Another day, more shocking headlines of another life lost to crime. RIP Senzo Meyiwa. While headline stories like Shrien Dewani, Oscar and the latest high profile murder of Meyiwa occasionally draw attention to the high rate of crime in our country, crime never sleeps, it never rests, and it never pauses for a second. Most people are not even aware of how bad it really is, which is why I’d like to draw attention to the SAPS reported crime stats below which relate to the period 1 April 1994 – 31 March 2014.Note that these figures should be regarded as the minimum as many crimes are not reported to the police.
Murder
During this period, the SAPS reported a total of 409,954 murders. That equates to 20,497 per year, 56 per day. A murder occurred every 26 minutes.
Culpable Homicide
We’re all aware of this crime category given the latest developments in the Oscar Pistorius trial. Besides murder, this is the only other crime in which a life is taken by another and one would assume it would be serious. Unfortunately it is seldom mentioned in the media and often left out of police reports and if you look at the official crime stats presented by the police each year, it’s not classified as a “Serious Crime”. It’s a fact; the killing of Reeva Steenkamp is not classified as a “Serious Crime” according to the SAPS.
During this period, the SAPS reported a total of 243,939 culpable homicides. That equates to 12,197 per year, 33 per day. A culpable homicide has occured every 43 minutes.
This means that during this period, a total of 653,893 have been killed in reported homicides. That equates to 32,695 per year, 90 per day. A homicide occurred every 16 minutes.
Serious Crimes
Here are the numbers for the 20 categories of “Serious Crimes” reported by the SAPS during this period:
Murder: Total – 409,954; Per year – 20,498; Per day – 56
Attempted murder: Total – 477,024; Per year – 23,851; Per day – 65
Assault with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm: Total – 4,544,244; Per year 227,212; Per day – 622
Total sexual offences: Total – 1,240,461; Per year – 62,023; Per day – 170 (Estimates of actual sexual offences range between 6m (conservative) and 25m (aggressive))
Common Assault: Total – 4,321,777; Per year – 216,089; Per day – 592
Robbery with Aggravating circumstances: Total – 2,138,054; Per year – 106,903; Per day – 293
Common Robbery: Total – 1,335,212; Per year – 66,761; Per day – 183
Burglary at business premises: Total – 1,522,418; Per year – 76,121; Per day – 209
Burglary at residential premises: Total – 5,310,740; Per year – 265,537; Per day – 727
Theft of motor vehicle/cycle: Total – 1,716,024; Per year – 85,801; Per day – 235
Theft out of motor vehicle: Total – 3,172,934; Per year – 158,647; Per day – 435
Stock theft: Total – 728,785; Per year – 36,439; Per day – 100
Arson: Total – 165,261; Per year – 8,263; Per day – 23
Malicious damage to property: Total – 2,703,183; Per year – 135,159; Per day – 370
Illegal possession of guns/ammunition: Total – 287,106; Per year – 14,355; Per day – 39
Drug related crime: Total – 1,905,573; Per year – 95,279; Per day – 261
Driving under the influence: Total – 796,022; Per year – 39801; Per day – 109
Other theft: Total – 8,866,946; Per year – 443,347; Per day – 1,215
Commercial Crimes: Total – 1,362,433; Per year – 68,122; Per day – 187
Shoplifting: Total – 1,387,513; Per year – 69,378; Per day – 190
This equates to a grand total of: 44,391,664 “Serious Crimes” reported in this period. That means 2,219,583 per year, 6081 per day.
Then there are also the crimes that do not fall under the “Serious Crimes” category:
Kidnapping & Abduction: Total – 103,186; Per year – 5,159; Per day – 14
Negligent & Ill treatment of children: Total – 69,990; Per year – 3,450; Per day – 10
Crimen Injuria: Total – 830,653; Per year – 41,532; Per day – 114
Culpable Homicide (including Reeva Steenkamp and Jub Jub victims): Total – 243,939; Per year – 12,197, Per day – 33
Including these not-so-serious crimes, the grand total of crimes reported by the SAPS for this period is: 45,639,432. That means 2,281,972 per year, 6252 per day.
Bear in mind that our prison population sits at approximately 160,000…
Most of us are aware of the ongoing saga of the Waterkloof 4 (Tiedt, van Schalkwyk, Becker & Du Preez), four underage white boys convicted of having assaulted and killed a homeless black man. Apart from the Oscar Pistorius murder, the trial has elicited more publicity than any other in recent South African history and has led to endless denunciations of “white racism” and psycho-babble about “Afrikaner brutality”.
I have been lucky enough to read through the witness and accuseds’ testimonies, crime-scene photos and specialist statements and found all of the evidence to be extremely interesting. Unlike the Oscar Pistorius case, where many details were disclosed in the media, journalists never gave much away when reporting on the Waterkloof 4 case. Maybe it was because it appeared to be open and shut, especially judging by the public and the mainstream media who presumed them guilty before proven innocent. Nevertheless, a guilty verdict was handed down to four of the boys. I’ve decided to lay out the facts about this case by sharing my findings, which come directly from court evidence.
The so-called ‘Waterkloof 4’, from L to R: Gert van Schalkwyk, Christoff Becker, Reinach Tiedt and Frikkie du Preez
Background
August 2003: three boys who had knowledge of the crime decided to come clean regarding the incidents which took place in December 2001. These three identify the “Waterkloof 4”, aged 15 and 16 at the time of the crime, who are subsequently arrested.
July 2004: they plead not guilty
June 2005: they are found guilty
January 2007: they are sentenced to 12 years imprisonment each
April 2008: they appeal to the High Court
May 2008: their appeal is denied
June 2008: they take their case to the Supreme Court of Appeal
August 2008: their application to the Supreme Court of Appeal is turned down and they start their 12 year sentences
December 2011: two of the four have their sentences converted to correctional supervision after a successful parole hearing
June 2013: the two return to jail after their parole is appealed by Correctional Services
February 2014: the four are released on parole but two are rearrested days later after a video shows them violating prison regulations a day before their release.
The trial
In summary, the State’s case was based mostly on witness testimony that the Waterkloof 4 had assaulted an unknown black man in Constantia Park and later that night brutally assaulted and killed another unknown black man in Moreleta Park. The Waterkloof 4 denied the first assault but admitted to the second assault, with exception that they killed the man or intended to kill him. The only evidence other than witness testimony was the second victim’s body.
