I never denied crime exists. Nor am I falling victim to it. I pay Stellenbosch Watch to provide security for my household. Not to violate the rights of others walking though my neighbourhood. I appreciate the efforts of the Neighbourhood Watch. We all respect their support for victims. I admire their commitment. But I gave them no mandate to apprehend without probable cause. Still less do I support their decision to erect that Fence.

There are different opinions. Central to this is the perception of crime. And the reality of crime. Let’s discuss crime objectively. First, let’s establish facts that we agree on. Then, let’s derive meaningful trends. Thereafter we can discuss effective crime strategies. We can also address whether incidence of crime justifies violation of others’ rights.

Crime incidents: Stellenbosch context

Stellenbosch Watch reports give detailed incidents in Onderpapegaaiberg. But, Onderpapgeaaiberg crime occurs in a Stellenbosch context. This context is a useful comparison. Hopefully it will enrich our picture of the crime situation in Onderpapegaaiberg. National SAPS statistics yield data of Stellenbosch crime. Specifically, incidents reported by the Stellenbosch Police Station between 2007 and 2017. I assume the data refers to incidents across the municipal area. (The figures for 2017 to 2018 have yet to be released).

SAPS Crime incidents statistics from Stellenbosch Police Station 2007 to 2017

• Table scrolls sideways on tablets and phones

Many criticise the SAPS crime statistics. They reason that these obscure real incidence of crime. Reinforcing this are reports of some police stations ‘doctoring‘ their figures. Nevertheless, they are the only comprehensive data that we have. They have been constantly in the public eye. Accordingly, this might mitigate the risk of their manipulation. I do not want to ignore concerns about accuracy. Nevertheless, I think they are useful in showing certain trends over 10 years. I intend to objectively assess these trends.

Making sense of Stellenbosch crime incidents

I chose three crime types most likely for a residential suburb. Common robbery. Armed residential robbery. And, unarmed residential burglary. Whether common robberies occur often in suburbs is debatable. But there is bound to be some overlap. Arguably the other two crime types are common in suburbs. Because criminals are more likely to rob and burgle suburban homes. There is more value to steal there than from poorer households in working class areas.

Residential armed robbery incidents in Stellenbosch

The above table shows a 2700 per cent increase in armed residential robberies over 10 years. These robberies increased by 25 per cent between 2015/16 and 2016/17. Unarmed residential burglaries increased 15 per cent over 10 years. And barely at all between 2015/16 and 2016/17. The high point for burglaries was 2012/13. There has been a 17 per cent decline since then. But the rate of burglaries is still noticeably higher than it was in 2007.

The precentage increase in armed residential burglaries is astronomical! But that also reflects the low base (2007/08).

I well remember that time. It was almost 2,5 years after we bought in Onderpapegaaieberg. In fact shortly after we moved in there was an armed robbery at a house. A contractor was paying his employees at month-end. The robbers shot him. They stole lots of cash. Sadly, he succumbed to his wounds. This reminds me of the murder of Mr Zetler recently. This also happened on pay day. Ten years ago people saw Stellenbosch as free of the danger of residential robberies.

Unlike Gauteng, from which many were ’emigrating’. The term ‘semigrators’ was coined for those willing to move from Gauteng – and able to afford Stellenbosch property prices. Since then the situation has changed. Stellenboschers have become accustomed to having a crime threat. And they have adopted security measures. And I think the urge to emigrate here has declined.

Risk of residential armed robbery and unarmed burglaries?

How should we translate these figures into a risk assessment? Crime authors Wiener and Bateman quote the Institute for Security Studies (ISS). This is on pages 453 to 455 of their book on Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp. Gareth Newham from ISS analysed armed robberies at residential premises from 2012/13 SAPS crime statistics. He noted 17 000 residential robberies in the country. Then there were between eight and 10 million houses. He concluded that “the chances of being a victim are actually quite small”. That is, an average risk of armed robbery per house of 0,2 per cent. Furthermore, docket analysis showed that in 90 per cent of the incidents victims were physically unharmed. Murder was two per cent of the cases. And, rape, four per cent.

