Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 7.6.2016

[Cloen]

I am not a lawyer but I've been involved in two federal cases that I had to appeal. The appeals cost next to nothing because it is just using what is on the record, as opposed to the trial that involves tremendous work and expense to create. Compare it to producing a movie versus grabbing a few clips from that same two hour production to make a YouTube video.

i suppose it's a case of how they cost it in SA . There is probably many more reasons why the NPA could be motivated to Appeal than we are aware of too, if the list is reasonably extensive , let's hope this happens. In the words of Nel " I am not going to go away" , let's hope he doesn't

 

[Viper]

So if Oscar has 6 years. Then he should be out in 1 year right?

Because he had 5 years and was out in 1. So this means only 1 more year before going back on parole. Yes or no ?

That depends on who you ask and what day of the week it is. But the concensus seems to be that he will need to serve three years before becoming eligible for parole, and parole is certainly not a given; besides OP has three years to screw up, I give him one before he makes a serious violation.

His previous sentence has no impact on this new one and his one year release on that sentence is not available with this new one. Also, we still don't know if the State will appeal. If they do, he is probably going to be in the infirmary for a lot longer than 3-6 years.

 

[Sherbert]

I have read somewhere in discussion of SA sentencing guidelines that the judge has so much leeway that if they find that imposing the minimum prescribed sentence would in and of itself present an injustice, then that alone constitutes a compelling and substantial circumstance.

The legislation might have just as well said it was a "suggested" minimum sentence.

I really worry that the State faces an uphill battle in appealing her sentence of 6 years. They need to do it though.

Marfa, please see para15 at the following link:

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2016/129.pdf

It's a reference to the 2004 SCA case of S v Swart and states that serious crimes will usually require retribution and deterrence to take precedence over rehabilitation.

 

[Viper]

i suppose it's a case of how they cost it in SA . There is probably many more reasons why the NPA could be motivated to Appeal than we are aware of too, if the list is reasonably extensive , let's hope this happens. In the words of Nel " I am not going to go away" , let's hope he doesn't

The cost factors should be the same. A trial takes years of discovery and hundreds to thousands of hours of work, even before it begins, and then there is the trial, very expensive. Appeals take hours, perhaps a week to prepare using materials already on the record and case law, not expensive at all. And then just the attorneys argue their briefs for a short time before the appellate court.

 

[Cloen]

I am not a lawyer but I've been involved in two federal cases that I had to appeal. The appeals cost next to nothing because it is just using what is on the record, as opposed to the trial that involves tremendous work and expense to create. Compare it to producing a movie versus grabbing a few clips from that same two hour production to make a YouTube video.

i suppose it's a case of how they cost it in SA . There is probably many more reasons why the NPA could be motivated to Appeal than we are aware of too, if the list is reasonably extensive , let's hope this happens. In the words of Nel " I am not going to go away" , let's hope he doesn't

 

[Cloen]

Marfa, please see para15 at the following link:

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2016/129.pdf

It's a reference to the 2004 SCA case of S v Swart and states that serious crimes will usually require retribution and deterrence to take precedence over rehabilitation.

so this could effectively make it more difficult to Appeal, because its up to the individual Judge as its so subjective as to whether the Judge thinks remorse was enough ? she said he was a good candidate for rehabilitation and took into account he'd successfully completed courses while in prison for CH. If i'm am understanding this correctly.

 

[Cloen]

That depends on who you ask and what day of the week it is. But the concensus seems to be that he will need to serve three years before becoming eligible for parole, and parole is certainly not a given; besides OP has three years to screw up, I give him one before he makes a serious violation.

His previous sentence has no impact on this new one and his one year release on that sentence is not available with this new one. Also, we still don't know if the State will appeal. If they do, he is probably going to be in the infirmary for a lot longer than 3-6 years.

this is not what Brenda Wardle was saying in a recent tweet, she said it's up to the Judge to clarify if the sentence she's given him starts from his first conviction, or whether its afresh starting with his most recent conviction of Murder - Masipa did not clarify this in Court, and Roux didn't clarify. Here this is from her twitter , it's been talked about a lot last few days.........

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/oscar-pistorius-cpa-provisions-which-provide-amendment-brenda-wardle

Section 298 of the CPA provides for the correcting of a sentence in instances where a court mistakenly passes a wrong sentence. This section allows the court to immediately before or after the sentence is recorded, to amend it. In instances where there is an issue with antedating of the sentence, these are provisions usually relied upon by the court to either confirm the date of sentence as the latest one in time or to antedate such sentence to a previous date. Unfortunately this is something that must be attended to sooner rather than later

The above can only be clarified by the Judge who passed the sentence = Judge Masipa

 

[Viper]

this is not what Brenda Wardle was saying in a recent tweet, she said it's up to the Judge to clarify if the sentence she's given him starts from his first conviction, or whether its afresh starting with his most recent conviction of Murder - Masipa did not clarify this in Court, and Roux didn't clarify. Here this is from her twitter , it's been talked about a lot last few days.........

