Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016 #2

[cottonweaver]

duplicated below

 

[cottonweaver]

snipped

The 'broken' individual he is today has nothing (IMO) to do with remorse for killing another human being, but a lot to do with the countdown to prison getting closer and closer. His disability shouldn't factor in at all, since he already served time inside and coped fine. He'll still have his legs, therefore the stumbling and hobbling round his cell won't be a factor (although we all know how nimble he is on his stumps in the dark...)

As for his mental health, again, I think that's to do with the fact he thought this day would never come and that he'd never have to go back inside. His delay tactics and appeals have come to nothing, so it's not surprising the poor murderer is suffering, knowing he's all out of tricks. And mercy? Hmm. Perhaps if he hadn't used national TV to speak for Reeva from beyond the grave, or used the court to exaggerate his disability so he could play on Masipa's sympathy, then maybe he'd deserve some mercy. However, he showed Reeva no mercy. He's tried every tactic to avoid more prison time, and he's dragged Reeva's family through an emotional roller coaster - all to avoid doing time for murder.

IMO, he is exactly the same devious person he was in 2013. Little has changed, although unsurprisingly we've seen his continued resistance to being punished for the crime of murder, ie; the Con Court debacle and the TV interview. Then there's the utter disregard for Reeva's family as he ploughs on thinking only of himself, talking graphically about Reeva's blood on TV, making out they were so in love. For God's sake, they knew each other for a matter of weeks! And for some of that time Reeva was scared of him. Hardly Romeo and Juliet.

So after much ranting, I think Masipa will give him a few years off the minimum (because he's 'broken') and maybe add another 10 for the fake hobbling and sly TV interview!

BiB 1. Wholly agree, on a personal level BUT Masipa won't need to necessarily use one against the other.
The most irritating thing about SA sentencing is that they seem to "credit" the offender with the unhappy consequences of his own crime. Yes, go figure. It's all fecked up to me. Watch this space on the disability as mitigation not for 13th Feb but in general.
Again, on a SA mores level, not a personal cottonweaver level, I just hope the fact that she is so disabled herself will help push her the other way -ie. he's rubbed her up the wrong way with his pity parade

BIB 2 Mercy. i keep reading it in the SA sentencing textbooks, that's why I am raising it. Unbelievable as it is. Then I watched the carte blanche panel again last night and they are also all going mentioning this kind of thing. I can't say I get it, not being an SA crim defence lawyer of 20+ yrs, but IDUnderstand why they say that and then she has that history of giving the 100yr+ sentence to the cop who killed etc. It's just not clear to me. So I've braced myself for the word "mercy" come Weds.
The guy is an abject faker, we all know that. It p's me off that she will sentence him for GAD etc as a fact, it'll count , not against 2013 crime but for now- yet what he actually has, IMO has not been diagnosed yet!

As you know, I am still hoping that the TV broadcast is an aggravation, that's why I was determined to watch it, in the hope there would be further legal ammo for Nel.
The fact that he pursued appeals in itself will not be seen as aggravating, regardless of the fact that it aggravates the hell out of me on a subjective level. He won't be penalised due to having had the cash to pursue and drag this on forever, per se. I hope the evidence of non-acceptance of the SCA verdict WILL be deemed as aggravating, but i won't bet my house on it . ( Clearly Nel going to SCA can't be aggrav for OP, Nel's appeal, further delay.)
His outrageous speaking for Reeva on TV will count for naught if Masipa is not able to watch it. ( Hence my previous posts, pre-broadcast, saying, that for me, she must watch this crap as there's bound to be something aggravating in it. )
I'm not going to disagree with any of that above

BIB3 Re loss - That's why I put in my post "not loss of Reeva". I don't think Masipa credited him with the loss of a loved one last time,in CH. ( I need to double check that with that 2014 sentencing transcript.) I don't think she can hold that he lost a "loved one" based on 3 months, but as I said I'll have to check. Plus we have to accept SCA re-emphasised IMO that he is an unreliable witness per se. If Masipa pulls out a bloody Val card with Reeva saying "I love you" as back-up for his loss I will be at a loss myself.