The same is true for residential robberies in Stellenbosch in 2016/17. StatsSA tells us that in 2011 there were 32 565 formal dwellings in the Stellenbosch municipal area. And that 35,6 per cent of these were owned or being paid off, i.e. 11 593 houses. The 84 armed residential robbery incidents in 2016/17 translates into a 0,73 per cent risk per house. But the risk of unarmed residential burglaries is significantly higher, at 9,43 per cent. This follows the trend noted by Newham. “Housebreaking/burglary was the most common crime experienced at least once in 2011 by 5,4 per cent of the households” (page 453).
 

Incidence of property crime in South Africa 2003 to 2015

Let’s turn to the specific crime incidents in Onderpapegaaiberg. And compare them to overall Stellenbosch residential crime trends.

Crime incidents statistics: Onderpapegaaiberg

Mr Anthonie Van Zyl of Stellenbosch Watch gave me the following information on 01 August. Stellenbosch Watch’s operational area runs from Annandale Road (Mooiberge) in the South, to Fisantekraal Road (direction Malmesbury), Bottelary Road to Kraaifontein, and the Northern Slopes of Paarl Mountain, in the North. The Eastern boundary of its operational area is the R45 Paarl-Franschoek Road and the Western boundary is the Baden Powell to Polkadraai Road line. Data below is based on reports from their patrols in Onderpapegaaiberg.

Crime incidents: 01 May 2017 to 01 August 2017

• Table scrolls sideways on tablets and phones

Crime incidents: 01 May 2018 to 01 August 2018

Between 01 May and 01 August 2018 Stellenbosch Watch logged 680 incidents. The highest number originated in Devon Valley and Onderpapegaaiberg. The incidents identified below are from Onderpapegaaiberg.

• Table scrolls sideways on tablets and phones

I have only analysed some of the Onderpapegaaiberg data. I need to explain what I have omitted. And why.

Excluded: suspicious persons

I omitted the category of “suspicious persons/behaviour” from this analysis. For two reasons. There are no objective criteria for what constitutes suspicious behaviour. Furthermore, I have not seen an objective demonstration of probable cause for crime.

Criteria for “suspicious”

There is a subjective definition of “suspicious”. Mr Van Zyl had no hard-and-fast definition. He and his officer employees have the following guidelines.

The officer doesn’t recognise a person as having been in the area before. They know regular beggars or bag vendors. They are not suspicious.
The person is knocking at doors, also ringing door bells. Presumably this is to ascertain whether anyone is at home.
The person is looking into residential yards.
The person is in a vehicle with a registration number from another area. The vehicle is parked in the area after close of business hours, typically after dark.

Discretion and evidence

Bar the last criterion, there seems a wide latitude of discretion in identifying suspicious behaviour. The key is the first point. If you are a stranger, they target you. You don’t fit the profile of the neighbourhood. Can we show evidence of probable cause for those apprehended? If so, it makes sense to count these as crime incidents. Accordingly, I asked Mr Van Zyl for the following data:

For suspicious people apprehended, i.e. 30 persons from 01/05/18 to 01/08/18 and 32 persons from 01/05/17 to 01/08/17:

• On how many of these persons did Stellenbosch Watch find suspicious-looking objects (like weapons, a large quantity of goods, etc)?
• How many of these persons did Stellenbosch Watch hand over to police?
• Number of these persons the police charged?
• How many of these persons did a court convict?

As at time of publication I had received no reply to my request.

Excluded: armed robbery, public violence and illegal firearms

I omitted the categories of “armed robbery”, “public violence” and “illegal firearms”. It appears only in a few instances in the 2017 figures. But not at all in the 2018 data. I reside in Onderpapegaaiberg. To the best of my knowledge armed robberies, public violence and illegal firearms are felonies that do not occur regularly here. Extrapolating from quarterly data slices to annualised data, would distort the frequency of these types of incidents.

