Trial Discussion Thread #59 - 14.21.10, Day 48 ~ sentencing~

[RosieC]

BBM .. the problem is that justice isn't about satisfying the victims, it's about a number of things .. it's about being a deterrant, it's about setting (or rather 'not') setting precedents, it's about making sure society does not take the law into it's own hands. I know that June herself just wants the truth and not vengence and I can totally understand and appreciate that .. and god bless her and all her family for what they've been through .. but that's not what the justice system is all about at the end of the day, that is only part of it. My real worry now is that men will think they can do what they like with women, treat them appallingly, shoot them if they want to or if they've had a bad day, then make up some *advertiser censored* and bull story, and just get away with a few months in prison. That's just not on in my book.

I've been thinking about why the Pistorius case matters so much to me.

It is because a man shot and killed his partner in a moment of rage and hubris, and now as far as the law is concerned, it didn't happen. DV is brushed under the carpet.

It is because a one-time hero has been protected from this ugly truth about himself being recognised, and his family is indignant that it is raised. A man with anger issues certainly, and possibly deeper psychiatric issues, is defined as an anxious man now in mourning for a woman he loved. I cannot understand any of the psychiatric assessments he had. How can someone come to terms with and deal with what he actually did if he invented a more "respectable" crime for himself?

It is above all because a lie is now reported as the truth. This is bad for justice - the verdict is a nonsense - how can it serve as precedent for other cases? And it is perversion of our sense of reason.

It is not about June Steenkamp. She is happy with the verdict, and that is a personal decision for her.

I am prepared to accept that a person is found not guilty because the case against him is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But I am not prepared to accept a "story" that is an obvious lie, because a judge who is a trier of fact declares that it is a fact. It was a trial of smoke and mirrors and a judgment deficient in analysis and reasoning.

I am not South African, but the judiciary took a very bold decision to broadcast the trial live, so that justice could be seen to be done. All that happened is it was seen not to be done.

 

[believe09]

My feelings are that bias played a big part in this trial, from the missing evidence, to the dismissal of the PT witnesses evidence, all of which allowed a reliance on the timeline. When left with circumstantial evidence it's much easier to fit this into any bias held by the decision makers.

This is SA and I believe that JM found it to be irreconcilable, the idea of a privileged white man in his prime, a celebrity sportsman from a wealthy, educated family having to cope with a prison environment. He just would not fit in would he? How can such a man rot in prison with the other riffraff? For JM it had to have been a mistake, a one off, and would never happen again.

JM ignored the question of whether he is a dangerous man despite the other offences he committed with a gun. The not guilty of firing through the sunroof despite 2 witnesses saying he did. I believe he did fire, as it would have been typical of his character. That and the firing a gun at the restaurant could each have resulted in someone being injured, or even killed. Then there are the altercations with other people, the tantrums and the boat incident. All of these in my opinion makes him dangerous, a loose canon.

I am way behind on the thread but I want to comment on this-he amply demonstrated that he is a very dangerous man. This judge continued with the mixed message for sure-weren't there the same number of witnesses for both events? smh. He loves guns. He loves to shoot guns. Clearly they make him feel like more of a man/person than he actually is. That would be some miraculous counseling/treatment if they manage to turn that lust for weapons around.

What made me ill was the idea that he should be in the community counseling vulnerable children. In fact it made my blood run cold. There are no lessons to be learned from him at the present time except that he is a killer. JMO

 

[believe09]

I agree RosieC. There is not a complicated motive for this crime, and yet the motive went poof because of inept police work or bias or whatever. The motive was his desire to have the ultimate control over his partner and he succeeded. That just makes him cookie cutter-nothing special and certainly nothing noble in any way. This should have been the Reeva story but then again it never is...brings me right back to OJ and how it was all about him.

 

[Madeleine74]

Five years is a semi-acceptable result when so many of us (myself included) didn't think he'd see a single day in jail. But 10 months is just insulting. I realise Reeva's parents accept the sentence, but as you say, what about other potential murderers? They'll feel easier now about shooting their partner through a door, or hovering by the bed on their way back from the toilet. I imagine there are many many potential murderers out there who would think 10 months in jail is a very fair exchange for killing their partner. Masipa could have avoided this by handing down a minimum, rather than a maximum term.

It won't work for the common man or woman. This sentence is for O.P. and I bet anyone else who attempted a similar crime would find themselves in prison for a longer period of time than the 10 months or so that O.P. will ultimately serve.

 

[Sherbert]

The court in its judgment did find OP intentionally shot in putative self defence.

