Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 7.6.2016

[cottonweaver]

Tortoise, you'll feel better when you watch the video, I think.

I can post you some virtual leaves. :autumn:

Sherbert - 100% agree with your post above. Arrogance staggers me. Something else she obv. shares with HER victim, OP

 

[Hazy]

My thoughts exactly.

What stood out for me yesterday was Masipa's palpable and arrogant disdain for the general public. Imo, she was hellbent on punishing the public, not Pistorius.

What she appears completely to have forgotten is that, as a public servant, it was her duty to deliver a sentence that instilled public confidence in the judiciary. Adopting Lemon Mousse's phraseology, the public is entitled to feel that the judicial system recognises that Reeva's life mattered. Instead, the message delivered yesterday is quite the opposite and, as a result, public confidence in the competence of the South African judiciary has been ripped to shreds for the second time.

Masipa said something about it being her duty to correct the public misconception that Pistorius had deliberately killed Reeva. Why start concerning herself with what the public may or may not misconceive when she has taken such pains to emphasise elsewhere that public opinion should play no role in her sentencing? She cannot possibly think that by delivering a sentence nine years less than the prescribed minimum, the public is going to learn its lesson and respond by saying...'We stand corrected - we must have got it wrong, after all - otherwise, Judge Masipa would definitely have given him a longer sentence.'

She should have focused on precedent and the judgement of the SCA, rather than permit her own personal hostility towards the public she exists to serve intrude on her duty to provide an appropriate sentence.

Masipa was trying to enforce her verdict. Her admonishment of Barry steenkamp was uncalled for, he like the rest of us is entitled to his opinion. She can't change that chose what she decides.

As regards the interview, yes. Her sentencing more or less trotted of what was in there. Media, premeditated murder opinions .....

Indeed the whole appeals process rests of differing opinions or interpretation of the law.

She did it herself by ignoring the SCA!!! Lol.

 

[Sillybilly]

Time for a refresher on The Rules folks.

We do not discuss PMs in any way.

We do not bring in comments from MSM articles. You can quote from the MSM article itself, and you can link and say there are some interesting comments, but you cannot quote or discuss those comments from the comment section of the article.

:wave:

 

[Trotterly]

Masipa was trying to enforce her verdict. Her admonishment of Barry steenkamp was uncalled for, he like the rest of us is entitled to his opinion. She can't change that chose what she decides.

As regards the interview, yes. Her sentencing more or less trotted of what was in there. Media, premeditated murder opinions .....

Indeed the whole appeals process rests of differing opinions or interpretation of the law.

She did it herself by ignoring the SCA!!! Lol.

But how did she ignore the SCA?

She sentenced for the same incident but for DE rather than CH. The previous sentence was for CH bordering on DE and now it's DE.

Why would we expect a big change in the jail time?

The 15 years is a minimum unless there are particular circumstances in mitigation and clearly mistaking Reeva for an intruder fits that.

 

[KarenUK]

A couple of good articles from The Telegraph, apologies if they have already been posted

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/li...eluded-if-he-thinks-murdered-reeva-would-wan/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/li...-pistorius-show-is-over---lets-remember-what/

"Six years. Six years for a woman’s life. Or to put it another way, 2,190 days. Or 52,560 hours"

 

[Tortoise]

Tortoise, you'll feel better when you watch the video, I think.

I can post you some virtual leaves. :autumn:

Sherbert - 100% agree with your post above. Arrogance staggers me. Something else she obv. shares with HER victim, OP

Thanks, Wardle was worth watching. She made all the points - and the public are entitled to their opinions. Shockingly inappropriate sentence. I agree with her about Masipa's "stunt", saying more or less go to the SCA.

 

[Marfa Lights]

But how did she ignore the SCA?

She sentenced for the same incident but for DE rather than CH. The previous sentence was for CH bordering on DE and now it's DE.

Why would we expect a big change in the jail time?

The 15 years is a minimum unless there are particular circumstances in mitigation and clearly mistaking Reeva for an intruder fits that.

I think you and Masipa are both misunderstanding mitigating factors-- that he supposedly mistook Reeva for an intruder would be relevant to the nature of the crime and the determination of guilt and a verdict. Dragging it back in as a mitigating factor in sentencing to somehow show his reduced blameworthiness is inappropriate and buttering the bread a bit much IMO. That's already been factored into the verdict and does not introduce any new substantial and compelling factor for consideration in sentencing.

It's been argued before, but the SCA did not find he thought there was an intruder in the toilet cubicle, they said he had no way of knowing who the hell was in there. And he murdered them. Now Masipa wants to give him 9 years off because SHE still believes his story about an intruder.

 

[akp]

My thoughts exactly.

What stood out for me yesterday was Masipa's palpable and arrogant disdain for the general public. Imo, she was hellbent on punishing the public, not Pistorius.

