'Stranger danger' in the online and real word

Artem Oleshko/Shutterstock

The term “stranger danger” was coined as a warning to children: beware the unknown adult, proceed with caution and be very careful what personal information you reveal. The question is, do adults take their own advice? Perhaps most would be more guarded and make sure they know who they are dealing with before revealing too much about themselves. But our relationship with “strangers” has been evolving and social media has torn down some of the barriers that used to protect us.

Now a relative stranger could be a Facebook “friend” and evidence shows that sexual predators are using this to their advantage. How we transition from stranger to non-stranger relationships is a relatively unexplored strand in research, with little recognition paid to the fact that the internet has completely transformed our level of engagement with strangers.

At the same time other studies are showing how the rate of reporting sexual offences to conviction is low. A report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) concluded that 1 in 4 sexual offences should have been recorded as crimes but were not. Reasons cited for this were mainly centred on poor processes for recording the crimes and transferring them on to national recording systems.

The rate of reporting sexual offences to conviction is low.
Kamira/Shutterstock

Regardless of these issues, the reporting of sexual offences is on the rise, with this attributed to increased reporting of sexual offences and apparent improved investigative responses. In the year ending March 2015, the Office of National Statistics recorded the highest figure for sexual offences since recording began in 2002, up 37% increase on the previous year. For female victims of serious sexual assaults, 16% were recorded as “stranger relationships”. Other categories included partner/ex-partner (47%) other known (33%) and family member (4%).

What is a ‘stranger’?

What is our understanding of how stranger rapes occur? Do we believe this happens within a dark alleyway, involving victims randomly chosen by someone they have never interacted with? Given that most of these attacks are perpetrated by people the victims know – as opposed to the dangerous “stranger” – do these statistics allow us to feel safe within our online social interactions? Herein lies the problem: people we know. At what point would we say we actually know someone in the online and interconnected society of today?

One in three relationships now start online. The change in how people communicate in their day-to-day lives has impacted on the “modus operandi” of sexual offenders. The online environment has evolved a “new type of sexual offender”. Police forces have recorded a six-fold increase in the number of “internet-facilitated” sexual offences between 2009 and 2014.

The vast amount of dating and social networking sites easily accessed through smartphones has resulted in the normalisation of providing personal information to strangers. Even Snapchat now allows users to share their exact location. People are able to see your every move from your home location, work, school or college.

Snapchat states that their default setting is “off” for location-sharing and users must activate it. They claim that locations can only be shared with your friends list. Given our friendship circles are continually changing and our friends lists are likely to contain people we have never met, how practical is this safety feature?

Are you being groomed?

Grooming techniques are individually tailored to meet victims’ expectations. From child sexual grooming research, we know that trust is key in developing relationships online, with boundaries slowly broken down before introducing sexualised conversations. In cases initiated through online dating that resulted in sexual assaults, sexual communication was reported in over 50% of cases prior to meeting, with online contact to first meeting occurring within a week for 43% of cases . The frequency and intensity of interactions allows victims to feel comfortable and shifts the perception of the relationship from stranger to non-stranger quicker than offline encounters.

National Crime Agency evidence reveals 72% of internet-facilitated sexual assaults took place in the victim’s home. Exploration of attack locations of 459 internet-facilitated rapists showed more than half occurred within a 1.6km radius of the offenders’ home. This differs from previous findings where offenders travelled further to their assault location in a bid to reduce the risk of identification. Is this due to an expedited transition from stranger to non-stranger, where the regular dating precautions are dismissed, with victims meeting their victims sooner and in unsafe locations?

New offenders, new crimes

Recent research exploring sexual offending within the UK appears to back this up, concluding that the typical offender profile and crime scene behaviours have changed. Stranger rapists are appearing to be less “criminogenic” – in other words, they have fewer criminal convictions. And those with previous convictions are now likely to be for more low-level offences. This new type of sex offender is also taking fewer precautions and less likely to use forced entry or violence in their sexual attacks.

The same techniques used by online sexual offenders are being employed by so-called “romance fraudsters” targeting dating websites with the intention of extracting money from victims. Around £34.4m from over 3,100 victims was recorded regarding romance fraud last year.

