Thousands reoffend in South Africa as justice system fails to track them

Key topics:SA lacks a clear definition and data system to measure true recidivism ratesFragmented records hinder tracking repeat offenders and rehabilitation successUniform definitions and digitised databases needed to cut reoffending and improve safety.Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..By Marelize Isabel Schoeman*.In a recent statement, South Africa’s minister of correctional services said more than 18,000 parolees had reoffended in the past three years. They included 209 committing murder and 330 rape during 2024-25. This is one of the country’s most pressing justice problems, yet it remains poorly understood. It’s called recidivism: a situation where an individual who has already served a sentence commits another crime and is arrested, convicted or sentenced again.Academic and media reports suggest that many released prisoners commit another crime and are sentenced. However, South Africa lacks a standard definition for recidivism or a consistent way to measure it. This means that no one knows the true rate. Researcher Marelize Schoeman explains why tracking recidivism matters.Why is the definition of recidivism so important?Recidivism is not simply reoffending. The word comes from Latin. It means “to fall back”. It describes when an individual who has already served a sentence commits another crime and is arrested, convicted or sentenced again.A high recidivism rate, therefore, reflects not only reoffending, but the criminal justice system’s failure to rehabilitate offenders and prevent further crime.According to academic research, South Africa’s recidivism rate ranges from 55% to 95%. Media reports claim it to be as high as 80% to 97%.These figures, however, can only be regarded as estimates. South Africa lacks a standard definition of recidivism. This has led to researchers and criminal justice institutions – including the Department of Correctional Services, the South African Police Service and the National Prosecuting Authority – using different definitions and measurement methods. This produces inconsistent data and inaccurate recidivism statistics..Read more:.How the GNU can rebuild a “fragmented, criminalised State” – De Haas.The lack of a shared definition and common understanding has resulted in recidivism being used as a buzzword. This is done to create public sensation, score political points or claim programme success without any credible or generalisable evidence.As a result, policymakers and service providers in the criminal justice sector don’t know whether:policing, sentencing and rehabilitation programmes are effectivecorrectional centres are overcrowded due to repeat offendersparole and reintegration efforts are successful.This absence of reliable information hampers the criminal justice system’s ability to deliver effective prevention services, support parolees after release, reduce reoffending and build safer communities.How can South Africa better define and address the problem?The first step is to have a uniform definition of recidivism across the criminal justice sector. Then the rate can be measured accurately. Without accurate data, resources can be wasted on crime prevention and rehabilitation programmes that do not work. Effective initiatives will remain unnoticed or underfunded. You can’t manage what you can’t measure.The second step is to improve record-keeping and create a central digitised databank for sentenced offenders. This databank would hold key information, such as personal details, previous convictions, the nature of each offence, and other risk-related factors that could influence an offender’s rehabilitation prospects.This information should be accessible to the prisons, police and prosecutors. The courts, parole boards and accredited rehabilitation service providers should also have access.Currently, there is no central record system. The police service maintains all criminal record information. To obtain a person’s criminal record, a form and the individual’s fingerprints must be submitted. An official then checks the database for any previous convictions, offence details and sentencing information. This largely paper-based system is prone to delays, human error and inaccuracies.Many offenders use aliases or do not have identity documents.A uniform identification system, using digitally captured fingerprints or iris scans, would be a more effective way of identifying and keeping records of individuals with a criminal record.Digitising this process has been planned since 1996, but hasn’t happened. Fragmented systems, weak accountability, outdated infrastructure, governance bottlenecks and late deliveries have delayed it.What difference will the database make?Making these improvements would change how South Africa measures, understands and manages recidivism. A uniform definition would replace guesswork and political rhetoric with a clear, evidence-based standard.Policymakers, researchers and practitioners could use a common language to make comparisons and coordinate strategies.The focus could shift from viewing recidivism merely as individuals reoffending, to the criminal justice system’s effectiveness in breaking the cycle of crime.A centralised, digitised offender database would reduce human error and improve data reliability, making it possible to identify and do what works.Public trust in the criminal justice sector might improve, enhancing rehabilitation outcomes and building safer communities.What countries have cracked this?Countries like the United Kingdom, Norway, Finland and Sweden, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore have adopted a uniform definition of recidivism. They use it to measure the performance of their criminal justice systems.The effectiveness of these steps is clear in Norway and Singapore. The two countries have some of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20% and 21%, respectively. The UK’s recidivism rates have declined from 31.6% in 2010 to 26.5% in 2023. In New Zealand, performance data is used to target high-risk groups and strengthen rehabilitation efforts..Read more:.Terry Booysen: Reverse SA’s bleak picture, digitise governance.These countries use biometric databases in law enforcement and correctional facilities. The databases help to identify offenders, track parolees and manage prisons. Authorities can identify ex-offenders who commit new crimes.Recidivism statistics are also used as key performance indicators across the criminal justice system. They guide funding and programme development.In South Africa, a review of the parole board system which began in September 2025 offers the Department of Correctional Services an opportunity to define what recidivism means.This step could create the basis for developing a central record system for both incarcerated offenders and those under community corrections. The system could later be expanded across the entire criminal justice network..*Marelize Isabel Schoeman: Professor, University of South Africa.This article was first published by The Conversation and is republished with permission

Thousands reoffend in South Africa as justice system fails to track them

Related Stories

SA businesses battered by infrastructure instability - Muhammad Ali

Bart Henderson: The artisan pipeline is failing in plain sight

SA’s Hidden Tax: When identity stops being certain in a world of AI and institutional drift

James Myburgh: SA’s crime nightmare. After the miracle (pt. 3)