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/oscar-pistorius-cpa-provisions-which-provide-amendment-brenda-wardle

Section 298 of the CPA provides for the correcting of a sentence in instances where a court mistakenly passes a wrong sentence. This section allows the court to immediately before or after the sentence is recorded, to amend it. In instances where there is an issue with antedating of the sentence, these are provisions usually relied upon by the court to either confirm the date of sentence as the latest one in time or to antedate such sentence to a previous date. Unfortunately this is something that must be attended to sooner rather than later

The above can only be clarified by the Judge who passed the sentence = Judge Masipa

Yea, I know, that's why I said that it depends on who you ask. Brenda follows me on twitter and I just only asked her a rather obvious question to get her follow, seems a bit shallow. Anyway the following former prosecutor and judge sees it differently, you'll have to read through his tweets; three years plus.


Marius du Toit
@ mariusdutoit
Centurion

 

[soozieqtips]

Makes me wonder if Masipa herself was ever abused by a man, as she seemed so desensitised to what Reeva was going through with that volatile lunatic who ended up murdering her. Anyway, she stuck 2 fingers up at Nel and dared him to appeal. Let's hope he does. He's fought a very long very hard battle to get this far and to see it all fall apart because of a judge who couldn't keep her personal bias out of it would be a real shame. All this long drawn-out battle for a flipping extra year? Could she have slapped Reeva's parents any harder in the face? Plus, if it wasn't for her flawed judgement in the first place (accompanied by a pitifully light sentence) the state probably wouldn't have appealed and the murderer wouldn't have been able to enjoy 8 months living at the manse. Masipa is directly responsible for adding to the Steenkamps distress. There's 'not a shred' of evidence she has any sympathy for them whatsoever, but she has plenty for the murderer?

 

[DexterMorgan]

That depends on who you ask and what day of the week it is. But the concensus seems to be that he will need to serve three years before becoming eligible for parole, and parole is certainly not a given; besides OP has three years to screw up, I give him one before he makes a serious violation.

His previous sentence has no impact on this new one and his one year release on that sentence is not available with this new one. Also, we still don't know if the State will appeal. If they do, he is probably going to be in the infirmary for a lot longer than 3-6 years.

Agree. Masipa is tricky. Jmo.

Ok we will give him 6 years which is only 1 year morethan the original sentence.

But she doesn't state if he only has to do an extra 1 year behind bars. Jmo.

 

[Sherbert]

so this could effectively make it more difficult to Appeal, because its up to the individual Judge as its so subjective as to whether the Judge thinks remorse was enough ? she said he was a good candidate for rehabilitation and took into account he'd successfully completed courses while in prison for CH. If i'm am understanding this correctly.

I think it assists us because Masipa - incorrectly - appears to have given priority to rehabilitation over retribution and deterrence. Also, other caselaw establishes that, as Pistorius didn't take the Court into his confidence, it wasn't open to Masipa to find remorse.

As Pandax points out, there are lots of reasons to appeal.

 

[Sherbert]

Makes me wonder if Masipa herself was ever abused by a man, as she seemed so desensitised to what Reeva was going through with that volatile lunatic who ended up murdering her. Anyway, she stuck 2 fingers up at Nel and dared him to appeal. Let's hope he does. He's fought a very long very hard battle to get this far and to see it all fall apart because of a judge who couldn't keep her personal bias out of it would be a real shame. All this long drawn-out battle for a flipping extra year? Could she have slapped Reeva's parents any harder in the face? Plus, if it wasn't for her flawed judgement in the first place (accompanied by a pitifully light sentence) the state probably wouldn't have appealed and the murderer wouldn't have been able to enjoy 8 months living at the manse. Masipa is directly responsible for adding to the Steenkamps distress. There's 'not a shred' of evidence she has any sympathy for them whatsoever, but she has plenty for the murderer?

I agree - her lack of empathy for the Steenkamps is decidedly odd.

 

[Cloen]

Yea, I know, that's why I said that it depends on who you ask. Brenda follows me on twitter and I just only asked her a rather obvious question to get her follow, seems a bit shallow. Anyway the following former prosecutor and judge sees it differently, you'll have to read through his tweets; three years plus.


Marius du Toit
@ mariusdutoit
Centurion

I will have a look at du Toit's tweets,
This wasn't clarified by Masipa on Sentencing day - so I assume it is still not known when the start date is to Masipa's Sentencing of 6 years for the Murder conviction in accordance with Section 298, unless this has been confirmed in her Judgement documentation ? She could state a start date for the Murder sentencing to begin from the date of the first conviction of CH, - she was so sympathetic and bias to Pistorius it wouldn't surprise me, and it is up to her as the Judge who sentenced him.

i've looked at Maruis du Toit's twitter

Marius du Toit ‏@mariusdutoit 17h17 hours ago
OP version was always the most plausible, but in my view it remained murder deserving jail time.. Maybe 10 years...#OscarPistorious

OP's version the most plausible ???? shock, i don't think so, he can't be serious, and which version of Pistorius' ?