More needs to be done to increase the understanding of the term “stranger” and how this is defined within criminal justice agencies. More importantly society as a whole needs to start getting to grips with the term. Our interactions online are now embedded at such a young age. They have allowed us to become comfortable in revealing personal information and speeding up the relationship process at a dangerous pace.

So before engaging with new “friends” online ask yourself: is this person really a stranger? Have you transitioned them to “non-stranger” status too quickly? Are you really being safe online?

Michelle McManus, Senior Lecturer in Policing, Forensic and Applied Sciences, University of Central Lancashire and Louise Almond, Senior lecturer in Investigative and Forensic Psychology, University of Liverpool

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Why the South African state needs to lose its fight against marijuana policy reform

Thousands of South Africans are calling for the legalisation of marijuana.
EPA/Nic Bothma

South Africa is among many countries facing challenges to their drug control policies, particularly around marijuana, known locally as dagga. The Medicines Control Council is developing guidelines for production for medicinal use and the country’s highest drug policy guardian has recommended broader decriminalisation.

The key battle ground, however, is in the courts.

A new trial is due to start in which the state is likely to expend considerable energy trying to prove that marijuana use is seriously harmful. If this is indeed the substance of its argument, it should lose. The point isn’t whether marijuana causes harm, but whether criminal prohibition is the best way to address those harms.

South African Police Service statistics suggest that most anti-drug activity is against those in possession of small quantities. These are people who are unlikely to play any strategic role in drug supply, and whose deterrence or removal from the market has little prospect of having any impact overall.

The legal wrangle to date

The first recent knock to prohibition came in 2016 with a ruling by the Constitutional Court. The court held that the constitutional right to privacy was unjustly violated by parts of the country’s drugs and drug trafficking act that allowed a law enforcement officer to stop and search any person, property or vehicle on the grounds of “reasonable suspicion” of violation of the Act. The ruling meant that police would no longer be able to enter and search private properties without a warrant.

A bigger challenge came from the Western Cape High Court. This case was brought inter alia by Gareth Prince. Prince lost a case in the Constitutional Court in 2002 that sought exemption from the laws on the basis of his Rastafari religion.

Prince’s more recent case sought not just an exemption based on religious freedom, but to challenge marijuana prohibition overall on various grounds – including that it was based on an irrational distinction from alcohol. Ras Prince brought the case with Jeremy Acton, leader of the Dagga Party.

Judge Dennis Davis, for a full bench, found that the criminalisation of marijuana within the home unjustifiably limited the right to privacy. He concluded that the state had failed to show that criminal prohibition was the least restrictive way to deal with the problems caused by marijuana. The order was suspended for 24 months to allow parliament to amend the relevant laws.

The state quickly indicated its intention to appeal and to continue enforcement without any change. But it seems that several people charged with marijuana crimes have received stays of prosecution pending the outcome of the legal process.

A separate case is about to kick off in Pretoria. Myrtle Clarke and Julian Stobbs, known as the “The Dagga Couple”, have turned their arrest for possession into a decriminalisation crusade. Their team has raised funds for local and international expert witnesses to help them make their argument that the criminal prohibition of marijuana is irrational, wasteful, and unjustifiably infringes numerous constitutional rights.

This is the first time that the issues will have the chance to be properly aired in court.

It’s long overdue.

Pattern of arrests

According to the South African Police Service’s annual report, there were 259,165 recorded counts of illegal drug possession or dealing in 2015/16. These charges resulted in 253,735 arrests, accounting for almost a sixth of all arrests.

A Rastafarian lights up during a march for the legalisation of marijuana in South Africa.
EPA/Nic Bothma

Most drug arrests are made through stop-and-search or roadblock operations. National figures aren’t available but those from two of the nine provinces suggest that a vanishingly small proportion of drug charges (2%-4%) are for dealing as opposed to possession of drugs. Very few drug arrests are made at ports of entry, through special operations, or through the Serious Organised Crime Investigation Units.