Constantia Park assault (alleged first assault according to witness testimony)
The accused vehemently denied this assault took place and thus the State had to prove this event occurred. As mentioned, the only evidence was that of the State’s witnesses as there was no case of assault reported to police and the unknown man was never seen or heard from again.
The Defence accused the witnesses of fabricating the story and this accusation is given some credibility when the State’s witnesses left gaps in their testimony. The judge dismissed these gaps and other anomalies due to “traumatic memory issues on behalf of the witnesses” and accepted their testimony as fact. The defence also brought up the possibility of collusion which the judge dismissed, even though the State’s witnesses had more than a year to collude.
Nevertheless, the Defence had to counter the State’s witnesses’ testimony and did so by looking at phone calls which were used to identify a time line and locations of individuals, with the help of cellular phone towers. Although the calls placed the accused in the vicinity of the second assault (Moreleta Park), they placed significant doubt on whether the Constantia Park assault was possible as it gave the accused (and witnesses which drove with the accused) a maximum of 14 minutes to drive in a fully loaded small Toyota Tazz from Hatfield, look for a shop to buy milk, assault the unknown man in Constantia, wait “5 minutes” for the other accused to meet up with them and then get to Moreleta Park. To make the State’s case worse, the State’s witnesses testified that they were not speeding but the judge corrected this and stated that they were probably speeding, overriding State’s witness testimony and again raising doubts over the credibility of their testimony. The Defence also questioned why the accused had driven through Constantia Park, as this was a longer route to where they were heading.
Although the accuseds’ testimony represented a more reasonable and logical explanation of events as it more reasonably fits the timing of the calls and the logical route to their destination, their testimony was dismissed as lies as it contradicted the testimony of the State’s witnesses. In the end there was no reliable evidence to put the accused at this crime scene other than the State’s witnesses’ testimony which was accepted as reliable.
Near the end of the examination of the Constantia Park assault, the State prosecutor went on to say that the witnesses might have mistaken this event with something that happened on another day:
“Edelagbare, oor hulle getuienis daar op kan hulle verwar het met ‘n ander dag. Dit is hoekom ek nie hard wil betoog oor hierdie klagte nie”
This was ignored by the judge.
Moreleta Park assault
The accused admitted to brutally assaulting an unknown man in Moreleta Park, who they claim was a burglar who had just robbed a residence. This was backed up by the State’s main witness. The Defence however questioned whether the man found in the park was actually the man they assaulted, an outrageous claim, but appears to be supported by the physical evidence (see below). Again the State relied heavily on the State’s witness testimony that the man found in the park was the man the accused assaulted as the man was found in “exactly” the same place the next day after the assault. It must be noted that the main State’s witness, who is not one of the Waterkloof 4, was also involved in the assault but was given immunity for turning State’s witness.
One of the State’s witnesses had disclosed to a teacher that the motive for the attack was purely racial while the accused say that they had gone after a man who had run across the road with a television. They suspected the man of being involved in a burglary. On the day of discovering the victim in the park, a car radio was found next to the victim and this was later found to be stolen as a case of robbery had been reported to the SAPS. The victim was also found with a wallet (money inside), watch, and a ring and was well dressed with new shoes, smart cap and had four tattoos, which appears contrary to the claims that this man was homeless. The State’s witness confession to the teacher prior to the arrests was that the accused never knew of the stolen goods during the attack and only used this as an excuse to do commit their foul deed. Contradicting stories meant that it was up to the State to prove murder.
Besides the State’s witness testimony, the State had very little evidence:
No physical evidence linking the accused to the victim (no DNA, no trace evidence)
No murder weapon (no knives, no hammer)
No time of death (due to “refrigeration”)
By all accounts the assault was described as brutal. Besides the melee of punching and kicking, one of the accused had demonstrated his “Naas Botha” kicks on the victim. A State’s witness testified that this accused had kicked the victim twice in the face with steel tipped shoes, one of which was later found to be dented in. This was confirmed by the aforementioned accused. The entire group had jumped with full weight on the victim like in a “loose rugby scrum”. Another of the accused had hit the victim twice on the crane of the head with a hammer, the first blow bringing the victim to his knees while the second blow floored the victim completely. All of this was admitted by the accused and agrees with State witness testimony. The State’s witness also testified that the accused had made stabbing motions towards the victim (admitted by the accused) but cannot confirm whether the accused had stabbed the victim.
The post mortem indicated that the unknown man had died of severe blood loss cause by one deep cut in his thigh. Besides this cut, the medical experts made the following findings:
There were no bruises or fractures to the skull
There was minor subdural hematoma but no swelling on the brain or any other change to structure of the brain. The fact of whether the hematoma was caused by the assault could not be determined.
Three small scars on the head, two of which had scabbed before the assault, the other one showed no signs of significant bleeding
Face, nose, tongue, throat showed no bruising, discolouration, bleeding, lacerations or scarring
There were no broken teeth
There was no bruising or trauma to the neck
There was no bruising or trauma to the chest and diaphragm
There was no bruising or trauma to the abdomen
Internal organs showed no trauma but some were bleak due to blood loss
No bruises or fracturing on the back
No noticeable bruising, fractures or trauma to the rest of the body
With regards to the cut in the thigh (cause of death), the medical experts made the following conclusions:
The victim had lost between 4 – 5 litres of blood, which meant he would have bled to death over a 24 – 48 hour period as no major arteries were penetrated.
With regards to the object that made the stab wound, the medical specialist found that: “Hierdie gat kon nie veroorsaak gewees het deur ‘n mes, of selfs ‘n dun yesterstaaf nie” or in English, this could not have been made by a knife or even a thin iron rod. The object appeared similar to a spike on a palisade fence which backs up the Defence’s claims that the victim had cut himself on a palisade fence while fleeing from a residence he had burgled.
As you can see this posed serious questions against the State’s argument that the victim found in the park was the man that the accused claim they assaulted. Some of these questions raised by the Defence were:
Physical evidence on the victim shows no correlation to the assault as described by the accused and the witnesses. There is no evidence that suggests a knife or hammer was used in the attack even though a State’s witness had testified that he had seen blood on the hammer after the attack. There was also no evidence that the boys had jumped on the victim or kicked the victim in the face. When the pathologist was asked by the Defence whether it was obvious that the body brought before her was not the body of the man as described in the assault, she answered: “Yes that is correct.” A second pathologist replied with the same answer.