...but, re The CCourt application, I used to think/hope that would qualify as it does in my heart, but Im not confident now, not as an aggrav factor from Masipa.
My only caveat is that it has been many months since I looked up all the sentencing stuff, I did convince myself at one stage, that his fighting was aggravation, legally, but I can't remember the detail sufficiently now to know whether I was simply trying to find examples to back up my own point of view.

We all know he has been desperately playing for time and thought big bucks lawyers would work again and I guess, IMO he stupidly assumed if he played it out long enough the public's interest in this case would dissipate and that would in itself work in his favour. ( But we know how crap they are at judging the public mood don't we)


I really hope she adds something unambivalent for the TV thing as for me personally, it was clear as day that this was planned to broadcast pre her delivering her judgment,it was for her ears not for just for ours. ( If both sides claimed to be planning 3 witnesses each, as per the news reports beforehand, how would she have a fully drafted ,say 5 page judgment ready in 2 days, ready for Friday. It just doesn't add up for me.)

I thought Nel was particularly strong on the "4th wheel of sentencing" and that the victim's needs ( incl of all RS's friends and family too) should not fall under the "needs of society". So Nel wants to carve off another 25% to be weighed. Now , for me, this is cool, as it means, if she observes the new trends in sentencing, she can add years for that 25% portion.
He knows the "needs of society' is an issue for Masipa - witness her pointed comments in her last sentencing. I thought that was very clever of him, "very Roux", as it were, to try to get on a Masipa- wavelength and so try to circumvent all that.

Now I am intrigued to see if we get any surprises, eg. whether she will , post SCA go with Nel's - it's DE verging on DD.
Plus, whether Nel decides to re-open the case on Weds at first bat. Sadly, I think I will be very disappointed on that.....
And what she makes of Scholtz - the partiality, the poor quality as an expert, the fact he is not the leading treating psych, the lies ....... vs his 24 yrs at Weskoppies.

Sadly, lastly, I don't think there is any chance of her going so low that Nel would get an opp to go back to Leach & Mjedt at SCA and ask them to choose the apt sentence. That really would be a "turn up for the books."


Can't remember his surname but an ex Canadian lawyer has just commented that the SCA should have just ordered a re-trial. Blimey! He might be a crack pot though so I cant add any more.

Gosh that took ages to type- so apols for long post . Tried to format it under each para, Gave up.

 

[JudgeJudi]

<RSBM>

I'm wondering what people are thinking, in terms of specific mitigation numbers/weighting - ie. years
for these factors alone - disability, mental health, ie. the needs of and mercy for the individual as he is today , not as he was in 2013 when he committed murder.

I would have thought his disability, mental health and the needs of mercy when he murdered Reeva would be the relevant criteria, not as he is now. On that basis:

Disability: None. He repeatedly stated prior to the murder that he didn't consider himself disabled and fought to compete and did compete in the summer Olympics with able bodied athletes. The only time I've read of him playing the disability card was when he was purchasing a new car and applied for a tax concession as a disabled person.

Mental Health: None. The Weskoppies psychiatric report stated that “At the time of the alleged offences the accused did not suffer from a mental disorder or mental defect that affected his ability to distinguish between the rightful or wrongful nature of his deeds. A mental disorder or mental defect did not affect his ability to act in accordance with the said appreciation of the rightful or wrongful nature of his deeds”.

Mercy: The same as he showed Reeva ... none.

Masipa however will have a very different opinion to mine.

 

[Madeleine74]

Realistically-speaking, what is the minimum number of years jail time OP could face now?

 

[Hazy]

Realistically-speaking, what is the minimum number of years jail time OP could face now?

Hard to say. Last time she said the offences (ch) were very serious but believed it was right to show mercy.

she also said that a non custodial sentence would not be appropriate. Note that she also said a suspended sentence was not appropriate.

One has to assume that a custodial sentence is appropriate this time but add in mercy and it is possible he may do anything from 1-10 years but I feel he may only serve something like 3+ After mercy and time served is counted.

However she may also give him something for media vilification and the length of time that this has all gone on for. Who knows. This is Masipa.

 

[Madeleine74]

right.

That's why I asked "realistically-speaking," because Masipa will show him as much lenience as she possibly can.

 

[Really?]

hey Really,

I am anticipating something good from you now when you reach zero. There has to be a relevant emoji for it.

You know what'll happen don't you - you'll miss your alarm on the 6th:gaah:!