Between 65% and 70% of drug charges are for possession of marijuana. The presumption is that possession of over 115 grams (about 4 ounces) constitutes dealing. This means that every year police seek out and charge about one in every 300 people for possession of an amount of marijuana​ that weighs no more than an apple.

Criminal prohibition

It isn’t clear whether criminal prohibition is an effective way to dissuade or help drug users. Evidence from other countries suggests that, generally, the greater the perception of risk, the lower the prevalence of use.

shutterstock

But the strength of this effect is debatable to say the least, and it remains far from clear whether a liberalisation in marijuana policy results in a significant increase in its use or in associated harms. The effects of the recent wave of marijuana policy changes in various US states, for example, are still being closely observed and debated.

For people who have highly problematic drug use patterns, there is even less consensus that the threat or reality of imprisonment is an appropriate or effective tool for either dissuading or helping them. Other approaches may well do significantly better.

Decriminalisation

There are many models of decriminalisation. Policies that work in the Netherlands or Colorado might not work in a developing country like South Africa given differences in drug use, drug market and price structures, regulatory capacity and political climates.

The goal must be to find a broadly acceptable balance of a complex range of harms, benefits, and rights in the context of limited resources.

For example, South Africa needs to consider what impact decriminalisation would have on small-scale, informal farmers who depend on the crop for their livelihood. Legalising marijuana could mean that they are forced out of the market by large agribusinesses, or falling prices.

On the other hand, prohibition arguably does more to harm the current producers and distributors than consumers.

The right balance won’t be found if marijuana is simply cast as a devastating alien threat to the nation’s children and communities. Instead it needs to be understood as a socially and economically ingrained pastime for which there is clearly considerable popular demand.

Harm is not enough

Justifying the criminal prohibition of marijuana is not a matter of proving that it causes harm. Evidence of major harm has not been enough to lead to the criminal prohibition of, for example, alcohol, nicotine, sugar, firearms and unprotected sex.

The case that needs to be made is whether criminal prohibition is effective, proportionate, and the minimally invasive way to address those harms. The state will struggle to prove this. An increasing number of countries have concluded that it is not.

Anine Kriegler, Researcher and Doctoral Candidate in Criminology, University of Cape Town

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Political irrationality is ruining South Africa, but can still be stopped

President Jacob Zuma was slammed as being irrational for the recent cabinet reshuffle.
GCIS

In popular conceptions of what it means to be human is the universal notion that our species - homo sapiens - is essentially rational. It’s commonly believed that as rational beings, our thoughts and actions are informed by reason and logic that precludes the influence of emotions. On the other hand, irrationality is associated with defective reasoning, perverse thinking, being excessively emotional, or at worst, crazy.

Democracy, and by extension good governance, presupposes the capacity of political leadership to engage in reasoned debate, informed decision making and measured judgements. In the South African context, it’s assumed that this will all happen within the framework of the Constitution.

In this way democratic governance is premised on rationality. It appears to be unthinkable without it. But is this true?

No. And certainly not in South Africa now. Irrationality is the term frequently used to describe the country’s political landscape. This is clear from the coverage of the embattled government of President Jacob Zuma, and its leadership.

The growing anxiety and uncertainty in the country is aptly articulated by the news headline:

Has Zuma checked reason and rationality at the door?

In the unfolding drama of the far-reaching political scandal that threatens South Africa’s nascent democracy, known as “Guptagate”, political leadership has been repeatedly called out for its irrational behaviour. In response to Zuma’s most recent cabinet reshuffle where he replaced finance minister Pravin Gordhan, Bonang Mohale, deputy chairperson of Business Leadership South Africa, said:

We have the President [Zuma] to thank for all this turmoil, irrationality and absolute recklessness…

For its part, the opposition Democratic Alliance went to court to have the president’s decision set aside on the grounds that it was irrational and unconstitutional.

More recently the South African Reserve Bank, known for its conservative stance, openly accused the Public Protector of being reckless and irrational in her attempts to amend the Constitution. Her recommendations in a report on a bank bailout, has been widely viewed as beyond the mandate of her office and a threat to the stability of the economy.

The use of the word “irrational” in South Africa’s political debates begs interrogation. Increasing accounts of political irrationality naturally raise concerns about the effectiveness of democratic governance – and its legitimacy.

