Can the Police Take all the Credit for Reductions in Crime?

Overall crime in South Africa reduced by 2,4% in 2010/11 and the SA Police Service are claiming credit for this. The reasons are however much more complex and involves more than what the police do.

Published on 31 October 2011 in ISS Today

Johan  Burger,  Senior Researcher, Crime and Justice Programme, ISS Pretoria Office

The 2010/11 South African Police Service (SAPS) crime statistics show a 2,4% decrease in crime. In real terms this means that the police recorded 50 400 fewer serious crimes in 2010/11 than they did in the previous financial year. This includes decreases in murder (5,3%), attempted murder (11%), aggravated robbery (10,8%) and, for the first time in eight years, also a 10,1% decrease in house robbery.

There is sufficient independent corroboration for these positive downward trends, for them to be credible. The 2011 Grant Thornton International Business Report, that reflects the findings of a survey of South African business owners, reported a 5% decrease in ‘contact crime’ victimization compared to the previous year, and 34% decrease since the first survey in 2007. In addition, the Consumer Goods Council of South Africa reported a 43% decrease in ‘armed robbery’ and 27% in burglary in the retail industry in 2010/11. The South African Insurance Association (made up of a number of insurance providers) also reported decreases in claims for crimes such as vehicle hijackings (a reduction of between 19-31%), business robberies (down between 19-28%) and house robberies (down between 4-21%).

Shortly after the latest release of the crime statistics the National Commissioner of the SAPS, General Bheki Cele, told the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) that ‘… we, in the SAPS, have been enjoying, arguably, our best run of uninterrupted good media coverage since our formation in 1995.’ Cele was claiming credit for the reduction in crime and gave no indication that he believed that other social factors might have contributed to the change.

Meanwhile, in his speech during the release of the crime statistics on 8 September, the Minister of Police, Nathi Mthetwa, acknowledged the complexities of crime and its solutions when he pointed to the effect of poverty and social dysfunction on crime levels, stating that:

“The battle against crime cannot be separated from the war on want. In the main, incidents of contact crime such as murder, grievous bodily harm and rape occur among acquaintances in poor communities where living and entertainment environments do not allow for decent family and social life.”

A large body of research shows that the risk factors for crime include social, economic and personal factors. The police recognize this and have been at pains to point out in their annual reports that poor social conditions are in large measure to blame for so-called social contact crimes (murder and attempted murder, serious and common assault, and sexual offences).  For example, according to the police 65% of murders are committed within or as a result of domestic conflict, alcohol and drug abuse, and associated conditions. Only about 16% of murders are committed in the execution of other crimes such as robbery.

This analysis was reflected in policy and strategy documents during the mid and late 1990’s, including the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) of 1996 and the South African White Paper on Safety and Security of 1998. The White Paper set out the role of the police in combating crime, which included, (i) conducting criminal investigations, (ii) active visible policing and (iii) providing a service to victims of crime. Since it cannot be expected of the police to address the social, economic and personal factors that influence crime rates, the police need to focus on what the White Paper refers to as ‘crime prevention through effective criminal justice’. According to the White Paper an effective criminal justice system can contribute to crime prevention by making crime more risky and less rewarding. Thus the role of the police, as an integral part of the criminal justice system, should be to create a strong deterrent against crime and lawlessness. While this alone is insufficient to address high levels of crime, it is an integral factor in reducing crime.

The idea that crime can be deterred by policing is based both on the notion that through visible policing (for example) the police can reduce opportunities for crime to be committed. In addition, the police have an essential role to play in increasingly the certainty that offenders will be apprehended so that the criminal justice process can begin and which can ultimately result in a sentence being passed by the courts. Without such certainty, it is unlikely that would-be offenders will be deterred by the possibility of punitive sentences. Essentially what this tells us is that the impact of the police on crime levels are largely limited to reactive policing (criminal investigations and law enforcement), and proactive policing (visible policing, law enforcement and order maintenance).

Yet, it is precisely in creating this certainty that the police fall short. According to the SAPS annual report the police achieved only a 27% detection rate and a 14% conviction rate for murder, this is despite the fact that their own analysis shows that in nearly all (up to 80%) of murder cases the victim and perpetrator knew each other. For attempted murder cases, where the victim is able to identify the perpetrator, the detection rate is 44%, but the conviction rate remains the same (14%). In aggravated robbery and common robbery cases the detection rates are 16% and 36% respectively and the conviction rates a lowly 11% and 20%. This clearly points to a need for improvements in the collection and analysis of evidence, and the preparation of cases for consideration by prosecutors.