The crime scene inspector found no evidence of blood on the ground near or beneath the victim, or anywhere else in the park for that matter. Where did 4 – 5 litres of blood go? The State contested that the light rain that night may have washed away any evidence of blood or that the victim’s clothing had absorbed all of the blood but this was disputed by the Defence.
The flow of blood on the victim suggests the possibility the body was moved after death and moved to the spot where the body was eventually found.
If the only injury the victim sustained was the cut to the thigh and the victim took between 24 and 48 hours to bleed to death, why did the man remain in the same spot for this lengthy period of time? Why didn’t he seek medical treatment or at least crawl/limp away from the scene?
The victim’s shoes were removed while there had been no mention of this by the accused or State’s witnesses.
In the end however the judge ruled, after quoting a previous case “the State vs. Bernardus 1965”, that the body is full of anomalies and that sometimes death can be caused by the slightest of assaults. Although this judgement contradicts all witness accounts and the physical evidence, this ultimately leads to the guilty verdict for the Waterkloof 4.
Sentencing
The Waterkloof 4 were sentenced to 12 years imprisonment each, five years after the crime was committed (13 years ago). Because of the extreme brutality of the assault, there was much public and media outcry for a harsh sentence. However the law differentiates between adults and minors for sentencing purposes. Taking into account that the perpetrators were juvenile (also first-time offenders), different sentencing laws had to be followed.
Quoting an article by Zita Hansungule, who works at UP’s Centre for Child Law: “In 2009 the Centre for Child Law had challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Amendment Act which provided that minimum sentences should apply to 16 and 17 year-old offenders.
The High Court found that applying minimum sentences to these offenders was not in line with the Constitution which provides that children have the right not to be detained except as a measure of last resort, and then, if detention is unavoidable, only for the shortest appropriate period of time. The High Court held that in cases pertaining to minors, the courts must consider all available sentencing options, especially non-custodial sentences, before considering detention.
The Constitutional Court was approached to confirm the decision of the High Court. It confirmed the decision and held that the Constitution envisages that detention of young offenders may be possible, but it mitigates the circumstances of detention. It confirmed that for minors, detention is not a first or intermediate resort but a last resort. The Court held that each individual case needs to be examined on an individualised basis so that an appropriate sentence can be found. It stated that ‘legislation cannot take away the right of 16 and 17–year olds to be detained only as a last resort, and for the shortest appropriate period of time, without reasons being provided that specifically relate to this group and explain the need to change the constitutional disposition applying to them’.
These judgements confirmed that children should be treated differently to adults in sentencing, no matter how old they are. Both courts were of the view that children are less physically and psychologically mature than adults, more susceptible to pressure from others and more receptive to rehabilitation than adults.”
Taking this into account the Waterkloof 4 appeared to be sentenced fairly as this is about the maximum that a juvenile will face for a single murder charge.
Parole
As with the case of sentencing, parole is also a thorny issue. In accordance with the law, the Waterkloof 4 were released on parole last week. The law allows for this if the offenders have served 50% of their sentences and have completed internal correctional programmes and have been well-behaved. According to parole documents the four were all but exemplary during their stay. I’ve looked through parole documents and found that they interacted well with other inmates and also took part in social activities. Study courses were also completed during this time. It is thus reasonable to concede that their release on parole is in accordance with the law. Subsequently however, two members of the Waterkloof 4 have been ordered to return to prison after a video showed them “living it up” in their cell a day before release.
Conclusion
It has been more than 10 years of trials, appeals, paroles and controversy, a kind of soap opera that will be remembered by most of us for many decades to come. As I’ve described, there are many questions left unanswered regarding the crimes committed in 2001, those which surfaced during trial. There are also questions we need to ask regarding our criminal justice system. I’d like others’ thoughts on this matter…
Kevin King is a professional DJ and freelance columnist
The SAPS stats confirm that towards the end of 2014, we will have had 650,000 homicides since 1994.
Here are the facts:
SAPS reports show 392,886 (56.65 per day) murders in last the 19 years. During the 2012/2013 year they reported 16,259 (44.54 per day).
SAPS reports show 221,273 (31.91 per day) cases of culpable homicide in the 18 years up to 2011/2012. During the 2011/2012 year they reported 11,788 (32.26 per day).
Our homicide rate per capita is 11.5 times higher than the gun crazy USA, and we are ranked top 5 in the world under the most homicidal countries.
In the SAPS crime report for 2012/2103, there was NO mention of culpable homicide (the killing of another human being) under “serious crimes”, “contact crimes” or anywhere in the entire report.
Taking an estimate of the 2012/2013 cases of culpable homicide (12,300) and a forecast for the combined murders and culpable homicides in 2013/2014 (28,000), we will pass 650,000 homicides by late this year, 90 per day since 1994.
Culpable homicide
Why remove 12,300 unlawful deaths from the crime statistics, surely this is a serious crime and should be reported directly below murder? (Previously culpable homicide was reported in the bottom half of the report under “negligent and ill treatment of children”)
Why is our murder rate reported excluding culpable homicide and compared to international homicide rates that include culpable homicide?
In our country you can be executed in your home during a robbery (eg Father Louis Blondel) and it will be recorded as culpable homicide which means your death will not even make it only the crime stats. If this was America it would be recorded as “non-negligent homicide” which together with “murder” is the reported murder rate over there. Apples with apples?
The matric pass rate is reported excluding all the students who drop out. Similarly, South Africans being murdered are excluded from the crime stats and the murder rate. It’s not difficult to draw conclusions from this…
“Every action has an equal but opposite reaction” – Sir Isaac Newton
In life, actions (physical or otherwise) also have reactions. Somehow, an unknown number of actions, reactions and re-reactions got us to where we are today, causing this RedOctober march, the allegations of white genocide and outrage over farm murders. A large section of social media describes these activists and supporters as racists, without questioning how we got to this point. I’ll attempt to apply Stephen Covey’s 5th Habit of Highly Successful People, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”, so doing some research before shouting insults and proclaiming these people to be racists.
Crime
I’ve written numerous articles about crime on this country, so I’ve done a lot of research. Hopefully all the readers will know that we are the crime capital of the world. If you need reminding, here’s our wall of shame, 1994 to 2012:
376,627 reported murders (57 per day)
597,900 reported homicides (91 per day)
443,551 reported attempted murders (67 per day)
4,175,178 reported serious assaults (635 per day)
1,111,425 reported rapes (169 per day)
22,228,500 estimated rapes (3,383 per day)
Our crime is at crisis levels, no doubt, and with these high levels it’s impossible that every region, race, sex, group, religion etc is not affected.
