Proposed Fund for Victims of Proposed Fund for Victims of Violent Crime BillViolent Crime Bill

Presentation to the Standing Committee on Presentation to the Standing Committee on Private Member’s Legislative Proposals and Private Member’s Legislative Proposals and

Special PetitionsSpecial Petitions

24 August 200724 August 2007

2

Outline of the PresentationOutline of the Presentation

• PurposePurpose

• What the Bill proposesWhat the Bill proposes

• Treasury’sTreasury’s Comments Comments

• Financial ImplicationsFinancial Implications

• Policy ConsiderationsPolicy Considerations

• Concluding Remarks Concluding Remarks

3

Purpose of the PresentationPurpose of the Presentation

• To share with the committee To share with the committee Treasury’sTreasury’s views views on the proposed Fund for the Victims of on the proposed Fund for the Victims of Violent Crime BillViolent Crime Bill

4

What the Bill proposesWhat the Bill proposes

• Establishment of a dedicated fund to assist Establishment of a dedicated fund to assist the victims of violent crimethe victims of violent crime

• Violent crime is defined as murder, rape, Violent crime is defined as murder, rape, indecent assault, public violence, terrorism, indecent assault, public violence, terrorism, kidnapping, assault or any other crime kidnapping, assault or any other crime committed in RSAcommitted in RSA

• A victim is any person who has been killed or A victim is any person who has been killed or has suffered injury as a result of a violent has suffered injury as a result of a violent crime committed against him/her or his / her crime committed against him/her or his / her spouse & minor children spouse & minor children

5

What the Bill proposes (Cont.)What the Bill proposes (Cont.)

• Into the fund will be paid:– All fines imposed by the courts– All bail monies forfeited to the state– Monies appropriated by Parliament– Any donations

• MoJ may in consultation with MoF prescribe the details of the management of the fund, among other things

• “No double-dipping” (i.e can’t be compensated if already compensated from other sources or initiatives e.g TRC)

6

Treasury’s CommentsTreasury’s Comments

• Number of victims is the cost driver – number of victims is currently not known– Further research must be done – Financial impact assessment to be undertaken

• Fund will divert funds from crime prevention and non-financial support post victimisation – is this appropriate?

• There are methodological challenges regarding the determination of the value of damages especially taking into account that compensation will be in monetary terms

7

Treasury’s Comments (Cont.)Treasury’s Comments (Cont.)

• The bill does not provide for criteria or factors that must inform decisions to pay compensation or the amount of compensation that should be paid

• Compensation further complicated by the distribution of compensation amongst beneficiaries in cases where actual beneficiaries not able to take the compensation or all beneficiaries not known

• Existing remedies: Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 and the Victims Charter makes provision for victim to claim compensation – – To what extent are victims aware of this right?– To what extent has this provision been

implemented/enforced by our courts order issued to those found guilty?

8

Treasury’s Comments (Cont.) Treasury’s Comments (Cont.)

• Should all available remedies not be exhausted?

• Not PFMA, but Constitution requiring all monies received to be paid into the NRF (unless excluded)

• Trust –– As an institutional form undesirable because of

lack of adequate governance and oversight mechanisms inherent in this institutional form

– Accountability problematic– Public entity?

9

Treasury’s Comments (Cont.) Treasury’s Comments (Cont.) • The bill is conceptualised within the context of

restorative justice - the person who committed the crime should literally pay for the economic harm caused to the victim

• In other countries (e.g USA), victims have both constitutional and statutory rights to restitution California constitution reads: “it is the unequivocal intention of the people of the state of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the person convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer”

• South Africa should perhaps consider making a constitutional amendment similar to Californian constitution to make it mandatory for the judiciary to consider ordering compensation

10

Selected Crime stats – A ComparisonSelected Crime stats – A Comparison

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Rape ratio per 100 000 of the population

SA 121 115 114 118 117

US 32 33 32 32 32

Murder ratio per 100 000 of the population

SA 48 47 43 40 40

US 6 6 6 6 6

Robbery ratio per 100 000 of the Pop.

SA 462 503 494 467 415

US 149 146 143 137 141

The risk of being a victim of crime in the USA is low and emphasis is put on The risk of being a victim of crime in the USA is low and emphasis is put on the principle that the offender should compensate the victim, not Statethe principle that the offender should compensate the victim, not State

11

1,527 2,868

192,642

161,214

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

Fines, penalties and forfeits

R’0

00

Financial implications Financial implications

Figure 1: Fines, Penalties and Bail Monies Collected: 2003/04 – 2006/07

12

Financial implications (affordability)Financial implications (affordability) • Further demonstration of financial implications using

Texas Compensation Fund as an example

• Claims may be approved for benefits up to a total of $50 000 or $75 000 and may be paid to the victims or service provider on behalf of the victim

• $50 000 for expenses such as counseling, medical, nursing care etc and $75 000 for catastrophic injuries resulting in a total and permanent disability

• Using 2005 prices, the maximum benefit of $50 000 and $75 000 translate into R320 000 and R480 000 respectively

13

Financial Implications (affordability)Financial Implications (affordability)

• 209 451 and 417 122 robberies in South Africa and USA in 2005, assuming that all victims from each robbery where eligible for a maximum benefit $50 000

• The total claims (in Rands) as a percentage of GDP would have been 4.24% and 0.16% for SA and USA respectively

• It appears that Countries that have introduced Compensation Fund could afford and have relatively lower crime rate per capita than South Africa

14

Policy considerationsPolicy considerations

• Most appropriate response given developmental objectives?

• 1st world country response to the challenges of a developing state

• Prevention rather than cure

• Likelyhood that Bill will benefit the rich over the poor as rich people will incur more expensive medical treatment, loss of income etc.

15

Concluding commentsConcluding comments

• NT strongly feels that focus must be on –– reducing crime– Reducing repeat victimisation– bringing offenders to justice– recovery of and “in kind” support for the victim

• Research & assessments to be done to assess real impact of proposed Bill –– Further research must be done on potential number of victims – Financial impact assessment to be undertaken– Assessment of current services and support available

• Public funds better utilised in strengthening the criminal justice system and supporting the victims.

16

Thank youThank you