New "Tough on Crime" Policy will Need a Better-Trained Police Force
Pronouncements by the new South African Police Service (SAPS) management and even the Presidency on its approach to harden the stance in the fight against crime are creating waves in the public and more especially amongst police and security commentators. This has been highlighted by the many fatal shootings of innocent people in the past few months. Fears of a militarised police and even the apartheid-style police have been bandied about. The general response to the new attitude of the police is also exacerbated by other structural changes the police have undergone in the last few years.
Bilkis Omar, researcher in the Crime and Justice Programme at the Institute for Security Studies, Pretoria Office
Pronouncements by the new South African Police Service (SAPS)
management and even the Presidency on its approach to harden the stance
in the fight against crime are creating waves in the public and more
especially amongst police and security commentators. This has been
highlighted by the many fatal shootings of innocent people in the past
few months. Fears of a militarised police and even the apartheid-style
police have been bandied about. The general response to the new
attitude of the police is also exacerbated by other structural changes
the police have undergone in the last few years.
The SAPS as a national agency has by far the biggest
responsibility for policing in the country. In order for it to function
optimally its support structures must be effective – particularly when
radical operational changes are being proposed. Some of the intended
changes demonstrating the tougher approach since April 2009 include:
- Renaming the Ministry of Safety and Security to the Ministry of Police
- Transforming the ‘service’ ethos of the police to that of a ‘force’
- Revising Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. While unclear
at this point, it appears that it will be about clarifying the
conditions that would constitute a threat for purposes of the use of
deadly force. In addition it will allow police to use deadly force to
effect an arrest, even when they are not directly threatened in cases
where serious violent crimes of a specific kind were committed and
other methods of arrest are not applicable (the latter amendment has
already been endorsed in a constitutional case judgement, in the
Walters case, in 2002)
- Advocating for a militarised ranking system
- Promoting fiery public statements like ‘shoot to kill’ and ‘meet fire with fire’
It is clear that the tough approach is SAPS’ new strategy designed
to bring down the high levels of crime. All in all, the intention is
sound - especially given the increases in violent crimes over the last
10 years, the level of violence in the commitment of the crimes, and
the levels of fear crime has generated.
Management’s error in advancing this approach has been the lack of
parallel strategies and systems to support members on the ground in
the implementation phases. For example, if section 49 were to be
amended as proposed by the police, then members would have to sharpen
their shooting skills in order to fire accurately and to avoid
indiscriminate shooting. This should be done by undergoing intensive
shooting training as well as undertaking in-service training on a
continuous basis – a facet that is clearly absent in the SAPS presently.
At the same time members would have to raise their fitness levels in
preparation for harder combat situations. Protective equipment such as
bulletproof vests to ensure the safety of members would also have to be
a prerequisite, as members are known to be exceedingly lax in
utilising protective gear.
Alongside these, command and control has to be reinvigorated to
ensure coordinated operational responses. Internal oversight structures
of the SAPS in the form of the national and provincial inspectorates
have to be improved to ensure the provision of relevant support for
members at stations. Most importantly, external oversight mechanisms of
the police, such as the Independent Complaints Directorate and the
Secretariat for Safety and Security have to be beefed up – with more
skilled staff to ensure effective actions and timeous investigations of
incidents. Parliament too would have to intensify the oversight role
they perform with regards to overseeing the actions of the police.
Another error on the side of the police has been what appears to be
superficial changes such as renaming the establishment and changing the
rank structure of officers. While this may further serve to advance
the tougher approach of the police, it will not necessarily improve
command and control or provide stricter authority within the police.
Rather it reinforces the lack of focus in the development of the new
strategy. More substantial concerns such as incompetence and
indiscipline within the police and rooting out corruption would serve
the police more in advancing changes.
The final error of the police has been the poor communication of
messages via the mass media. The announcement of the amendment to
section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the resultant public
outcry could have been averted if statements that section 49 was being
brought in line with the constitutional judgement of 2002 supported the
announcement. Additionally, fiery pronouncements such as ‘meet fire
with fire’ and ‘shoot the bastards’ promoting the police’s tougher
measures have only served to feed an already insecure public fearing the
formation of another military organisation or the return of the
apartheid police.
Adopting a harder approach to fighting crime would require a police
agency that is more professional and competent. As it stands, while
legislation relating to either of the proposed changes has not yet been
enacted, the ethos and attitude within police members has changed
remarkably – because of the widespread belief that support for any
indiscriminate action will be forthcoming from higher echelons. SAPS
have to caution against this belief and ensure that the rule of law is
maintained.
