Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 7.6.2016
- Thread starter Greater Than
- Start date
- Status
Duchy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 3
That's sums up just how I feel too. I keep googling and keep expecting an appeal to be announced but maybe it is too early for that yet. Surely after all this time he can't be looking at serving a couple of years only?
Viper
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 1
You sound as if you were a fly on the wall in Nel's office after the hearing. LOL!
Masipa continues to challenge the sensibilities of the people of SA, making it impossible for Nel. Appeal forthcoming I'm sure.
Duchy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 3
He looks so relieved doesn't he? June looked absolutely devastated though. It's so wrong and it's unjust.
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
Lol.
Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa has a reputation for delivering severe sentences in cases of violence against women.
In 2011 she also handed out a maximum life sentence to Freddy Mashamba, a policeman who shot and killed his wife, during which she said: "No one is above the law. You deserve to go to jail for life because you are not a protector, you are a killer.
http://www.thesouthafrican.com/judge-masipa-tough-on-violence-against-women/
I guess that blasting your g/friend to bits with killer bullets is not considered violent?
Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa has a reputation for delivering severe sentences in cases of violence against women.
In 2011 she also handed out a maximum life sentence to Freddy Mashamba, a policeman who shot and killed his wife, during which she said: "No one is above the law. You deserve to go to jail for life because you are not a protector, you are a killer.
http://www.thesouthafrican.com/judge-masipa-tough-on-violence-against-women/
I guess that blasting your g/friend to bits with killer bullets is not considered violent?
Masipa made it clear this is not a DV case as there is no evidence for it.
In fact she went out of her way to make that clear.
Her whole judgement was so bad, it'll be good for the appeal, if it comes.
You know, even after the first trial, I thought the notion that Masipa might have been paid off was far-fetched, because generally, I operate by Occam's Razor: if there is a simple explanation, that is probably the correct one. It was a terrible decision, but the most sensible way of interpreting it was that a combination of some faulty legal reasoning on a rather technical point and undue sympathy for Oscar based on his disability and fame had led an otherwise fair-minded judge to drop the ball.
Now, Occam's Razor leads me to the conclusion she's on the take. I honestly have no other way of explaining this, on multiple levels:
1. It is one thing to say that there is insufficient evidence to convict someone of a certain charge. I myself have at times followed trials (not this one!) in which I believed the person was probably guilty, but thought there was enough doubt that, had I been on the jury, I would have reluctantly felt compelled to acquit. It is another to say that there is not a shred of evidence a) that Oscar intended to kill Reeva, specifically, and b) that there were some indications of possible domestic violence. Because there was evidence, and plenty of it. You might maturely weigh that evidence and deem it lacking, but no honest person can deny that Oscar intentionally killing Reeva in a moment of anger during a fight is one reasonable interpretation of the facts.
2. Ignoring Oscar's other bad behavior. No, I don't think his behavior at the prison, as reported, was so egregious that it should have been an aggravating factor. Same thing with his decision to give a TV interview while claiming he was too distraught to take the stand. But those things should obviously weigh against mitigation of a MANDATORY sentence, which should be adhered to unless there are overwhelming mitigating factors and the prisoner's behavior has been otherwise exemplary.
3. Saying that Oscar had shown remorse because he cried a lot and tried to apologize to Reeva's family. Those are things a remorseful person might do, but they are also things that anybody with half-a-brain or a half-decent lawyer would do. If mouthing off to prison officials isn't extraordinary enough to be grounds for aggravation, doing the bare minimum that a non-sociopath would do (not that I think Oscar isn't a sociopath) shouldn't be grounds for mitigation.
4. And this one's the kicker: Giving someone less than half of a MANDATORY MINIMUM under almost any circumstances, let alone these. The appeals court gave a stinging rebuke in overturning Masipa's decision, and handed down a ruling specifically designed to remove, insofar as it was possible, any grounds for discretion. That's what mandatory minimums are for. I could have understood if she had given him something like 12 years, since she's factoring in time already served and maybe time under house arrest or probation. Six years is mind-boggling, and so obviously contrary to the intent of the statute and the higher court that I can only assume corruption.
My heart goes out to the Steenkamps, who have behaved throughout with incredible class and restraint.
Now, Occam's Razor leads me to the conclusion she's on the take. I honestly have no other way of explaining this, on multiple levels:
1. It is one thing to say that there is insufficient evidence to convict someone of a certain charge. I myself have at times followed trials (not this one!) in which I believed the person was probably guilty, but thought there was enough doubt that, had I been on the jury, I would have reluctantly felt compelled to acquit. It is another to say that there is not a shred of evidence a) that Oscar intended to kill Reeva, specifically, and b) that there were some indications of possible domestic violence. Because there was evidence, and plenty of it. You might maturely weigh that evidence and deem it lacking, but no honest person can deny that Oscar intentionally killing Reeva in a moment of anger during a fight is one reasonable interpretation of the facts.
2. Ignoring Oscar's other bad behavior. No, I don't think his behavior at the prison, as reported, was so egregious that it should have been an aggravating factor. Same thing with his decision to give a TV interview while claiming he was too distraught to take the stand. But those things should obviously weigh against mitigation of a MANDATORY sentence, which should be adhered to unless there are overwhelming mitigating factors and the prisoner's behavior has been otherwise exemplary.
