially by the system at times.

Black focus group participants in Grahamstown thought that the courts were impartial. However, this group felt that some inequalities remained in the criminal justice system. The police, for example, reacted faster to crimes that occurred in traditional white areas with the result that criminals committing crimes in these areas were more likely to be arrested and prosecuted. White focus group participants in Grahamstown felt that a distinction had to be drawn between the high and lower courts. While the high courts were seen as impartial, the lower courts were often not because magistrates were prone to be influenced by the government and the public. Coloured focus group participants in Grahamstown felt that politicians should not interfere with the courts as they were not familiar with people’s experiences at grassroots level. They did say, however, that justice was not equal — that wealthy accused sometimes had an influence over courts’ decisions.

Umtata focus group participants felt that friends of the prosecutor or court interpreter were treated preferentially in court. They also said that accused who bribed any court official or police officer would have their cases dismissed or would be acquitted.

CO-OPERATION WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

A significant proportion of respondents (44%)agreed with the statement that they ‘trust the police and would willingly report crime to them’. The majority, however, was either unsure (23%), or disagreed with the statement (33%). While half of urban respondents said they trusted the police, just over one-third of rural respondents did so. White respondents were slightly more trusting of the police (48%) than black or coloured respondents (both 42%).

Two-thirds of respondents agreed that they ‘would willingly give evidence in court and act as a witness’, with 20% saying that they would not do so. Respondents in rural areas and small towns were more willing to give evidence in court (71%), than their urban counterparts (59%). Coloured respondents were the least likely to be enthusiastic about giving evidence in court, with 56% saying they would do so, followed by black (68%) and white (73%) respondents.

AGENTS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Respondents were asked to comment on the quality of the jobs fulfilled by the following participants in the criminal justice process: uniformed members of the SAPS, police detectives, the prosecution service, magistrates, judges, the prison service, and policy makers and politicians who write the country’s laws and crime fighting policies.

Respondents were the most positive about judicial officers (judges in particular), followed by detectives. They were the most critical of the prison service and uniformed members of the police, and politicians and policy makers (table 1).

Respondents in small towns were the most positive about the performance of prosecutors, judicial officers, the prison service and politicians. Urban respondents, however, were the most praising of the police’s performance (uniformed members and detectives).

Rural respondents were the least positive about all categories of participants in the criminal justice system, with the exception of the politician/policy maker category where rural respondents were slightly more positive than their urban counterparts. For the other categories, the differences are significant. For example, while about a third of urban and small town respondents thought that detectives and prosecutors were doing a good job, less than one out of ten rural respondents thought so. Or, over a third of urban and small town respondents were positive about magistrates’ performance, while less than a sixth of rural respondents thought so (table 2).

Coloured respondents were the most positive about the performance of all categories of people and agencies who participated in the criminal justice process. Coloured respondents were, however, the most outspoken group. Respondents had the opportunity to evaluate job performance in one of three ways: they could say that they thought it was ‘good’, ‘fair’, or ‘poor’. A relatively small proportion of coloured respondents thought that people’s performance was ‘fair’. Unlike black or white respondents, coloured respondents tended to evaluate job performance as either ‘good’ or ‘poor’. Black respondents were the least positive about the police’s job performance (uniformed members and detectives), while whites were the least positive about the job performance of judicial officers, the prison service, and politicians.

There was a consistent divergence in opinion between male and female respondents. Male respondents were more positive about the performance of all categories of people and agencies who participated in the criminal justice process.

Respondents who had fallen victim to crime during the previous two years were all less positive about job performance than those who had not been victimised. This was especially striking in respondents’ evaluation of the performance of uniformed members and politicians, where non-victims were about 60% more likely to evaluate their job performance positively than victims. Differences in opinion between victims and non-victims were the least in respondents’ evaluation of the job performance of judicial officers and prosecutors.

INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS

There appears to be a high level of distrust of the police among the people surveyed. This seems odd in light of the fact that two-thirds of crime victims reported the incident to the police. This might be because the sentence ‘I trust the police and would willingly report crime to them’ actually contains two statements. It is possible that some respondents did not trust the police, but nevertheless reported crime to them. Moreover, many crime victims might report crime because they were required to for insurance purposes, or because, in the case of more serious crimes, they had nowhere else to turn to and did so out of a sense of desperation.