Onderpapegaaiberg crime risk

I understand from a ward committee member that Onderpapegaaiberg has about 430 houses. Stellenbosch Watch did not give me the annual figures. To compare trends here with the broader Stellenbosch figures we need to annualise the quarterly figures. I am therefore left with calculating annualised figures assuming monthly averages that reflect the figures for these two quarters. On an annualised basis there were the following number of incidents.

For 2017: Proactive actions (preventative) – 52; Burglaries – 28; and, Petty theft – 16. Total – 96. This translates to a risk of crime incident per household of 22 per cent. Excluding Stellenbosch Watch’s and the Neighbourhood Watch’s proactive actions incidents, reduces this risk to 12 per cent.

For 2018: Proactive actions (preventative) – 116; Burglaries – 28; Petty theft – 20; Malicious damage – 8. Total – 172. This translates into a risk of crime incident per household of 40 per cent. Excluding Stellenbosch Watch’s and the Neighbourhood Watch’s proactive actions reduces this risk to 13 per cent.

Prevention of witnessed criminal activities made the neighbourhood much safer. By being in the streets and public space guardians saw criminal activities. They took action. The Watches reduced crime incidents. They achieved this without having to apprehend suspicious people. The risk of burglaries is still higher than for Stellenbosch as a whole. This aligns with Stellenbosch Watch’s report that Onderpapegaaiebrg had the highest number of incidents these past three months.

Conclusion

Statistically the chances of armed robbery and murder are very small in Onderpapegaaiberg. The risk is greatest for burglaries. The Watches’ proactive activities have reduced this risk signifcantly. There is no evidence demonstrating how stop-and-frisk has contributed to this. The analysis is of data prior to the completion of the Fence. At this juncture the impact of the Fence on crime incidents is unknown.
Evaluating the Fence

Mr Van Zyl explained that the Fence limits criminals’ escape routes. This enables security and the police to corner and detain them. Thus the Fence might well further mitigate burglary risk by reducing escape routes. From now on, we need to track the trends in Onderpapegaaiberg incident data. We need to compare future trends with historical ones. In this way we can evaluate the crime prevention perfomance of the Fence

Social justice and defence against crime

How we defend ourselves from crime impacts on our relationship with broader society. In our society suburbs are islands of prosperity in a sea of poverty. Extreme inequality is also a sympton of social and historical injustice. We who live in prosperity benefitted unfairly from an unjust system. I care about the dignity and quality of life of the marginalised majority. I struggle against exploitative class and social power relations. This is separate from the question of my effective defence against crime. Yet it is also linked. This is because extreme inequality also drives crime. Addressing inequality can therefore be part of social action to reduce crime. We tried to do that with the Vuya Report on the Papegaaiberg. I referred to this in the previous post, “Ways of seeing crime and fencing”.

Objectivity and hysteria

Extreme crime, like armed robberies, murder, provokes fear. Fear in turn feeds hysteria. This drives people into enclosures. The calmer we feel the more open we are to ‘others’, otherwise perceived as a threat. I tried to introduce a calm analysis. To have a debate on crime and security. And not simply to accept what the security experts say. I think a calmer state of mind might open people up to seeing the structures of inequity. These social structures – like a skewed economy – also drive the crime problem. I have also referred to Vuya’s alternative developmental proposal for the Papegaaiberg. Which was also a crime prevention strategy. Readers will make up their own minds about the meaning of this information. And what they think should be done. I welcome direct comments on the post. Particularly those that are critical of the analysis.

In the fourth post in this series I share my thoughts on what I call security mentalities. Especially the unconscious assumptions that drive these.

Paul Hendler, Onderpapegaaiberg, 16 August 2018.