It didn't make a finding as to whether his mistaken beliefs were reasonable, but it did make a finding that he took steps in response to his mistaken beliefs which the reasonable man would not have done as he would have foreseen the possibility of unlawfully killing the person behind the door as a consequence.

This properly constitutes culpable homicide, and was not contradicted in the sentencing judgment.

(Please be assured I'm not picking on you mrjitty, I do always reply when I feel something significant is not quite right)

Pandax, I was so surprised to learn from one of your posts that you're not a lawyer. I enjoy reading your posts very much because you're invariably so accurate on the legal aspects of this case.

 

[jilly]

I was disturbed by Judge Masipa's comments here. I hope her comments are scrutinized by her peers.

Me too. Why say anything at all if that's all you have to say. Unreal.

 

[Greater Than]

After Masipa's reasoning behind her verdict, I understand the thought process of those who are pleased with today's outcome because they expected no jail time at all, but I'm sorry, that's a cop-out..not justice. When sentencing for CH is 0-15 based on the level of negligence and aggravating factors, how much more negligent can one be? What are the actions of someone who would get 6-15? Five years for pumping a trapped defenseless woman's body with three black talon bullets is incomprehensible to me.

But then it gets worse? Masipa gives him a sentence dressed up as 5 years with no suspension, when in actuality it's under some subsection that allows him the possibility of being paroled after a mere 10 months?!! Disgraceful!

That said, Reeva's parents accepting the sentence is understandable to me. They want closure, they NEED closure...and no one can fault them for that. They had to sit through 7 months of hearing from the PT how their daughter was tragically executed, and from the DT how the man who executed her is a victim himself and should not be held accountable. Reeva deserved far better justice IMO, but true to form, her parents accepted the court's decisions with grace, dignity, and class. They are the type who should be admired and regarded as an inspiration to the citizens of SA, not some self-righteous trigger-happy athlete with deep pockets. MOO

 

[Sherbert]

The Steenkamps: While I feel sorry for them for the loss of their daughter, I also feel sorry that they have been okay with accepting money all this time from the Pistorius clan. And I wonder if the promise of ongoing money is some of the reason they are so "okay with" the sentencing.

Bolded and snipped by me...

I applaud your honesty regarding your feelings over the money; but, at the same time, I feel that they're 'okay' with the sentencing because they need this to be over now, for the sake of their health and sanity.

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29700457
BBC NEWS Africa
21 October 2014 Last updated at 14:44
Oscar Pistorius given five years for Reeva Steenkamp death

At the scene: Andrew Harding, BBC News, Pretoria
"... It seems the athlete probably knew his sentence beforehand, which helps explains the subdued atmosphere in court today"...

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29712728
BBC NEWS Africa
21 October 2014
Oscar Pistorius begins jail sentence for Reeva Steenkamp death
Police van believed to be carrying Oscar Pistorius arrives at Pretoria prison - 21 October

"Judge Masipa said she considered her sentence "fair and just, both to society and to the accused"...
She said Pistorius had made an "enormous contribution to society", in his charity work and in changing the public perception of disability,
But "It would be a sad day for this country if an impression were to be created that there was one law for the poor and disadvantaged, and another for the rich and famous."

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29712728
BBC NEWS Africa
21 October 2014
Oscar Pistorius begins jail sentence for Reeva Steenkamp death

"...the Women's League of South Africa's ruling African National Congress said it did plan to appeal.
"We're doing this not only for Reeva but for the millions of South African women who are killed at the hands of their partners, people who are supposed to protect them," said spokeswoman Khsuela Sangoni.
"A five-year sentence like this sends a message to society that it is fine to commit such heinous crimes as femicide, and you will be able to get away with a slap on the wrist."

 

[soozieqtips]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29712728
BBC NEWS Africa
21 October 2014
Oscar Pistorius begins jail sentence for Reeva Steenkamp death
Police van believed to be carrying Oscar Pistorius arrives at Pretoria prison - 21 October

"Judge Masipa said she considered her sentence "fair and just, both to society and to the accused"...
She said Pistorius had made an "enormous contribution to society", in his charity work and in changing the public perception of disability,

But "It would be a sad day for this country if an impression were to be created that there was one law for the poor and disadvantaged, and another for the rich and famous."

BIB - Well, it IS a sad day for SA because an impression has been created that there is one law for the poor and disadvantaged, and another for the rich and famous. Masipa knew when she spouted that claptrap, that he'd be eligible for release after a measly 10 months.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Don't think this has been posted yet - it's an interesting read.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/21/oscar-pistorius-fall-from-grace-south-africa

A UK doc said, "This is more important? amazing? than a man walking on the moon."