There was not a significant difference between the proportion of white, black and coloured respondents who trusted the police and would willingly report crime to them. It is likely that differences in opinion on this issue, between the different race groups, were substantially larger before the political transition in 1994. It is to the credit of the police that it enjoys more or less equal levels of trust among members of all race groups in the Eastern Cape, albeit at a low level.

Generally, respondents were more trusting of the courts than of the police. It is possible that respondents came across more police officers than court officials with the result that their chances of coming across a corrupt police officer were greater than coming across, for example, a corrupt prosecutor. The public generally have more direct dealings with the police than with court officials. A crime victim’s first port of call is the police and not the local prosecutor’s office. As a result, many respondents would have based their answer in respect of court officials on their perceptions of them rather than on actual experiences or observations.

Moreover, it is possible that on balance, more police officers are corrupt or collude with criminals than prosecutors or magistrates. The reasons for this could be, inter alia, that the nature of the police’s work dictates that police officers deal more directly with criminals than prosecutors or magistrates. The possibility of criminals bribing police officers is consequently greater than their bribing members of, for example, the prosecution service. It also became apparent from some of the focus group discussions — especially among members of the coloured community — that criminal gangs are so powerful in certain areas that they are able to intimidate the police and bribe some of its members.

Only a minority of black and coloured respondents thought that the functioning of the criminal justice system had improved since 1994, or that the government had done a good job in fighting crime since 1994. While support for the ruling party is high among — especially black — Eastern Cape residents, many were nevertheless critical of the government’s performance of crime.3 These comments are startling, because the civil liberties of many black and coloured South Africans were restricted by police action in the enforcement of government policies before 1994. However, the fact that rural, poor and less educated respondents (who would be almost exclusively black) were the most positive, indicates that, for these groups, the functioning of the criminal justice system had improved after 1994.

Focus group discussions revealed that many black and coloured participants were positive about the fact that the post-1994 criminal justice system was intent on protecting everyone’s rights. However, a number of participants were concerned that people’s rights were protected unequally with criminals enjoying greater protection than law-abiding citizens.

Moreover, it would appear that the root cause of dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system and the government’s performance in fighting crime among many black and coloured respondents, does not lie with the overall crime-fighting policy and strategic vision of the system and the government. Much of the dissatisfaction seems to be with the day-to-day functioning of the system. Focus group participants were less concerned with the constitutional rights of criminals than with missing dockets, unhelpful and corrupt police officers, and long delays in the finalisation of court cases.

Significantly, female respondents were substantially less positive than males about the performance of the criminal justice system and the government after 1994. Moreover, the proportion of male respondents who thought that the criminal justice system was performing well was almost twice that of their female counterparts. It would seem that women in the Eastern Cape felt strongly that the government and the criminal justice system had failed to protect them from crime and criminals.

There is a considerable race-based disparity between respondents’ opinions on judicial independence. While about two-thirds of white and coloured respondents thought that the courts functioned independent of outside influences, less than half of black respondents thought so. Black respondents were also least concerned about guarding against political interference in courts’ decisions. Proportionately, black South Africans support the ruling party to a considerably greater extent than members of any other race group (and especially white South Africans). Moreover, most judicial officers — especially high court judges — are white and thus likely to be supporters of opposition parties. It is possible that it is for these reasons that a high proportion of black respondents were relatively unconcerned about political infringement of judicial independence.

It is possible that many respondents did not attach much value to judicial independence because of a lack of knowledge about the doctrine of the separation of powers, and the role of the courts to act as a bulwark against abuses of power by the country’s political executive. Many of the focus group participants revealed a high degree of ignorance about basic functions of the criminal justice system. It is thus likely that many survey respondents did not fully understand the importance of a judiciary independent of outside — especially political — influence.

Finally, many of the rural black respondents grew up under the authority of a tribal chief who was the political head of their community and the arbiter of disputes occurring within their community. The ‘political executive’ and ‘judiciary’ in such communities exist in one person (and his advisors). Persons living in such a community might consequently not find it worrying if the country’s politicians on a national level were able to interfere in the courts’ decision-making process.

Notes

M Schönteich, The rising costs of crime: State spending on criminal justice, Nedcor ISS Crime Index, 3(4), July — August 1999, Institute for Security Studies, Pretoria, pp. 18 — 21.



1999 Budget Review, Department of Finance, Government Printers, 1999.



In the June 1999 general election, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) received 74% of the vote in the Eastern Cape. Nationally, the ANC drew 66% of the votes cast.