What she appears completely to have forgotten is that, as a public servant, it was her duty to deliver a sentence that instilled public confidence in the judiciary. Adopting Lemon Mousse's phraseology, the public is entitled to feel that the judicial system recognises that Reeva's life mattered. Instead, the message delivered yesterday is quite the opposite and, as a result, public confidence in the competence of the South African judiciary has been ripped to shreds for the second time.

Masipa said something about it being her duty to correct the public misconception that Pistorius had deliberately killed Reeva. Why start concerning herself with what the public may or may not misconceive when she has taken such pains to emphasise elsewhere that public opinion should play no role in her sentencing? She cannot possibly think that by delivering a sentence nine years less than the prescribed minimum, the public is going to learn its lesson and respond by saying...'We stand corrected - we must have got it wrong, after all - otherwise, Judge Masipa would definitely have given him a longer sentence.'

She should have focused on precedent and the judgement of the SCA, rather than permit her own personal hostility towards the public she exists to serve intrude on her duty to provide an appropriate sentence.

Very well said.
She basically labelled everyone differing from her verdict as `public', so very convenient for her, isn't it.
Somebody should go tell her that even school kids are capable of much better reasoning than her - so no wonder that the `public', which also includes SCA judges in this case, will disagree with her.

After the original trial, while speculating on the possible reasons behind the ridiculous document that she came up with called her verdict, at least there were two unknown factors, the two assessors, their roles in it. This time, there is no one else - she alone is responsible for whatever she has come up with. I am beginning to think that she, or such judges, are much more of a danger to the society in the long term than a normal criminal can ever be.

 

[mrjitty]

My thoughts exactly.

What stood out for me yesterday was Masipa's palpable and arrogant disdain for the general public. Imo, she was hellbent on punishing the public, not Pistorius.

What she appears completely to have forgotten is that, as a public servant, it was her duty to deliver a sentence that instilled public confidence in the judiciary. Adopting Lemon Mousse's phraseology, the public is entitled to feel that the judicial system recognises that Reeva's life mattered. Instead, the message delivered yesterday is quite the opposite and, as a result, public confidence in the competence of the South African judiciary has been ripped to shreds for the second time.

Masipa said something about it being her duty to correct the public misconception that Pistorius had deliberately killed Reeva. Why start concerning herself with what the public may or may not misconceive when she has taken such pains to emphasise elsewhere that public opinion should play no role in her sentencing? She cannot possibly think that by delivering a sentence nine years less than the prescribed minimum, the public is going to learn its lesson and respond by saying...'We stand corrected - we must have got it wrong, after all - otherwise, Judge Masipa would definitely have given him a longer sentence.'

She should have focused on precedent and the judgement of the SCA, rather than permit her own personal hostility towards the public she exists to serve intrude on her duty to provide an appropriate sentence.

Agreed.

But as we know she is weak on legal analysis and reasoning.

 

[mrjitty]

It's been argued before, but the SCA did not find he thought there was an intruder in the toilet cubicle, they said he had no way of knowing who the hell was in there. And he murdered them. Now Masipa wants to give him 9 years off because SHE still believes his story about an intruder.

Exactly.

And the point of departure is 15 years.

One does not get to consider a sentence de novo or from a point of departure for CH

Every year discounted must be justified by a compelling mitigating factor.

The Judge did not have jurisdiction from the Legislature to simply impose what she considered a fair sentence.

 

[akp]

Agreed.

But as we know she is weak on legal analysis and reasoning.

From whatever we saw of her in this trial, `weak' is a gross understatement here!

 

[Marfa Lights]

Depressing indeed...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-lenient-sentence_us_577d1cf3e4b09b4c43c1c17b

 

[cottonweaver]

Depressing indeed...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-lenient-sentence_us_577d1cf3e4b09b4c43c1c17b

Agree , depressing - she is reigniting very volatile issues in SA, as well as elsewhere, about gender, race & power. It matters not a jot that D. Violence was not proven in terms of the impact of her leniency and we haven't got into the issues of dangerous precedent really yet.

On positive note this other link someone posted ....... take heart Marfa.

In it Adv. Hoffman says he also thinks this would be termed "shockingly light.", the appealable green-light phrase.

http://www.enca.com/media/video/pistoriuss-six-year-jail-term-is-unduly-generous-hoffman

 

[Hazy]

http://repository.up.ac.za/dspace/b...e_Sentencing(2012).pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Scroll down to page 9. - Sentencing for scheduled offences : Murder

 

[soozieqtips]

Depressing indeed...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-lenient-sentence_us_577d1cf3e4b09b4c43c1c17b

Yes it is. And when star-struck judges like Masipa make a point of protecting violent murderers while dismissing the victim and their families, it's not hard to see why violence against women in SA never gets any better.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Sentencing guidelines also stated admission of guilt as a condition for mitigating sentence.
But Masipa also cautioned that just because the "accused" is untruthful does not mean you can't believe him.