Hate crime vs normal crime
It seems that a large number of RedOctober detractors are using the “crime affects all” reasoning for shooting down RedOctober. With the extreme levels of crime in our country it would be easy for hate crime to be hidden in the enormous sea of crime that taking place. Taking this “crime affects us all” approach would mean denying the existence of hate crime, which is absurd. Besides the fact that hate crime is difficult to identify, quantify and prove there is an obvious difference between hate crime and normal crime. The latter lacks the element of hatred by the perpetrator(s) towards the victim(s) and the level of violence is often exaggerated. I never really thought about how the psychological effects would vary, so I did some research. According to research, hate crimes have more serious psychological effects than other crime. Also, survivors of hate crime show more signs of psychological distress than survivors of non-biased crime and this distress was found to last longer in hate crime survivors due to the fact that the crime leaves lasting feelings of personal danger and vulnerability associated with their identity. A high level of outrage would thus make sense, as members of the victim’s group would feel this same personal danger and vulnerability that the victim felt.
So we’ve seen outrage by Afrikaner groups over social media, we’ve seen the RedOctober march taking place, all against farm murders in particular. While these Afrikaners may speak a different language to us, be a different colour to the majority of the country, have different interests and cultures, they are not immune to the same feelings of vulnerability and persecution that all other groups affected by hate crimes feel. In other words, they are also human. The next big question would then be: Are these feelings of vulnerability and persecution, which is causing their reaction of outrage, justified or merely perceived?
These activists present a long list (thousands) of victims murdered on their farms in interracial murders, and they claim that the murder rate on farms is far higher than the national average. Now without going into the actual numbers, because I feel they are irrelevant for purposes of this discussion, I’d like to make a few points:
A number like this can create a perception
The aggravating circumstances surrounding these attacks strengthens the perception
However, proving hate crime on an individual basis is near impossible, as will be further discussed in the next paragraph, which can strengthen critics’ claims that the perception is false
Proving and prosecuting hate crime
South Africa is set to bring into law the Hate Crimes Bill in 2014. Long overdue to say the least, the Bill is set to address how hate crime is tried and prosecuted. What may be a first for our country is old news for many first world countries like the USA, which has several hate crimes statutes. But even with all their legislation, they have serious challenges in proving that a crime is hate crime, especially proving racial motives. The (US) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology contains a discussion as to why this difficulty exists, and these same reasons are relevant in our context.
“The fact that an individual’s motive lies peculiarly within his or her knowledge undermines the ability of prosecutors and plaintiffs to prove racist motives in hate crimes cases”
So without the accused’s own admission, it is virtually impossible to prove hate crime. Prosecutors will have to rely on circumstantial evidence. Other difficulties in proving motive are:
“Inferences about motive which are drawn from circumstantial evidence may be highly inaccurate given the inherent ambiguity of motive itself” – The defendant may have acted out of paranoia rather than racism
“Multiple motives may impel an individual to act” – The defendant may claim that he or she acted out of some other motivation
To sum up the document: “Prosecutors often find it impossible to demonstrate by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted out of racist motives”. These are the exact same problems that RedOctober activists like Steve Hofmeyr face when pushing their cause, and the exact same problem our courts will face when the Hate Crimes Bill comes into force.
There are cases that pop up which are undoubtedly hate crime such as the Rawstorne family murder by William Kekana, who testified that he brutally wiped out the family “because they were white”, or the Lotter women murders where the perpetrators left behind their motive, “Kill the Boer” daubed in the victims’ blood. These cases further strengthen the perception that many other farm murders have a racial motive behind them but these cases are generally ignored by critics. Activists thus have an uphill battle to prove hate crime when motive is so difficult to prove for the vast majority of cases. But although the motives behind hate crime are almost impossible to prove in court, it is very successfully proven outside of court.
The media and social media commentators (SMC’s)
In most cases of interracial violence and cases involving violence against minorities, the media and SMC’s are quick to attach a motive to the crime, classifying the crime as a hate crime. These accusations are deemed to be true by consumers as if the motive was actually proven in a court of law. Also, the media and SMC’s tend to be very inconsistent when classifying crimes as hate crimes, creating the impression amongst some that they are biased or trying to censor. To give an example:
A recent case of a horrific rape and murder of a lesbian. The media and SMC’s immediately classified the crime as a corrective rape hate crime, although no anti-gay motive was obtained from the perpetrator. The motive was assumed because the victim was lesbian and due to the aggravating circumstances.
A recent case of a brutal torture and murder of an elderly farm couple. Although this was an interracial crime and aggravating circumstances existed, the media and SMC’s declined to attach a racial motive to the crime.
When the latter is called a “racist farm murder” or “white genocide”, critics are quick to claim “crime affects all”, “we have a high murder rate so obviously these farmers will be murdered” and “farmers are more vulnerable because they are isolated” etc. Then why is it that when a lesbian is raped it’s called “corrective rape”? Doesn’t “crime affect us all”? When we have over 3000 rapes per day isn’t it obvious that lesbians will also be victims of rape? Are lesbians not vulnerable because men are usually more powerful and often hunt their victims in packs? Yet both cases are not treated the same.
Pure double standards in my book and most probably one of the reasons why the likes of Steve Hofmeyr go to extreme lengths to protest and create awareness regarding farm murders and white genocide.
White genocide
Just to touch on the main misconceptions about genocide:
Numbers don’t matter. According to the definition of genocide, “an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group [or part of a group]”.
It only takes ONE individual to kill ONE person, if that individual knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the people. That means that if only ONE individual interprets a statement like “Shoot the Boer” by his commander and chief for instance, to be an order to commit genocide and acts on it, that individual will be guilty of committing genocide, plain and simple.
There are indicators that genocide could be happening on a larger scale, for example, widespread rape, torture and executions of Afrikaners on their farms, with perpetrators stealing few or no valuables. However the existence of an organised plan to commit genocide is unknown and will be extremely difficult to prove. Regardless, individuals can be perpetrators of genocide by definition. In the two cases I mentioned before, the Rawstorne family and the Lotters, it can easily be debated that these are cases of genocide. After a healthy debate, you will at best prove that these cases are racist hate crimes, which I’m afraid is not much worse than genocide.