How RIGHT he is. I never thought I'd live to see the day.

AMAZING!!! Just AMAZING!!

 

[ColonelMustard]

Wow. So much.

...

I suppose we should all be grateful he is not going into the same system as Joran Vandersloot which allowed him to impregnate a woman while incarcerated.

I haven't heard anything about whether this facility and/or OP's sentence allows conjugal visits.

Anyone know?

 

[lonetraveler]

This judge is a total disgrace and should be ashamed to wear the robe. She has proven that the rich and famous can indeed get away with cold blooded murder. She should be disbarred.

 

[ColonelMustard]

But you missed the other part of my post, there are many that did agree with her verdict. Unfortunately, its not a majority rule. The PT can appeal if they have the appetite for it.

The issue is an error of law, which goes beyond people agreeing or disagreeing with Masipa's verdict, per se.

 

[RosieC]

The court in its judgment did find OP intentionally shot in putative self defence.

It didn't make a finding as to whether his mistaken beliefs were reasonable, but it did make a finding that he took steps in response to his mistaken beliefs which the reasonable man would not have done as he would have foreseen the possibility of unlawfully killing the person behind the door as a consequence.

This properly constitutes culpable homicide, and was not contradicted in the sentencing judgment.

(Please be assured I'm not picking on you mrjitty, I do always reply when I feel something significant is not quite right)

I agree with you that the court found that Oscar shot in putative self defence. It did not make a finding as to whether his mistaken beliefs were reasonable, but it did make a finding that he had those beliefs and they motivated his shooting, in other words, that his version was reasonably possibly true, or even stronger, that it was true.

To do this, JM had to accept the ludicrousness of his version. e.g. Oscar knew Reeva was awake, so before drawing the curtains and plunging himself in total darkness, why wouldn't he have said "Angel do you mind switching on your bedside light so that I can draw the curtains and see my way to move the fans and avoid tripping over the extension cords and put your jeans on that LED light that is bothering me before getting into bed?"

JM also had to reject strong evidence which contradicted his version, including expert witness testimony, e.g. Mangena's analysis that Reeva's body fell after shot 1, so later shots hit her repositioned body, hence a beat between shots 1 and the later shots. According to Masipa, he shot very quickly so she could not have screamed, contrary to what Prof Saayman testified and Mangena implied.

All this makes about as much sense to me as a creationist rejecting palaeontology. A judge is required to reason through all the evidence. Masipa accepted that Oscar didn't intend to kill because he aimed low, but she didn't explain how or why Oscar thought that the person was upright so that aiming low would avoid killing. She accepted it because Oscar said so.

Oscar's version was all over the place. Masipa's Judgment was all over the place. I'm not sure what you picked on mrjitty about, but if you want to pick on me because this is not quite right, you are most welcome.

 

[ColonelMustard]

I saw him on TV after the sentencing today. He said it was not fair for OP. They asked him: "What about fairness for the Steenkamps?" He said: "I’m not talking about the Steenkamps".

That's either the most idiotic thing I've ever heard or the guy is a profound philosopher.

 

[ColonelMustard]

BIB. I'm male, this trial hasn't made me consider treating my wife badly or getting a gun and using the Pistorius defence.

There will always be a segment of society that will be prone to fits of anger and violence, but if they strive for the Pistorius defence, it's very unlikely that it would be successful for most defendants. The reason behind this is Pistorius was lucky in that he had his disability, superb lawyers, media support and many more things that allowed him to push his version forward.

The average Joe wouldn't.

I can't imaging the average Joe saying the police tampered with the scene, I scream like a woman, I had a startle but I also shot in defence of myself and my GF. It just wouldn't fly.

Your wife is very fortunate to have a husband like you. ( If she doesn't realize that or tell you often enough, let her know that I/we, here at WS, understand that she is!!)

 

[Greater Than]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29712728
BBC NEWS Africa
21 October 2014
Oscar Pistorius begins jail sentence for Reeva Steenkamp death
Police van believed to be carrying Oscar Pistorius arrives at Pretoria prison - 21 October

"Judge Masipa said she considered her sentence "fair and just, both to society and to the accused"...
She said Pistorius had made an "enormous contribution to society", in his charity work and in changing the public perception of disability,
But "It would be a sad day for this country if an impression were to be created that there was one law for the poor and disadvantaged, and another for the rich and famous."

And the victim? What about the victim?!!

Neither fair nor just.