In the shadow of Cape Town’s most troubled areas, the echoes of gunfire provide a chilling backdrop to daily life for residents of communities like Manenberg, Hanover Park, Lavender Hill, Nyanga, and Elsies River. For many families, the sound of gunfire has become a haunting soundtrack, a constant reminder of the violence that grips their lives. With children anxious about their safety on the way to school and parents huddled indoors at night, the stakes could not be higher.

Amidst this turmoil, Grant Oosterwyk, a lecturer and PhD candidate in Information Systems at the University of Cape Town (UCT), is lighting a crucial conversation on the potential—and limitations—of technology in combatting violence in these marginalised areas. Central to this discourse is the City of Cape Town’s significant investment in ShotSpotter, a sophisticated gunshot detection system hailed as a modern policing miracle.

ShotSpotter, which claims to pinpoint the location of gunfire within seconds, has been rolled out across various communities, costing the city R32 million from 2016 to 2019 and an additional R30 million for its current expansion. Yet, according to Oosterwyk, this reliance on technology risks being a misplaced priority when the underlying social issues remain unaddressed.

“The technology tells us when and where a gun is fired, but people in communities already know where the shootings are happening,” Oosterwyk explains. “What it doesn’t do is prevent violence or address why shootings happen in the first place.” His critical analysis suggests that without a broader social strategy, the impact of ShotSpotter may be severely limited.

Currently, gang violence is surging in neighbourhoods like Elsies River and Hanover Park, places burdened by escalating poverty, high unemployment rates, and a lack of educational opportunities—elements that each contribute to the prevalence of crime. “By pouring millions into this technology, the City risks looking like it’s ‘doing something’ while sidestepping the hard, long-term work of addressing inequality, poor housing conditions and the lack of opportunities that fuel crime,” says Oosterwyk.

Moreover, he highlights a concerning disconnect within law enforcement itself; many police officers are unaware of how ShotSpotter operates. “When frontline officers aren’t fully aware of how the system works, the technology cannot achieve its purpose,” he cautions. This lack of communication, alongside the political hesitance to fully integrate such tools into a comprehensive national security strategy, threatens the efficacy of technological innovations.

Oosterwyk argues that communities should be viewed not merely as victims but as vital partners. “Policymakers must partner with them rather than imposing one-size-fits-all fixes,” he asserts, emphasising that engagement and trust-building are essential for successful interventions. Collaboration with community members who understand the nuanced dynamics of local violence could lead to more innovative and effective solutions than high-tech measures alone.

This calls for a paradigm shift; Oosterwyk insists that gun violence must be treated as a social issue rather than an isolated crime matter. “Addressing it means collaboration across government departments: housing, education, health, social development and economic planning,” he insists, urging a comprehensive approach that acknowledges the intertwined nature of crime and the socio-economic challenges faced by these communities.

He further advocates for long-term investments in social development initiatives such as education, youth programmes, and job creation. Such investments not only address the root causes of violence but also offer alternatives to at-risk youth drawn to gangs as pathways to belonging and security. “A teenager on a soccer field or in a job training programme is less likely to pick up a gun,” he explains, asserting that these avenues provide far more promise in reducing violence than reactive technological solutions.

As Oosterwyk concludes, the question we must pose is not merely about how much money is spent on systems like ShotSpotter, but rather whether investing millions in these technologies is truly the best use of public funds. “People are desperate for solutions that actually make them safer,” he states, underscoring a collective yearning for genuine change. The pursuit of safety must extend beyond technology, fostering social cohesion and developing communities to ensure a brighter future for their inhabitants.

Source link