Conclusion
There are a high number of Afrikaners being murdered on their farms. Often there is rape and torture involved and in many cases nothing is stolen. There are numerous death threats posted on Facebook, Twitter and even at political rallies, mostly directed at this group. On top of this, there are cases where the racist motive cannot be denied. Although few of these cases exist, they further strengthen the perception that farm murders in general are racially motivated and that white genocide may exist. There is clear evidence for the Afrikaner minority group to feel vulnerable and threatened and it appears that their fears and outrage of unjustly treated by the media, social media commentators and even the government. Besides the compelling evidence in their favour, even their human nature is criticised and they are persecuted for this.
With the release of the latest crime stats imminent, I’d like to recap what’s happened in the last 18 years in South Africa.
Homicide
Firstly, it’s interesting to note that the SAPS and the media only report the murder rate but ignore the actual number of victims killed in homicides, the act of killing another human being illegally. There is a very thin line between murder and culpable homicide but fact is that death is the result.
In the 1994/1995 year, 38,525 homicides were reported by the SAPS. 25,965 murders and 12,560 culpable homicides. 105.55 killed per day.
In total, for the last 18 years including the 2011/2012 year, 597,500 were killed in homicides at a rate of 91 per day.
In the last reported statistics, the SAPS reported 27,397 homicides in the 2011/2012 year, a slight decrease from the previous year and a 29% decrease from the4 1994/1995 year.
The most unexpected discovery I made when analysing the stats was regarding the ratio of culpable homicides to total homicides. There is a clear, undeniabletrend in the last 18 years. From 33% in 1994/1995, the ratio increases consistently each year until 2011/2012 where it ends on 43%. There are three possible reasons for this:
There has been a steady change in the courts/law, every year, for the last 18 years, that has seen a greater percentage of homicides being classified as culpable homicide instead of murder, thus the law is being more lenient.
Criminals themselves have been changing their behaviour, every year, for the last 18 years, in a manner that has seen them committing more unintentional homicides.
Homicides are being incorrectly classified as culpable homicides in order to make the murder rate look rosier, because as mentioned, the murder rate is the main indicator of the crime situation in South Africa and the only figure that is reported, so there is motive to manipulate this figure.
Serious contact crimes
5,216,629 reported victims of serious contact crimes in the 18 years from 1994/1995 to 2011/2012. That comprises:
597,900 victims of homicide who are now dead
443,551 victims of attempted murder
4,175,178 victims of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm
There is a thin line between category 2 and 3 but fact remains, there were 794 cases per day where someone’s life was in serious danger.
Sexual assault
Always a horrific stat, 1,111,425 reported cases of sexual offences took place in the 18 years from 1994/1995 to 2011/2012. As mentioned in my previous articles, cases of sexual assault are severely under-reported in South Africa. So here is a look at estimates of actual sexual assaults in the last 18 years based on the reported cases by the SAPS:
Conservative estimate (1 in 5 reported) – 5,557,125 (846 per day)
Moderate estimate (1 in 10 reported) – 11,114,250 (1,692 per day)
Aggressive estimate (1 in 20 reported) – 22,228,500 (3,383 per day)
Most surveys and experts indicate that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 cases of sexual assault are reported.
Arrests made, where do the criminals go?
According to NathiMthethwa, over 800,000 arrests were made in the 2012/2013 year for “serious crimes” and 352,513 of these were convicted, I’m however surprised that Nathi never expected anyone to do the maths…
Earlier this year our prison population stood at 156,000 and that was at 130% over capacity. So Nathi, where do these serious criminals go? 352,513 arrested and convicted in only ONE year but our prisons were over capacity before these convictions? Assuming all these serious criminals stay behind bars for 2 years, where will next year’s 350,000 serious criminals go? Because I promise you now, at the end of the 2013/2014 year there will not be more than 160,000 prisoners in jail, so how can there be 352,513 arrested, convicted and jailed for serious crimes, unless most of these never see a day behind bars? Taking your stats Nathi, there should be over 2 million criminals in jail for serious offences…
Ever heard of the saying “life is short”? Actually, life is the longest thing that you or I will ever have. But that’s life on a personal level. If you’re South African, life is a whole lot shorter compared to the world average. When Madiba read out his “Better life for all” speech, I’m 100% sure that “better” did not imply shorter!
Life expectancy in the new South Africa has plummeted to a shocking 49 years. To put that in perspective, the life expectancy in Europe during the middle ages was around 30. And with the current downward trend, we could get even closer to that figure. We are currently ranked 210 out of 226 countries. The bottom 40 places consist mostly of African states of which we are in the lower half. Of the six countries which hold up the bottom of the list, four are neighbouring countries namely Swaziland, Zambia, Lesotho and Mozambique. In a war-ridden country such as Iraq, you can expect to live 20 years longer than in South Africa! Much further up the list are notables such as the USA (78 yrs), UK (79 yrs), New Zealand (80 yrs), Australia (81 yrs) and Japan (82 yrs).
So how on earth does our self-proclaimed “Capital of Africa” end up with a life expectancy of 49, 210th in the world and one of the worst fairing African states?
Pre-1994
At the start of the apartheid in 1948, the average life expectancy of African (black) South Africans was only 38. At the time there were close on eight million black South Africans. During the 46 years of apartheid, the average life expectancy rose significantly to 64 years. This increase was evident by the growth of the black population which was then estimated at just over 35 million.
Post-1994
Since the fall of apartheid, 17 years ago, the average life expectancy of a South African has dropped considerably from above 65 years to 49, a shameful number for a country that can afford billions to host world cups. There are a number of factors which contributed in our current state of shame but let’s have a look at the main ones:
1. HIV/Aids – The ruling party’s policies, under Mbeki, regarding Aids is said to have resulted in millions of deaths which have occurred and which are still to occur in the next decade. It has also contributed to the high rate of TB fatalities with are in most cases Aids-related.
2. Hospitals – Many of our hospitals have become places of dying instead of places of healing due to the lack of competent nursing staff and the lack of qualified doctors and nurses.
3. High crime rate – About 50 South Africans are murdered PER DAY which means about 20 000 people a year.
4. Lack of drinking water – Although water is plentiful, more than 80% of families do not have access to adequate drinking water. It is said that by 2015, more than 80% of our water resources will be undrinkable. This contributes to unhygienic conditions, sickness and disease.