 

[Viper]

Makes me wonder if Masipa herself was ever abused by a man, as she seemed so desensitised to what Reeva was going through with that volatile lunatic who ended up murdering her. Anyway, she stuck 2 fingers up at Nel and dared him to appeal. Let's hope he does. He's fought a very long very hard battle to get this far and to see it all fall apart because of a judge who couldn't keep her personal bias out of it would be a real shame. All this long drawn-out battle for a flipping extra year? Could she have slapped Reeva's parents any harder in the face? Plus, if it wasn't for her flawed judgement in the first place (accompanied by a pitifully light sentence) the state probably wouldn't have appealed and the murderer wouldn't have been able to enjoy 8 months living at the manse. Masipa is directly responsible for adding to the Steenkamps distress. There's 'not a shred' of evidence she has any sympathy for them whatsoever, but she has plenty for the murderer?

My take is this:

The State was rumored to be requiring an eight year term (in reality 4-8 years), whether it is true or not word spread. OP had served one year, Masipa gave him a term that required an additional minimum of three more years of incarceration. So bottom line, Masipa gave the State the four year sentence that they said they needed to walk away.

Public perception on the other hand...

:fireworks:

 

[Viper]

I will have a look at du Toit's tweets,
This wasn't clarified by Masipa on Sentencing day - so I assume it is still not known when the start date is to Masipa's Sentencing of 6 years for the Murder conviction in accordance with Section 298, unless this has been confirmed in her Judgement documentation ? She could state a start date for the Murder sentencing to begin from the date of the first conviction of CH, - she was so sympathetic and bias to Pistorius it wouldn't surprise me, and it is up to her as the Judge who sentenced him.

Brenda is messing with your head! Masipa is in enough trouble with her colleagues and her countrymen. What Brenda says COULD happen WONT happen. :smile:

 

[Cloen]

I think it assists us because Masipa - incorrectly - appears to have given priority to rehabilitation over retribution and deterrence. Also, other caselaw establishes that, as Pistorius didn't take the Court into his confidence, it wasn't open to Masipa to find remorse.

As Pandax points out, there are lots of reasons to appeal.

Apparently he didn't have to take the stand , but i think he should have too, but the Judge wasn't able to hold that against him just because he didn't make a plea to the Court for forgiveness, plead innocence etc, but of course anyone who's innocent would have used the opportunity with bells on. The get out he had was that Roux had him showing his 'vulnerability' playing the ace card of him wobbling about on his stumps,to gain sympathy. The Judge decided he had shown remorse and had tried to contact the Steenkamps to apologise , even though Nel pointed out that Pistorius only contacted the Steenkamps recently to the Sentencing Arguments

 

[Cloen]

Brenda is messing with your head! Masipa is in enough trouble with her colleagues and her countrymen. What Brenda says COULD happen WONT happen. :smile:

i'm not taken her that seriously but she's quoted a legal point,so when does Pistorius' 6 year sentence start ? from the 6 July ?
There were many questioning the start of the sentencing on twitter day of the Court Hearing , but many didn't know

 

[Cloen]

My take is this:

The State was rumored to be requiring an eight year term (in reality 4-8 years), whether it is true or not word spread. OP had served one year, Masipa gave him a term that required an additional minimum of three more years of incarceration. So bottom line, Masipa gave the State the four year sentence that they said they needed to walk away.

Public perception on the other hand...

:fireworks:

I think the State requiring min 8 years or they'd Appeal was not verified by anyone of any authority,but it did go round as being the Case, but rumours start etc......and Nel was pushing for 15 , so i doubt he'd have been ready to accept a sentence that low , i don't think anyone really knows for sure what the State would have been reasonably happy with.. .
We don't know for sure how long he'll serve in prison yet exactly, because when he's up for Parole after serving 1/3 of his sentence or thereabouts , he won't necessarily get Parole
UNLESS< it's infront of Judge Masipa again, but hopefully she'll have retired by then.

 

[Viper]

i'm not taken her that seriously but she's quoted a legal point,so when does Pistorius' 6 year sentence start ? from the 6 July ?
There were many questioning the start of the sentencing on twitter day of the Court Hearing , but many didn't know

It started the day that he entered the prison.

 

[Viper]

We don't know for sure , because when he's up for Parole after serving 1/3 of his sentence or thereabouts , he won't necessarily get it
UNLESS< it's infront of Judge Masipa again, but hopefully she'll have retired by then.

Cloen no offence but 1/2 is when he's up for parole. Why are you going with 1/3?