Dispelling the ‘myth’ of rationality

Irrationality as a ubiquitous descriptor of political machinations is not peculiar to South Africa. It is well documented across climes and cultures. US President Donald Trump immediately comes to mind. As a world leader he has elicited both censure and derision as grossly irresponsible and fundamentally irrational.

The fact is humans are not rational by default. The “invisible hand” that drives human behaviour is in fact, irrationality. Nobel laureate, psychologist Daniel Kahneman together with Amos Tversky and others have pioneered research in this field.

Wired by evolution, cognitive limits restrict how we select, compute, store and adapt to information. Research shows that we employ a range of heuristics (mental shortcuts) that lead to cognitive biases and distorted perceptions. Most of these we’re not even aware of. As behavioural economist Dan Ariely, author of “Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions” asserts:

Our irrational behaviours are neither random nor senseless – they are systematic.

For example, humans have the tendency to select information (selection bias) that confirms preexisting beliefs (confirmation bias) while avoiding contradictory information that disturbs their preferred worldview. This well-researched bias is at work when politicians choose to present skewed, biased evidence that makes them look credible with the public to achieve desired outcomes.

There’s also a self-interested bias where people are prone to distorted thinking because it benefits them in some way. Rational irrationality explains how:

(people) choose - rationally - to adopt irrational beliefs because the costs of rational beliefs exceed their benefit.

This goes some way in explaining the reckless actions of politicians like Zuma and Trump who devise irresponsible strategies in the interests of their “rational” endgame.

Neuroscience shows that when it comes to decision making, humans are wired to favour emotions over intellect. This means emotions have an impact on our decisions in various ways. For example, in the face of deep uncertainty – a persistent feature of our age – unconscious emotions and perceptions render us prone to cognitive biases and errors.

This refutes the ideal of the stoic “rational man”, a description that persistently devalues women and castes them as the “weaker” sex. This stereotype – of women as emotionally volatile and incapable of rational thought – has served to exclude them from the corridors of power.

Political irrationality has dire consequences

Because irrationality is inherently human, it’s been a persistent part of politics throughout history. There’s substantial evidence that entrenched and unchecked irrationality has devastating consequences. This has happened when political leaders eschew reason and logic. In South Africa’s case this is clear from the country’s crippled economy and rising discontent.

But this doesn’t mean that irrationality has to prevail. South African civil society and democratic institutions have come to the party. They are increasingly challenging the irrational, unconstitutional actions of the ANC-led government and its leadership. What’s patently evident is that a free, independent press, the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution and an independent judiciary are the bulwarks of a democracy under assault.

Lyn Snodgrass, Associate Professor and Head of Department of Political and Conflict Studies, Nelson Mandela University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Zimbabweans protest for right to vote

Demonstrators outside the Zimbabwean consulate in Cape Town demanded their democratic rights

By Tariro Washinyira
28 July 2017

A protest was held outside the Zimbabwean consulate in Cape Town by Zimbabweans demanding the right to vote in their country’s upcoming presidential elections. Photo: Tariro Washinyira

On Friday morning, about 30 Zimbabweans demonstrated outside the Zimbabwean Consulate in Cape Town. The protest was organised by the Democracy Restoration Party (DRP), a political party formed by Zimbabwean refugees in Cape Town in 2011, under the leadership of Brian Mubvumbi.

The group wore branded party regalia – yellow T-shirts and black caps. Struggle songs were sung and slogans chanted denouncing the government of President Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party.

In a press statement, the DRP said: “The Zimbabwean government has denied the diaspora an opportunity to cast their votes in their countries of residence. The government blamed lack of funds as the main reason for the decision. This is inconsistent with the 2013 constitution which gives every Zimbabwean the right to vote; hence we demand the reversal of the decision.”

It added that: “Zimbabweans have been displaced by socioeconomic hardships and political violence.”

The Zimbabwean Electoral Commission has said members of the Zimbabwean diaspora will have to register biometrically and return to Zimbabwe to vote.