3. Saying that Oscar had shown remorse because he cried a lot and tried to apologize to Reeva's family. Those are things a remorseful person might do, but they are also things that anybody with half-a-brain or a half-decent lawyer would do. If mouthing off to prison officials isn't extraordinary enough to be grounds for aggravation, doing the bare minimum that a non-sociopath would do (not that I think Oscar isn't a sociopath) shouldn't be grounds for mitigation.
4. And this one's the kicker: Giving someone less than half of a MANDATORY MINIMUM under almost any circumstances, let alone these. The appeals court gave a stinging rebuke in overturning Masipa's decision, and handed down a ruling specifically designed to remove, insofar as it was possible, any grounds for discretion. That's what mandatory minimums are for. I could have understood if she had given him something like 12 years, since she's factoring in time already served and maybe time under house arrest or probation. Six years is mind-boggling, and so obviously contrary to the intent of the statute and the higher court that I can only assume corruption.
My heart goes out to the Steenkamps, who have behaved throughout with incredible class and restraint.
no idea what you've been watching
Pistorius and Reeva were only going out for about 3 months, and majority of that he was away or she was away working............
Reeva would want him to pay for taking her life, long prison term, and for the pain she's seen her parents go through and for her murder leading to her father's dehabilitating stroke (normal view)
No parent in their right mind would let their child near this lying aggressive man who's been convicted of a brutal Murder.
Duchy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 3
He must have a good idea about whether it will be appealed.......and he is not saying anything yet.......
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,943
- Reaction score
- 137,864
Yeah well we're not all sheep
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
As he only has to serve 50% of the 6 years, she's actually sentenced him to just 3 years. Reeva's life was worth 3 years to the judge who's 'tough' on violence against women. She ignored the SCA's superior knowledge of the law and made it personal because she was miffed that her original highly flawed judgement was called into question. And I still don't know what the hell was going on with her reading this morning. It was an embarrassment. Did she even look it over first and practise saying the words out loud?
On a side note - I wonder how many complaint books the broken murderer has already filled up with serious issues like his mattress is too lumpy, or his cell doesn't face south, or his beans are the wrong shade of orange.
On a side note - I wonder how many complaint books the broken murderer has already filled up with serious issues like his mattress is too lumpy, or his cell doesn't face south, or his beans are the wrong shade of orange.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/N...with-pistorius-appeal-defence-lawyer-20160706
A legal expert has told News24 that the State will have a tough time getting the Supreme Court of Appeal to reconsider Judge Thokozile Masipa's six-year sentence
"My immediate feeling was that it was a lenient sentence, but not a wrong sentence.
"Its going to be tough for the State to succeed on appeal against the sentence, purely because I think Judge Masipa really gave a good judgment. I thought she dealt with everything.
"Of course, the judgment was very favourable to Oscar, but I think its going to be tough to first get past her to apply for leave to appeal, but also for the SCA to find a prospect of success on appeal.
"I think weve reached the end of the matter."
BIB Now, I tend to agree. OP's demeanor early on in the Sentencing Hearing tended to reveal a level of comfort inconsistent with somebody about to be sentenced to 15 years of their life in prison. Just what did he know which enabled him to present as comfortable? It is a sad indictment on the SA legal system that Pistorius appears to be above The Law in that country. My honest opinion only.
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
Three weeks ago he looked as if he'd taken a lot of medication before he appeared in court. He was glassy eyed and unfocused. Today he seemed calm and alert. I'd have expected him to be at his most agitated today, and yet he wasn't.
Zuri
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,782
- Reaction score
- 119
Thanks to everyone who has followed this case to the"end?" and posted the most intelligent comments I have read just about anywhere. The respect shown to others has been phenomenal.
I have yet to see or hear any remorse from OP. Had he actually been genuinely remorseful, perhaps I could understand this sentence. As it stands, I cannot.
RIP Reeva as you have touched many.
I have yet to see or hear any remorse from OP. Had he actually been genuinely remorseful, perhaps I could understand this sentence. As it stands, I cannot.
RIP Reeva as you have touched many.
Viper
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 1
Yea, he's a very nice man. Communicated many times with him on twitter. He had been on all three sides of the judiciary, but he too was taken in by this spectacle and cannot see the essence of a simple domestic homicide. Just another expert guesser guessing, unfortunately. Still, a very intelligent and kind man.
CanManEh
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,827
- Reaction score
- 72
Hello fellow sleuthers it's been a while since i have wrote in here..I appologise if someone has brought this up but i just seen pistorous got 6 years and i was wondering what happens to him when he goes to jail I cant see them letting him wear his flex prosthesis things that he wears as a runner in fact he prolly cant even wear normal ones in a jail are there guys in jail in wheel chairs or will he do his hole time in protective custody ...?
http://www.enca.com/media/video/pistoriuss-six-year-jail-term-is-unduly-generous-hoffman
really good interview with an Advocate re Nel Appealing the low sentence given to Pistorius. He says .................
Sentence was inappropriately light
because Roux would have relayed to him before Court today what to expect
so he was bright as a button and normal ........... liar till the end then
- Status