Masipa is technically correct when she says because the "accused" is untruthful does not mean you can't believe him. It's a fact that most accused lie to a greater or lesser extent when on trial and the criminal justice system knows this. Sometimes it may be a case of embroidering (tailoring) the truth so it doesn't sound quite so bad. This was a murder trial where the accused lied all the way through it, never took the court into his confidence, never gave even a semblance of truth as to what happened, and of course had multiple versions. I think she stretched the boundaries to breaking point ... no the boundaries snapped IMO, well, they did for me. Virtually no-one believed him. If someone tells so many huge lies, how do you know what to believe. He came home, had a bath or a shower, had dinner and later killed her. What else did he tell us that we believe is the truth?

 

[Hope4More]

I am feeling a bit the same. If the law doesn't catch up with him, life will, or at least I would like to think so. Reeva is dead and as they say, nothing will bring her back. He has his life, but what kind of life will it be? Viewed by most people as a deliberate murderer, shunned by all but a few 'fans' who can offer him nothing more than balloons, platitudes and feel good self-help quotes via twitter and facebook, having to face a public who will largely scorn him if and when he ventures out while they point and whisper and stare. He would be used to that, but as a paralympian, not a pariah. Unless he is totally amoral he will live with a weight on his conscience. He can control his life, but not his nightmares. He may marry, have kids etc, but there will always be the albatross of 'murderer!' around his neck and that dead weight will remain for the rest of his life. IMO, and believing he fired in full knowledge of who was in that cubicle, he would have been better to fess up, plead for mercy and forgiveness and live the rest of his life with some dignity. But he didn't and so he has none and most people who give him any thought despise him and always will. Winner or loser? I'd say the latter.

<modsnip>

Well said. I agree with all of this, except I don't believe he knew he was shooting Reeva, not an intruder.

OP, IMO, did hoist himself on his own petard at trial, by refusing to accept any responsibility for deciding to fire his gun at an unseen intruder.


As an aside, I'm willing to bet there would be minimal outrage at best, and probably none at all, though, if it had been an intruder OP killed, even given the exact same circumstances.

 

[soozieqtips]

Masipa is technically correct when she says because the "accused" is untruthful does not mean you can't believe him. It's a fact that most accused lie to a greater or lesser extent when on trial and the criminal justice system knows this. Sometimes it may be a case of embroidering (tailoring) the truth so it doesn't sound quite so bad. This was a murder trial where the accused lied all the way through it, never took the court into his confidence, never gave even a semblance of truth as to what happened, and of course had multiple versions. I think she stretched the boundaries to breaking point ... no the boundaries snapped IMO, well, they did for me. Virtually no-one believed him. If someone tells so many huge lies, how do you know what to believe. He came home, had a bath or a shower, had dinner and later killed her. What else did he tell us that we believe is the truth?

He was a compulsive liar on the stand who tripped himself up over and over as the lies / change of versions were spilling out so fast he couldn't remember what he'd said. Fortunately, Nel was always able to quote from the record so managed to point out his lies one by one. Masipa has chosen to pick and choose which lies to believe (how do you even do that with a compulsive liar) and has made it clear to the world that violence against women is considered a minor crime and that her sympathies lie with murderers when they have 'fallen' from grace.

 

[Marfa Lights]

He was a compulsive liar on the stand who tripped himself up over and over as the lies / change of versions were spilling out so fast he couldn't remember what he'd said. Fortunately, Nel was always able to quote from the record so managed to point out his lies one by one. Masipa has chosen to pick and choose which lies to believe (how do you even do that with a compulsive liar) and has made it clear to the world that violence against women is considered a minor crime and that her sympathies lie with murderers when they have 'fallen' from grace.

"Fallen Hero"-- she said.

 

[lithgow1]

Well said. I agree with all of this, except I don't believe he knew he was shooting Reeva, not an intruder.

OP, IMO, did hoist himself on his own petard at trial, by refusing to accept any responsibility for deciding to fire his gun at an unseen intruder.


As an aside, I'm willing to bet there would be minimal outrage at best, and probably none at all, though, if it had been an intruder OP killed, even given the exact same circumstances.

Thank you. I'd like to point out, from my position of believing him guilty of DD, that had he confessed then my attitude towards him would be nowhere near as negative as it is. And all that I said in that post, I wish for him and I am not a vengeful person. Had he owned up, then all I would have wanted was an appropriate punishment and then for him to move on and make something of the rest of his life. I may have even wished him well. But as things stand, I can't have any compassion for him. I know you will see this differently as you believe his version, but when one doesn't, his refusal to accept responsibility and tell the truth is much more galling.

Re the intruder hypothetical. Yes, I think the outrage would have been much less. The degree perhaps depends on what country and culture you are from. Perhaps South Africans, with the high incidence of robberies, and the USA, with its gun culture, would have been more understanding. For many Australians I think there would have been more disquiet at someone's 'right' to just shoot an intruder without even knowing who they are as we don't have the guns or the 'stand your ground` laws. But generally, yep, I agree with the 'intruder' hypothetical in your example.