South Africa is a country at war with itself. Not in the literal sense—though the daily toll of murder, robbery, and assault might suggest otherwise—but in the way it chooses to confront crime. On one side are ordinary citizens, desperate for safety, tired of living in fear, and demanding a justice system that actually delivers justice. On the other side is a bureaucratic state, obsessed with abstract ideals, technocratic solutions, and what attorney Daniël Eloff calls policy romanticism—the naive belief that writing a law is the same as enforcing it.
The South African Law Reform Commission’s (SALRC) recently published discussion papers on the Criminal Procedure Act are the latest example of this disconnect. They are filled with progressive language about efficiency, human rights, and systemic reform, but in practice, they will do little more than weaken law enforcement, embolden criminals, and leave victims even more vulnerable.
These proposals, which seek to overhaul arrest, bail, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and victim participation in the criminal justice system, are filled with well-meaning ideas about efficiency, fairness, and reducing systemic burdens. Yet, none of them will make a meaningful difference on the ground. Worse still, some of them actively undermine the fight against crime by prioritising administrative convenience over accountability, and by favouring the rights of criminals over the safety of law-abiding citizens.
To anyone paying attention, these so-called reforms will not result in justice being done. They will only ensure that justice is further delayed—and ultimately denied.
Now to be fair, the SALRC is not responsible for the failures of implementation. Their role is to research, consult, and propose legal reforms—not to enforce them. But therein lies the problem: the endless cycle of planning, revising, and drafting creates the illusion of progress while, in reality, nothing changes. Instead of fixing what is broken, we get more frameworks, more guidelines, and more discussion papers—all of which delay decisive action. This bureaucratic inertia allows dysfunction to fester, as politicians and officials hide behind “ongoing reform” while crime continues unchecked.
The Bail System Is A Revolving Door for Criminals
One of the most alarming aspects of the proposed reforms is how they continue the trend of treating bail as an administrative hurdle rather than a serious judicial process with real consequences. The SALRC discussion paper acknowledges problems such as overcrowded prisons and case backlogs, yet its response is not to improve efficiency in the court system, but to make it easier for accused criminals to get out of jail.
Currently, criminals—including repeat offenders—are routinely granted bail under weak conditions. Victims are often not notified of bail hearings, and the burden is placed on the prosecution to prove why an accused should not be released, rather than on the accused to prove why they deserve their freedom. The proposed reforms do little to correct this.
The results are predictable. Violent offenders are released back into communities where they intimidate witnesses, commit further crimes, and erode public confidence in the justice system. The idea that more lenient bail conditions will somehow improve justice is absurd. In reality, it only turns the criminal justice system into a revolving door, where criminals get arrested, processed, released, and then continue their crimes—while victims live in fear.
Diluting Consequences Will Not Fix the Criminal Justice System
The broader philosophy underpinning these reforms is based on the false assumption that South Africa’s crime problem can be solved by making the justice system more lenient and less punitive. This is the same logic that has led to calls for decriminalising certain offences, reducing prison sentences, and even exploring “restorative justice” alternatives.
But the fundamental problem is not that we punish criminals too harshly—it’s that we barely punish them at all. South Africa has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world, yet conviction rates remain shamefully low. Arrests are often bungled, dockets go missing, and cases drag on for years. A criminal justice system that does not consistently punish crime does not deter crime.
Reducing the role of arrests, expanding bail provisions, and relying more on non-trial resolutions does not fix these failures. It simply rewards them. The fastest way to restore faith in the justice system is not by making it more “inclusive” or “efficient” for criminals—it’s by ensuring that criminals actually face real consequences for their actions.
ADR and Crime
One of the most naive elements of the discussion papers is their support for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a way of dealing with certain criminal cases. The idea is that some matters—particularly those involving “minor” offences—could be resolved outside the traditional court system through mediation, restitution, and negotiated settlements.
This may work in the world of contract disputes and minor business fraud. But in a country plagued by gender-based violence, armed robbery, and violent assaults, the idea that criminals should be able to “negotiate” their way out of consequences is laughable.
The real-world application of ADR in violent crime cases is deeply problematic. Offenders often manipulate the process, using it as a loophole to escape accountability. Victims, especially in domestic violence cases, are often pressured into accepting resolutions that allow their abusers to go free. The justice system already struggles to protect victims; introducing more bureaucratic mechanisms to keep criminals out of prison will only make it worse.
South Africa does not need more theoretical justice. It needs real justice.
The Doers of Deeds: The Case for Localised Policing
Theodore Roosevelt, in his famous Man in the Arena speech, praised the doers of deeds—those who take real action rather than merely criticising from the sidelines. In South Africa, the real doers of deeds are the communities fighting to protect themselves from crime, often despite the failures of the state.
One of the most effective ways to restore law and order is to empower these communities by decentralising policing. Right now, SAPS is a top-heavy, bureaucratic institution that is slow to respond and almost impossible to hold accountable. Local police stations, which should be hubs of crime prevention, are instead drowning in red tape and mismanagement.
If communities were given real oversight over their local police—if station commanders answered directly to local safety forums rather than to Pretoria—accountability would improve almost overnight. Criminals would no longer be able to rely on a slow-moving, distant justice system to shield them from consequences. Instead, they would face the direct, immediate enforcement of the law by those who are most invested in seeing their neighbourhoods safe.
This is not just theory—it’s common sense. Countries with strong local policing structures, such as the United States and Switzerland, have far more effective crime prevention systems than those with centralised police forces. The more localised and accountable a police force is, the more effective it becomes.
South Africa Needs Reality-Based Reforms, Not Romanticism
The problem with South Africa’s criminal justice system is not that we are too harsh. It is that we are not serious enough about consequences. Instead of prioritising the safety of citizens, we have a state obsessed with reducing the so-called “burden” on criminals.
The SALRC’s discussion papers are yet another example of policy romanticism—the belief that good intentions and paperwork can replace tough, practical action. But South Africa does not need more policy. It needs policing. It needs real justice, real enforcement, and real accountability.
If we want to turn the tide against crime, we must stop looking for shortcuts. We must abandon the idea that we can reason with violent criminals or “divert” them away from the justice system. We must reject the notion that diluting consequences will somehow improve accountability.
What we need are doers of deeds—leaders who are willing to enforce the law, empower communities, and restore justice. Anything less is just another policy illusion.