5. Poverty – Unemployment is sitting at about 25%. Most of these people cannot afford food and do not have houses over their heads. Some who are employed don’t even get paid eg Aurora.
a) Any ideas on how to improve the life expectancy of our countrymen to an acceptable level, say above 75?
We have a serious crisis in this country. With many millions of South Africans affected by poverty and unemployment, many millions more are expected to be affected. With high food prices already knocking the pockets of every South African, we can expect astronomical prices in the coming years and a scarcity of basic food stuffs. “A scarcity in basic food stuffs? You must be joking!” That’s what I’d say 10 years ago, but no longer. From an agricultural giant and leading world exporter, we have quickly found ourselves in the realm of net importer status. All because the ruling party got it wrong.
After our transition to democracy, the ANC decided that land redistribution was the way to go. And like planting seeds, they drew up their policies and passed a number of bills. These plans were meant to redistribute white farmers’ land to black farmers and to communities which were previously the ‘rightful owners’. Today, many years down the line, these seeds have grown to such an extent that a disaster looms for all. Let me illustrate the ruling party’s end produce.
Decline in commercial farmers, skills lost in 1994 there were some 120 000 commercial farmers but today a mere 37 000 remain. Yes, many of the previously 120 000 commercial farmers were white and transformation needed to take place, but with a sum total of 37 000 commercial farmers today, how many successful, black, commercial farmers have we produced and how many successful, white, commercial farmers has our country lost?
Farming has become “SA’s most dangerous job”. The threat of being the next farm murder victim (almost 4 000 farmers since 1994) and the threat of land grabs have resulted in many successful, white, farmers packing their bags and heading for greener pastures. And many of these farmers have indeed found greener pastures abroad and in other African countries. Congo, Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique are some of the governments who have invited them to farm in their countries on land earmarked for farming.
Other countries such as Gabon, Guinea and Ghana are also in talks. The starving continent of Africa has a huge demand for agriculture, job creation and filling empty stomachs. What better place for these farmers to apply their knowledge and skills. Further up north, Georgia has invited this group of endangered species to attempt to revive their agricultural industry by providing land and equipment. Quoting the Georgian government spokesperson, “South African farmers are some of the best farmers in the world. They have good experience and we would like to see such farms in Georgia. There is a lot of potential here.”
Regarding Georgian farmers who generally struggle to earn a decent living, “They want to set up joint ventures with South African farmers because they think they could raise the profitability and productivity of their farms,” he said. “They are more than delighted to have South African farmers and South African expertise on their farms.”
Meanwhile our government has opposing, often moronic, views to the rest of Africa. The Agriculture Minister, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, last week said the following regarding the departure of commercial farmers from South Africa, “This will not be a threat to food security in South Africa; instead, this will enhance food security in the continent.” This a real irony considering that other countries are trying to do the same thing but by attracting our farmers to their farm lands. It gets more idiotic when she says, “South Africa has skills it can share with other South Africans and with the rest of the continent.”
To an educated mind it would appear that skills are departing with the departing farmers and these skills are to be applied in other African countries indefinitely. Back at home, along with the loss of these farmers and their skills and experience, the former workers of these farms have lost their jobs. From around 1.6 million tax-paying farm workers (mainly black) which were employed in 1994, to around 300 000 in just 16 years.
I challenge anyone to provide me with intelligent reasons on how losing 83 000 commercial farmers and losing over a million jobs are to the advantage of our country and our people.
Demise of profitable, food producing farms According to the ANC itself last year, 90% of redistributed farms do not produce excess food. Farms which once produced hundreds of thousands of tons of produce and employed hundreds of workers now lie idle and are a mere shell of what they used to be. The remaining few black farmers are but a handful and use the land for subsistence farming.
Mismanagement, corruption and the lack of sufficient skills and experience has had catastrophic effects on many farms. To mention one of a thousand examples of farms which are now liquidated/idle/non-producing:
The Zebediela Citrus Estate (Limpopo) – Once described in the Readers’ Digest, “400 million oranges are harvested each year from the groves of Zebediela, the world’s biggest citrus estate. The output is sufficient to provide one orange for every eight people on earth.” This magnificent farm went from riches to ruins in just a few years after being taken over by the state.
Yet the talk/threat of land grabs/redistribution continues.
To avoid looking like a second Zimbabwe and forcibly removing white farmers off their land, the government has now come up with cunning plan to grab land without having to remove the white farmers by force. This plan is called the “Land Tenure Security Bill”. If signed off by the ANC government it will amongst other things, give farm workers the right to keep livestock on the farms where they work, which will be allowed to graze “indiscriminately” on the property.
The bill will also give workers the right to plant their own crops and build homes for themselves and close relatives, from which they may never be removed. Andy Tladi, a black sunflower farmer, says he is leaving to the DRC this year as the bill “gives farm workers a ‘blank cheque’ to do whatever they want to do on land that doesn’t belong to them. The bill is going to worsen the situation for farmers. You are actually going to see workers putting up villages on farms. If you allow 10 people to build houses on a farm, in about 20 years you could have up to 30 families. So how does the farmer continue to grow and invest under those circumstances? I am a black farmer and I won’t be able to handle that. A lot of farmers will fly out of the country.”
The high likelihood of failure for black farmers is a reality. Without the necessary skills and experience, even a successful farm which has been acquired through redistribution most often fails. Then when a rare success does happen, more often than not, there is a lack of backing from government which leads to failure or inability to grow. Steven Mohale, a leading black, tomato farmer in Limpopo, has been battling for years to get government assistance in order to grow his business. But it seems the only help he received was from private banks and white farmers.
To quote an article about Steven in Farmers Weekly, “I’m very disappointed in the way the government treats farmers. It’s high time government stopped insulting farmers. We spend a lot of time with white farmers in this area and almost all are very helpful. People who accuse farmers of bad things are talking nonsense. South Africans need to realise the sector is responsible for feeding the nation and creating employment – and so farmers deserve respect. But government’s attitude doesn’t help.”
In conclusion, it is clearly obvious to someone with a little bit of intelligence that we are heading for disaster. In fact we are already looking at a disaster if you look at how the majority has suffered in the last decade or so in terms of poverty, unemployment and starvation. Billions of taxpayers’ rands have been pumped into redistribution projects and this money has literally been flushed down the toilet, not to mention the millions stolen by corrupt, ANC linked officials. Now billions more has to be spent of which another 90% will be wasted. With calls for 100% nationalisation by Julius Malema, we could be in for even more serious trouble. At this moment I do not see much hope for agriculture in our country and in turn not much hope for the economy and our people.