DRP Secretary General Marshal Matongo said, “The constitution says everyone has a right to vote. So when I live in South Africa it doesn’t make me a South African. I am still a Zimbabwean and it’s my right to vote because I am carrying a Zimbabwean Identity card.”

Some protesters held placards reading ‘Zimbabwe youths stop being abused’. Selule Sibanda, secretary for the DRP, explained, saying that desperate unemployed youths were being used by ZANU-PF to incite violence against opposition party members in the run up to the 2018 presidential elections.

The youngest protester was 19. He said that he came to Cape Town when he was 17 after dropping out of school because he couldn’t pay fees to take his education further. His mother is a widow. He is doing construction work to help her and his two siblings back in Zimbabwe.

---

Published originally on GroundUp .

---

State mental health patients are being held in prisons

There is a shortage of hospital beds in the Eastern Cape for inmates with mental illness

By Ashleigh Furlong
27 July 2017

St Albans Prison entrance, Port Elizabeth. Photo: Google Maps / Street View

Over 90 people with mental illness are being held in various prisons in the Eastern Cape instead of being looked after in hospitals. They are state patients – people declared unfit to stand trial or found not criminally responsible because of their illness or “mental defect” (the state’s term). This is despite them being ordered by the courts to be placed in mental health facilities.

A recent application in the Port Elizabeth High Court hopes to change the situation. Awonke Adam was sent to St Albans prison, Port Elizabeth, in September 2016 after being declared a state patient. He was meant to be transferred to a mental health institution subject to bed availability, but to date this has not happened. However, thanks to the court application, he has been released into his mother’s care until a bed becomes available for him at Fort England Hospital.

In court papers Adam’s mother, Phathiswa, stated that her son “is extremely vulnerable due to his disability, and he does not understand why he is in prison.”

“He has, on at least two occasions, tried to commit suicide [at St Albans]. He has been assaulted by other inmates. There are no trained staff at prisons to work with persons with such disabilities. The prison is not suited for him and his current detention is wrong and traumatic to him and his family,” she stated.

Phathiswa filed the application on behalf of her son and the other state patients in the province, claiming that both the Criminal Procedure Act and the Correctional Services Act “are unconstitutional in so far as it does not protect the rights of State Patients awaiting placement in mental institutions”. She was represented by Legal Aid South Africa.

In court papers, Adam is described as moderately intellectually disabled, with speech and hearing impairments. He has never passed a school grade but was pushed through according to the school’s policies. He left school in grade 6 at the age of 17. He is also unable to read or write.

According to the Mental Health Act, if a court orders a patient to be transferred to a mental health institution it must happen within 28 days. There are only two facilities in the Eastern Cape that provide psychiatric services for inmates or state patients – Fort England and Komani Hospital in Queenstown.

In a constitutional court judgment in 2015, the court found that “imprisonment should only be available to accused persons who pose a serious danger to society or themselves”.

“If an accused person does not pose a serious danger to society or themselves, then resources alone cannot dictate that an accused person be placed in prison,” the court said.

“If resources are significantly constrained such that a bed in a psychiatric hospital is unavailable, then a presiding officer should be able to craft an appropriate order that encompasses treating the accused as an outpatient.”

On 18 July, the Port Elizabeth High Court ordered that Adams be released into his mother’s care, pending the availability of a bed for him at Fort England Hospital. The court also ordered that the rest of the application, which relates to other state patients in the Eastern Cape, be postponed for a hearing on 7 September.

In June this year, Minister of Health Aaron Motsoaledi told Parliament that there were 99 patients being accommodated in prisons in the Eastern Cape as there was no space at mental health facilities. The longest period that patients had waited in prison was nearly two years (22 months).

During a parliamentary budgetary review in October 2016, the responsible portfolio committee found that a policy manual on the administration of state patients had not been developed at all.

A study published in 2016 on prison mental health services in the Eastern Cape found that during 2010 there was no psychiatrist servicing any correctional centre in the province. There were also only two prisons that consulted a psychologist “when needed”.

The study recommended that the Eastern Cape government urgently develop protocols to manage, treat and discharge mentally ill prisoners.

---

Published originally on GroundUp .

---