Hey I just realised now - happy 4th July to all those celebrating!:happy4th:

Thanks cotton.......I'm gonna see what's out there in emoji world.

 

[cottonweaver]

<RSBM>


I would have thought his disability, mental health and the needs of mercy when he murdered Reeva would be the relevant criteria, not as he is now. On that basis:

Disability: None. He repeatedly stated prior to the murder that he didn't consider himself disabled and fought to compete and did compete in the summer Olympics with able bodied athletes. The only time I've read of him playing the disability card was when he was purchasing a new car and applied for a tax concession as a disabled person.

Mental Health: None. The Weskoppies psychiatric report stated that &#8220;At the time of the alleged offences the accused did not suffer from a mental disorder or mental defect that affected his ability to distinguish between the rightful or wrongful nature of his deeds. A mental disorder or mental defect did not affect his ability to act in accordance with the said appreciation of the rightful or wrongful nature of his deeds&#8221;.

Mercy: The same as he showed Reeva ... none.

Masipa however will have a very different opinion to mine.

Apologies - it's clearly my lack of clarity. (I know you'll be in bed by now in Aus, but I'll reply now whilst it's still near the original post.)

I never meant, in my original post : what do FMember's feel he should get, on a personal level. But what he will get for those factors.
I was wondering what they thought re. how , in reality, the judge will balance these probable mitigatons. naturally I didn't mean either - what would a UK, Aus, USA judge would do in her shoes with those same elements. (It seems to be rather different in SA- they waffle on about the needs and protection & rights of the offender a great deal, that's my impression.)

So if asked what's apt for OP come Weds? About a 100 FMs on here might say 20 years +/- , incl. me, with nothing deducted for disability, nothing for mercy, nothing for mental health............but it's not what I was driving at in my OP. I completely agree that he should get nothing for any of the factors as I personally feel we never got to the truth on ANY of them , his MH, his disability......

Anyways, moving on, re your reply sentence ending "when he murdered Reeva would be the relevant criteria, not as he is now[/U"
Oh ! I assumed she had to do both -ie. take into account his culpability at the time of the offence as well as considerations of the offender now and with a view to the future.

I think the judge also takes into account his current personal circumstances, after the murder. His past background ie. before the murder. His future re age, job, poss of future rehab, recidivism.* That's my impression.

Maybe I got the wrong end of stick and that the crime is not just one element in the weighing of a sentence?
ie. so first element - being the offence itself,
2. the offender *( see my bit, 2 lines above )
3) society's needs.... plus/incl of victim .........AND
all with the goal in mind that the sentence will prevent, retribute ( restorative) , & also rehab the offender etc etc (in broad brush strokes on purpose.)

Carte Blanche panel said mercy has to be in there. Mannie Witz kept saying "the whole person". I dont think he meant in terms of that night nor just on an intruder DE version - as per Greenland's revised views-
if Witz does mean that , then ...... well I worry we are on a slippery path then . ( Million dollar question, she sticks with SCA or she fudges it. Sherbert ref'd this before - I don't know which way she will go. That Carte Blanche panel has added some doubt to my previous certainties on that point.)

Anyway back to the main point, Masipa as a judge also has this "personal" leeway, ie. the judge is afforded some subjectivity. (And it isn't the first time I have heard that.) So it is of concern.

EDIT:
Ok just checked her last sentence for CH-as was starting to think I was going loopy.

Mercy - she cites the sentencing law that any sentence has to incl mercy para 20. She distinguishes that from maudlin sympathy. Obv there is more "mercy" apt in a CH case than a murder case but its not what the sentencing law she quotes appears to say. page 20 & page 25.
Punishment - she sets great store by rehab of the offender as a key goal of punishment, not "breaking him" she says. page 25and pg 16
from your link http://www.justice.gov.za/docs/other-docs/pistorius-sentence-CC113-2013-21102014.pdf

All I can hope is that this certainty of mercy as an element in sentencing is cancelled out significantly, by the State's contention re. a lack of remorse. Personally I thought Nel made a strong case for that- remorse not proved.