“The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
the mental element, meaning the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”, and
the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called “genocide.”
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Protected Groups
A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.
An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.
A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.
A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.
Key Terms
The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.
Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.
The phrase “in whole or in part” is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.”
Size does not matter
The author starts off by saying “If 70 000 whites were murdered by blacks since 1994, it could have indeed been close to a genocide”. He then goes on to dispute this number, however size is irrelevant.
According to the definition of genocide, “an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group [or part of a group]”
Intention to commit genocide
The definition clearly states that there are two ways to prove intent: “from statements or orders” or “inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts”.
The question of whether there is a presence of a systematic pattern of coordinated acts to commit genocide is highly debatable and difficult to prove. Perpetrators of genocide are more likely to commit this crime covertly. In a country like South Africa, the most violent country on earth, it is easy to hide the intent of committing genocide, xenophobia and homophobia under the cover of normal crime because of our high crime rates. And if a genocidal plan was proven without a shadow of a doubt, the country would surely and immediately enter a stage of civil war and the economy would collapse, something which the perpetrators would strive to avoid.
On the other hand, proving intent from statement or orders is far less debatable. High-ranking public officials making statements like “Kill the Boer”, “Shoot the Boer” or “One Bullet, One Farmer” can easily be interpreted as an order to commit genocide. “Shoot the Boer” was found by the courts to be hate speech. Hate speech incites violence. According to the international definition of genocide:
“Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
Genocide;
Conspiracy to commit genocide;
Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
Attempt to commit genocide;
Complicity in genocide. “
Firstly, put your objective hat on. Now consider the following: A public figure making a public statement to “Shoot the Boer” or “Kill the Boer” sounds very much like a direct and public incitement to commit genocide. You don’t need to commit genocide to be guilty of genocide and punishable under the 1948 convention. But, however factual my findings are or no matter how much sense it makes, I’m a million percent sure that I will get responses like: “That song is a cultural thing”, “Nobody takes these people seriously”, “Those phrases are misunderstood.” etc. Hypothetically, let’s say you are right and these statements were not deliberately made to incite genocide and there is no organised plan to commit genocide. Let’s go back to the definition of genocide:
“an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group”
It only takes ONE individual to kill ONE person, if that individual knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the people. That means that if only ONE individual interprets a statement like “Shoot the Boer” by his commander and chief for instance, to be an order to commit genocide and acts on it, that individual will be guilty of committing genocide, plain and simple. Let’s look at a case study:
Case study – Helen and Alice Lotter
Free State farmers protesting against the gruesome ethnic murder on Helen and Alice Lotter
Mrs Helen Lotter, 57, and her bedridden mother Alice, 76. Tortured to death with broken beer bottles in their anuses and vaginas – the attack had been so horrendous that the post-mortem examiner was unable to find any of Helen Lotter’s sexual organs at all; her breasts were partially cut off and broken bottle-shards were inserted in her vagina and anus as part of the hours of torture she and her mother Alice had endured –her cervix and uterus were completely shredded. The mother’s front teeth were bashed out; her entire body was ‘covered in bruises, chafing and stabbing wounds. Her sexual parts were mutilated extensively also internally. The old farm woman had died due to ‘asphyxiation after breathing in blood from penetrating stabbing wounds in her neck and throat’. They were then both left to die. Mrs Helen Lotter’s death-bed confession identified the killers as a gardener, Joseph Hlongwane, 22 who had only started working for them a few months earlier, and an associate Joseph Khumalo, 21. The forensic DNA and fingerprint evidence confirmed Helen Lotter’s death-bed confession. “Kill the Boer” had been daubed in the women’s blood on the farmhouse walls.
ANC mayor, Mrs Mataba Leeto led an anti-Boer protest at the law court where the trial was held. They chanted genocidal hate-speech songs such as ‘Kill the Boer, kill the Farmer’ in support of the two killers’ getting bail. Mrs Leeto has not been put on public record as expressing any kind of sympathy nor outrage over the way the two Lotter women had been tortured to death. Instead, she led a group which was protesting against the ‘racism’ of local Afrikaner residents who had held a ‘re-enactment’ of the way in which the women were tortured to death to illustrate the community’s deep anger. Both men were found guilty and sent to prison.
According to the definition of genocide, a crime can only be called genocide if both elements of Article II are present:
the mental element, meaning the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”, and
the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e.
Mental element
Intent to destroy can be proven directly from statements or orders. In this case the statement “Kill the Boer” can be linked directly to the crime and can be interpreted as an order.
In whole or in part: perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group, an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group. In this case two individuals killed two people, and by providing evidence for intention, “Kill the Boer”, their actions infer that in their minds, they were acting out on a larger plan to destroy a group.
A national, ethnical, racial or religious group: In this case the perpetrators acted on the Afrikaner ethnic group specifically, as proven with their words “Kill the Boer”.
Physical element
In this case we had the killing members of the group. On top of that, the crime included torture, rape, sexual violence and mutilation which are synonymous with genocide.
Conclusion
There are indicators that genocide could be happening on a larger scale, for example, widespread rape, torture and executions of Afrikaners on their farms, with perpetrators stealing few or no valuables. However the existence of an organised plan to commit genocide is unknown and will be extremely difficult to prove. Regardless, individuals can be perpetrators of genocide by definition. In the above case study, the evidence provided is clear. If you debate me on this case, at best you prove that this case is a racist hate crime, which I’m afraid is not much worse than genocide. And before I’m accused of being right-winged, let me make myself clear – There are racists in every race on earth, racist hate crimes are committed by all races and genocide can be committed by any race upon another race, even if it’s done by individuals.
Understanding each other’s anger
As described in Stephen Covey ‘7 Habits’, “Seek first to understand, before seeking to be understood.”
We as human beings get angry when we are victims of crime, even more so when we are specifically targeted because of our race, sexuality, gender etc. In South Africa we know this all too well. We understand the great atrocities committed during Apartheid, the racial discrimination inflicted upon groups and the anger it produced. Well the exact same anger is felt when individuals are targeted today, as seen in the case study, solely because of their race. Understand why other members of the victim’s group would feel threatened, angry and perceive there to be a possible genocide occurring. And when they speak out they are insulted. Please, just a little understanding goes a long way in building this country.
