Vandals must be made to pay
EVERY asset a person or an organisation or the government owns, whether fixed or movable, costs money, and is therefore a financially valuable private or public property.
When property is owned it is protected by the law from various acts like theft, arson, malicious damage or fraud.
When a criminal is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt then the State through its judicial arm executes punishment in various forms – prison sentences, suspended sentences, fines, etc. So that justice seems to have been done, these sentences must be seen by the rest of the public as deterrents in order to keep us law-abiding.
We see on an almost daily basis how some South Africans have made the destruction of property during protests almost into an art form.
We hear and see via the media that arrests were made and that there will be court appearances. One can only wonder what sentences the justice officers are going to hand out.
But is justice really being delivered to the satisfaction of the property owners or custodians left with enormous bills for repairing these vandalised properties?
Most have insurance, but they still have to pay for the unlawful damage to their property.
In this regard, two sections of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977 seem to apply.
Section 300 (1) notes that where a person is convicted by a court… of an offence which has caused damage to or loss of property (including money) belonging to some other person, the court… may upon the application of the injured person or of the prosecutor acting on the instruction of the injured person, forthwith award the injured person compensation for such damage.
Currently, district magistrate’s courts can award up to R100 000 and regional courts up to R500 000. A high court may award any amount. Section 297 allows compensation by way of instalments to be paid by the convicted person.
Surely, in the best interest of justice, this law must be implemented when property is destroyed or damaged.
These sections must be applied, even to the youth of our society, because at some or other time they must work and so the instalments can be collected. Age is no excuse.
If one looks further at these sections, then one has to ask why these sections could not be amended to award compensation from drug dealers to fund drug rehabilitation; to extract compensation for abalone, rhino and other poaching to fund nature conservation exercises; and to extract compensation from drunken drivers to finance the hospitalisation of victims and damages.
So one can go on and all in the interest of prevention and keeping unlawful citizens on the narrow road.
Our elected justice and law enforcement leaders and the legal fraternity in consultation with the public protector must seriously consider using this arm of the law to make criminals pay.
The other benefit of this section or any applicable amendments is that the victims, irrespective of their status, rich or poor, can rely on legal compensation, which is free.