Its certainly a complex thing this sentencing business, it's like a Great British Bake Off sneaky bake challenge by PaulHollywood- a recipe with no instructions and some rough proportions for named ingredients. Let's hope the cake isn't rank when it pops out of the oven hey?
:cupcake:


I'm not going to quote her original 2014 which sets out the criteria in sentencing per se, not just sentencing for CH, as that super-long post I did this morning was long enough.

 

[cottonweaver]

right.

That's why I asked "realistically-speaking," because Masipa will show him as much lenience as she possibly can.

Cross post - hazy has already answered

 

[Cloen]

BIB ..and a finding of the SCA.

nope.
The SCA found Masipa had made mistakes- and that covers what Pistorius did , and she didn't take into account Captain Magena's evidence either, and how he'd fired the shots, the trajectory of those shots AT whoever he thought was behind that door - so it was changed to Murder , which he should have been charged with to start with and serving a long prison sentence. Still, he will now get his day , he didn't have the guts to appeal to the Court for a more lenient sentence and to show he had remorse for killing Reeva - ,because he's a liar, and wasn't prepared to be put under cross examination again by the Prosecution Lawyer, Nel, he's a coward basically.

 

[Cloen]

right.

That's why I asked "realistically-speaking," because Masipa will show him as much lenience as she possibly can.

Unfortunately, she has to show him leniency , and a lot of his sentence may be suspended.
It's wrong, but this is SA and they've made a pigs ear of this entire case so far, so i've a feeling they may to the end.
For the Steenkamp's sake, i hope i am wrong.

 

[Cloen]

According to the SCA, Cloen, he couldn't possibly have thought he had a right to take a life in those circumstances.

yes this is true
He knew it was Reeva and made sure he killed her because he's an arrogant p*g and a vengeful dangerous bad tempered one, with a gun.
BUT for this trial , he's pushed a ridiculous story , aided by a good Lawyer who was allowed far too much leaway in Court , but no matter what Roux spiels to try get this murderer a lenient sentence, the 4 shots and Magena's testimony/evidence stands, and has to be taken into account, that whoever was behind that door regardless of who he says he thought it was had no chance and he had no self control , this Court can't show him too much leniency or it gives license for others living in SA to use same *advertiser censored* and bull story if they decided to gun down a family member or friend in their own homes in the middle of the night, and think they can use this INTRUDER version like Pistorius has.

 

[Tortoise]

<RSBM>


I would have thought his disability, mental health and the needs of mercy when he murdered Reeva would be the relevant criteria, not as he is now. On that basis:

Disability: None. He repeatedly stated prior to the murder that he didn't consider himself disabled and fought to compete and did compete in the summer Olympics with able bodied athletes. The only time I've read of him playing the disability card was when he was purchasing a new car and applied for a tax concession as a disabled person.

Mental Health: None. The Weskoppies psychiatric report stated that &#8220;At the time of the alleged offences the accused did not suffer from a mental disorder or mental defect that affected his ability to distinguish between the rightful or wrongful nature of his deeds. A mental disorder or mental defect did not affect his ability to act in accordance with the said appreciation of the rightful or wrongful nature of his deeds&#8221;.

Mercy: The same as he showed Reeva ... none.

Masipa however will have a very different opinion to mine.

I was disappointed overall with aggravation argument, I think all the points were covered but not laboured - rushed through. Nel allowed himself to be rushed again by Masipa, even though they had another two court days they could have used, somewhat mysteriously.

But, one thing that Nel said which left an impression with me, a couple or more times, backed up by both judgements and quoting from the SCA judgement, was that Pistorius formed his intention in the bedroom. I think that will go quite a way towards aggravation. This was a person who set out to commit murder DE. Like a terrorist in a shopping centre.

I know you were both discussing mitigation, but hopefully, as Nel said, any mitigation (of which I personally see none anyway) should be cancelled by a lot of very serious aggravating features. No. of shots fired, being a practiced and trained gun user, knowing there was no room for escape, so intent a hair's breadth away from DD, not giving a truthful explanation, not acting in PPD, and no responsibility / remorse.

He should get the minimum sentence of 15 (or 14 with year served).

 

[aftermath]

I was disappointed overall with aggravation argument, I think all the points were covered but not laboured - rushed through. Nel allowed himself to be rushed again by Masipa, even though they had another two court days they could have used, somewhat mysteriously.