A few months ago I read an article entitled “Some perspective for racist whites in SA” by Hanjo. If you haven’t yet read it please do so. In his letter, Hanjo basically says the following things:
a) He advocates AA/BEE (Affirmative Action/Black Economic Empowerment) – provides the reason that it is to “undo the past” and to “level the playing field”
b) He says that most whites are racist – basically states that whites “reach for their racist agenda” when dealing or debating this topic. Considering that the majority of whites do not support AA/BEE, he is implying that most whites are racist.
Besides his negative stereotyping of one specific race, which by definition is racist, I also find it disturbing that he directs his argument solely at whites, not Indians, Coloureds, Asians, and yes Hanjo, even Blacks that also do not support AA/BEE. I’d question your motives for ignoring these groups when discussing a topic that affects an entire country which you call “a democracy”.
What are you advocating?
Those that support the current AA/BEE system usually provide the same argument that Hanjo has in order to advocate AA/BEE. But what are you really supporting:
a) You are backing a system which takes jobs and wealth from one racial group and gives it to another racial group. This is racist and unconstitutional. In a country with huge unemployment figures, you promote the transfer jobs and wealth rather than the creation thereof.
b) You support a system that uses time and money which could rather be used on issues such as “crime, poor governance, poverty, unemployment, over population, education, etc”. It is as evident as night and day that government puts more emphasis on transformation than it does on issues which you say are important. It makes sense however, as taking from the whites and giving to the blacks is far easier and cheaper than dealing with these important issues.
c) You advocate a system that seeks to replace the skilled candidates with weaker candidates based solely on race, thus weakening the entire team, in which case everyone loses.
d) You vote for a system that at present is enriching only a select few, and was designed by a select few, who steal hundreds of billions of rands each year from the citizens of this country.
e) You endorse a system which is a paradox to nation building and racial harmony. A system which mimics Apartheid.
I challenge you
Come with me to one of the thousands of white Afrikaner squatter camps around the country which hold almost a million white Afrikaners and do the following:
a) Justify to these peace loving, law abiding people why they had their jobs taken away and why they are now unemployable, thus left unable to support their children because they are white.
b) Justify to them why they are refused jobs even when there are vacancies which have been open for months, even years. And why in some cases government will even import foreigners above qualified locals because they are white.
c) Justify to them why they are refused government aid such as grants and food aid because they are white, and are even told by government officials that “it is racist to feed poor whites”.
d) Justify to them why government is even refusing to support those charities (non-profit organisations) which provide care and support to whites.
This is the system which you support and openly advocate, a system which has all the characteristics of genocide.
We are a very proud nation. Not when we rape our women, children and infants, murder each other in droves, commit racial, xenophobic and homophobic atrocities, but when we become all patriotic and go on the defensive after our failings are pointed out by outsiders, in this case the Americans.
Preceding Obama’s visit to our country, the US issued a crime warning to tourists stating that “violent and confrontational crime is a major concern [in South Africa]” and goes on to point out Pretoria, Joburg, Durban and Cape Town as “critical crime threat spots”. Many South Africans of course didn’t like this and launched their own counter attack at the US on social media. To sum up the types of responses:
Crime happens everywhere
US is number 1 in crime
SA crime is blown out of proportion
Now coming from a corporate environment I refuse to stick my head in the sand and deny any problems without doing some research. In that way we can identify if we have a problem and if so, take corrective action.
2011/2012 Crime Research & Statistics – SAPS
Murder – 15,609
Culpable homicide – 11,788
Attempted murder – 14,859
Assault with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm – 192,651
Robbery with aggravating circumstances – 101,203
Total sexual offences – 64,514
Notes
Our murder rate is reported as 42.7 per day. After including culpable homicide there are 75 new bodies in the morgue per day. This might explain why Interpol reports our murder rate as 80+ per day.
A total of 400,624 from the above violent crimes happened in just one year. Over the last 5 years this figure is close to 2,000,000, conservatively speaking. There are about 160,000 people in jail at this moment (highest in Africa and 9th in the world). Where are these criminals if they’re not in jail?
The above crimes are reported crimes and some members of SAPS have been busted for understating crime statistics which means that the actual number of crimes is actually higher. For instance, it is estimated that in SA, only 1 in 20 incidents of rape are reported. 64,514 x 20 = 1,290,280… per year… and thus claimed the title of Rape Capital of the World.
There are about 53 million people living in SA. Based on the reported violent crimes above and the average South African’s life expectancy, a shocking 52.6, each South African has a 40% chance of being a victim of violent crime in their lifetime.
I have left out the other major categories of crime such as common robbery, common assault, common hijacking, fraud, arson, corruption etc. in order to deal with violent crime only. Taking these into account the average South African will almost certainly be a victim of crime in their lifetime.
Now I’m not going to tell you what to think, you can make up your own mind on if we have a problem. Ignoring the rest of the world, I’d expect that any reasonable person would find the above statistics unacceptable. Personally, I think they are appalling.
Moving on, we should maybe compare ourselves to the rest of the world. Now the rest of the world is pretty big so I’m not going to go into details of all other countries, just a select few, starting with the slandering Americans. (Is the truth slander?)
Murder in America
Firstly, it should be known that Americans themselves confess that the USA is a violent country. Secondly, the USA has a population of about 314 million, six times our population, thus we can expect more crime to occur there. Thirdly, the USA has the highest gun ownership in the world, with 88.8 guns per 100 people according to the UN, with SA lying in 50th place with 12.7 guns per 100 people, a further indicator that they might be more violent than we are. So here are the stats:
Total murders/homicides – 14,612 (2011), 14,748 (2010)
Yes, a country with six times our population and seven times more guns has fewer murders than we do.
Murder in other places
Now because people who complain about crime are told to leave to Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. we might as well mention these places.
Canada – 598 murders in 2011
New Zealand – 39 murders in 2011
UK – 663 in 2011/2012
Australia – 229 in 2010
One thing is very evident when you visit these places. There are no high walls, no palisade fencing or electric fencing. In fact, residential electric fencing is illegal in these parts. There are no armed response units, police are all that’s necessary. It does not appear that these people live in fear behind their white picket fences.
Hopefully the above information will enlighten some as to what the current situation is in our country. The more you know your country the more can be done about its problems.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Note that these figures should be regarded as the minimum as many crimes are not reported to the police.