But, one thing that Nel said which left an impression with me, a couple or more times, backed up by both judgements and quoting from the SCA judgement, was that Pistorius formed his intention in the bedroom. I think that will go quite a way towards aggravation. This was a person who set out to commit murder DE. Like a terrorist in a shopping centre.

I know you were both discussing mitigation, but hopefully, as Nel said, any mitigation (of which I personally see none anyway) should be cancelled by a lot of very serious aggravating features. No. of shots fired, being a practiced and trained gun user, knowing there was no room for escape, so intent a hair's breadth away from DD, not giving a truthful explanation, not acting in PPD, and no responsibility / remorse.

He should get the minimum sentence of 15 (or 14 with year served).

Doesn't saying the intention was made in the bedroom go against allowing people guns for home defence?

 

[Madeleine74]

So I'll expect Masipa to give him a 3 to 5 year sentence with the maximum he'll be in prison: from 1 year to 2 years. If he gets any more than that, that will be grand.

 

[Tortoise]

So I'll expect Masipa to give him a 3 to 5 year sentence with the maximum he'll be in prison: from 1 year to 2 years. If he gets any more than that, that will be grand.

That would make me very happy because then the SCA would get to deal with him.

 

[cottonweaver]

So I'll expect Masipa to give him a 3 to 5 year sentence with the maximum he'll be in prison: from 1 year to 2 years. If he gets any more than that, that will be grand.

Hi Madeleine. I am sure it'll be significantly higher than that.
An OP, IDK who mentioned a new s report , a few weeks old where Nel's partner AJohnson says any less than 8 and they will appeal. ( I don't have the link, IDK if it's totally accurate, will be easy to find)
AJ knows it's meant to be a min sent of 15, of course.

Even 10 before any deductions is a third off the supposed minimum of 15 . ( Am leaving the deductions aside for a moment)
If you guess 5 yrs -- well they would appeal that, that's far too low.

Someone on here will know if it's ( eg. ) 75% as a minimum tariff before he can be considered before parole on a min sentence. It's been mentioned so often in the past that I've actually forgotten.
Equally IDK how much could be suspended "on licence" etc. It's gone in the mists of another earlier thread.....

ETA cross post Tortoise. yes it would have it's advantages if she really wanted to end her career on a final controversial note.

 

[cottonweaver]

I was disappointed overall with aggravation argument, I think all the points were covered but not laboured - rushed through. Nel allowed himself to be rushed again by Masipa, even though they had another two court days they could have used, somewhat mysteriously.

But, one thing that Nel said which left an impression with me, a couple or more times, backed up by both judgements and quoting from the SCA judgement, was that Pistorius formed his intention in the bedroom. I think that will go quite a way towards aggravation. This was a person who set out to commit murder DE. Like a terrorist in a shopping centre.

I know you were both discussing mitigation, but hopefully, as Nel said, any mitigation (of which I personally see none anyway) should be cancelled by a lot of very serious aggravating features. No. of shots fired, being a practiced and trained gun user, knowing there was no room for escape, so intent a hair's breadth away from DD, not giving a truthful explanation, not acting in PPD, and no responsibility / remorse.

He should get the minimum sentence of 15 (or 14 with year served).

I think it's interesting what you brought up from the Lisa/Nick audio, where they did consider a third witness at the last minute, so they were open to adding another for aggravation.

I think the DE = terrorist in shopping centre was a great analogy, sweeps away a lot of wilful confusion happening over the meaning of DE.

someone's posted this on the other site this afternoon. Not that U.Roux has anything more than another opinion.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...ikely-to-get-15-year-sentence-lawyer-20160704


ETA other good thing Nick said in that audio is where are the other character witnesses for OP. The old friends & associates from the sporting world etc. Pretty thin pickings re the Defence witnesses too.

 

[cottonweaver]

Thanks cotton.......I'm gonna see what's out there in emoji world.

yes bells tolling, bombs going off, there's a few on here.

That article link that I just moved over here mentions a part " suspended sentence". This worries me. . In that case I think I will be needing the teeny tiny violin myself!


( although there's not enough in the article to explain what Ulrich Roux means)

 

[Viper]

That would make me very happy because then the SCA would get to deal with him.

Actually that would be my personal preference. So lets all hope Masipa blows this thing entirely so that competent jurists can throw the book at Osca!

:bricks: