Colin de France
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 2,056
.....we can always pass the hat around .....
Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
.....we can always pass the hat around .....
D
Deleted member 102539
Guest
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/docume...il&utm_term=0_a86f25db99-1c21f7973f-140194665
57] Before closing, it is necessary to make a final comment. The trial was conducted in the glare of international attention and the focus of television cameras which must have added to the inherently heavy rigors that are brought to bear upon trial courts in conducting lengthy and complicated trials. The trial judge conducted the hearing with a degree of dignity and patience that is a credit to the judiciary. The fact that this court has determined that certain mistakes were made should not be seen as an adverse comment upon her competence and ability. The fact is that different judges reach different conclusions and, in the light of an appeal structure, those of the appellate court prevail. But the fact that the appeal has succeeded is not to be regarded as a slight upon the trial judge who is to be congratulated for the manner in which she conducted the proceedings.
bbm
:gaah:
57] Before closing, it is necessary to make a final comment. The trial was conducted in the glare of international attention and the focus of television cameras which must have added to the inherently heavy rigors that are brought to bear upon trial courts in conducting lengthy and complicated trials. The trial judge conducted the hearing with a degree of dignity and patience that is a credit to the judiciary. The fact that this court has determined that certain mistakes were made should not be seen as an adverse comment upon her competence and ability. The fact is that different judges reach different conclusions and, in the light of an appeal structure, those of the appellate court prevail. But the fact that the appeal has succeeded is not to be regarded as a slight upon the trial judge who is to be congratulated for the manner in which she conducted the proceedings.
bbm
:gaah:
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 27,264
I use adblock so no ads at all thank goodness!
D
Deleted member 102539
Guest
Not yet, but I know the problem especially with the Pistorius thread.
For me 7!
I get half the page load - and then its pulling ads and trackers - then i get the rest of the page
LemonMousse
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 939
- Reaction score
- 9,337
Maybe we have to give Masipa a break....I know, I know, bear with me!
Without exception, every single lawyer commenting is saying that not only do all judges make mistakes, it is expected...hence the SCA which is just part of the same process. Every one of those five judges yesterday would have had their own judgements (when they were in the High Court) appealed and overturned too - probably multiple times.
Law is a human endeavour and human beings make mistakes all the time. We need to make mistakes so that we can rectify them and then learn...which is what's happened here. Obviously, given how many legal bods were saying she was correct there has long been some kind of confusion over DE which has now been clarified. More importantly, the requirements of a PPD defence have been laid out with no ambiguity......you may NOT shoot anyone just because they are in your home. In a country with so many guns this message has to be driven home in flashing neon lights.
Anyway, what I'm driving at is that I think there is reason to be optimistic regarding sentencing. Masipa will have to approach it from a new perspective......that Pistorius shot with no genuine belief that his life was in danger. She might not personally agree, but that's not the issue....and I don't think she'll make it the issue.
She will be sentencing a man who shot another human being four times without any justification at all. That's what the SCA found and she'll have to take that as her starting position. She didn't seem to give much truck to the whining social worker who tried to claim that Pistorius shouldn't be jailed because his disability. In fact, she was very scathing of her and wrote off her evidence entirely.
And since most legal people have said that 5 years was the correct(ish) sentence for a man convicted of CH who had an accepted defence of PPD, then can we not hope that this time she'll give the correct(ish) sentence for a convicted murderer who killed without justification?
I'll keep everything crossed.
I hope he doesn't get bail next week. Why should he? Is it normal for convicted murderers to be bailed between verdict and sentencing? It's not like a custodial sentence is in any doubt, no matter what they bring in mitigation. And he's hardly covered himself in glory given behaviour when he was last on bail. Also, he himself has said he can be suicidal - so that's another reason to bring him into custody.
Bloody ridiculous that he gets to spend Christmas bouncing babies on his knee (if there are cameras around).
Nope - the man with the big, white beard (Santa Leach) delivered Pistorius his prezzie yesterday. He needs to go and collect it
Without exception, every single lawyer commenting is saying that not only do all judges make mistakes, it is expected...hence the SCA which is just part of the same process. Every one of those five judges yesterday would have had their own judgements (when they were in the High Court) appealed and overturned too - probably multiple times.
Law is a human endeavour and human beings make mistakes all the time. We need to make mistakes so that we can rectify them and then learn...which is what's happened here. Obviously, given how many legal bods were saying she was correct there has long been some kind of confusion over DE which has now been clarified. More importantly, the requirements of a PPD defence have been laid out with no ambiguity......you may NOT shoot anyone just because they are in your home. In a country with so many guns this message has to be driven home in flashing neon lights.
Anyway, what I'm driving at is that I think there is reason to be optimistic regarding sentencing. Masipa will have to approach it from a new perspective......that Pistorius shot with no genuine belief that his life was in danger. She might not personally agree, but that's not the issue....and I don't think she'll make it the issue.
She will be sentencing a man who shot another human being four times without any justification at all. That's what the SCA found and she'll have to take that as her starting position. She didn't seem to give much truck to the whining social worker who tried to claim that Pistorius shouldn't be jailed because his disability. In fact, she was very scathing of her and wrote off her evidence entirely.
And since most legal people have said that 5 years was the correct(ish) sentence for a man convicted of CH who had an accepted defence of PPD, then can we not hope that this time she'll give the correct(ish) sentence for a convicted murderer who killed without justification?
I'll keep everything crossed.
I hope he doesn't get bail next week. Why should he? Is it normal for convicted murderers to be bailed between verdict and sentencing? It's not like a custodial sentence is in any doubt, no matter what they bring in mitigation. And he's hardly covered himself in glory given behaviour when he was last on bail. Also, he himself has said he can be suicidal - so that's another reason to bring him into custody.
Bloody ridiculous that he gets to spend Christmas bouncing babies on his knee (if there are cameras around).
Nope - the man with the big, white beard (Santa Leach) delivered Pistorius his prezzie yesterday. He needs to go and collect it
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 24,667
I only have the Websleuths Facebook Ad and True Crime Radio on the computer and on my Windows phone just one, a GiffGaff ad. Not my provider.
The following is from a radio interview with Mandy Wiener who has spoken to many legal eagles about what happens next.
Q. Why is OP being sent back to Masipa for sentencing after the SCA said her finding him guilty of CH was a fundamental error?
A. That’s the way the law works. Judges get it wrong every day. There are appeals and judgments are overturned. It will go back to the trial judge unless she’s deceased or incapacitated. It always goes back to the same judge. Even though she will now hear the whole new sentencing argument, OP can appeal the sentence. He can take the sentence on appeal to the SCA or he could decide to go to the Constitutional Court and can appeal the conviction and sentence there. There will be recourse for both sides if she gets it wrong again.
Q. A lot of people are saying this reflects badly on Judge Masipa and perhaps other High Court judges who get their sentencing wrong, but actually this is just the law at work and none of it is personal and sometimes a judge does err in interpreting the law or applying the facts properly. The SCA is then a check and balance.
A. Very much so. There are countless examples of very highly respected judges that have their rulings overturned. The SCA gets regularly overturned by the Constitutional Court, so it’s not unusual for that to happen.
Q. One other thing people are asking is what happens to OP in the interim between now and when Masipa re-sentences him?
A. I’ve spoken to just about every dodgy criminal lawyer about it. There’s differing legal opinion. What happened yesterday in that judgment, the original conviction and sentence was set aside. The conviction was replaced but there was no sentencing replaced. What they did was sent it back to the High Court for sentencing. So a lot of lawyers that I’ve spoken to say theoretically at the moment OP is actually a free man. He’s not serving correctional supervision because that sentence was aside but he could go out tonight and drink, theoretically, or he could go to Tasha’s for lunch. That could happen because he’s not strictly serving a sentence.
Q. But I’ve heard other opinions from other lawyers who say, “No, the current sentence holds until the new sentence is established.
A. Exactly. So there’s two differing views. There’s one view that says they need to issue a warrant again and have him re-arrested and he has to apply for bail, and then there’s a differing view from other lawyers who say, “The status quo remains, he’s currently busy serving the sentence of correctional supervision. That holds until the High Court hears all new sentencing again sometime next year, probably February, and a new sentence is put in place. So I think what is going to happen today is the Registrar of the High Court is going to have to take a look at Masipa’s original order and say, “How has this been affected?” and determine whether or not a warrant needs to be issued. Top legal minds – everyone that I’ve spoken to – no-one seems to actually know what’s going on because it’s unprecedented. It’s very unusual for someone to be released and then have to be sent back to prison again.
It continues on about mitigation at the next sentencing hearing but I think this is long enough as it is.
http://iono.fm/e/234120?utm_content...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I hope it's accurate. She speaks quickly and the accent doesn't help.
Q. Why is OP being sent back to Masipa for sentencing after the SCA said her finding him guilty of CH was a fundamental error?
A. That’s the way the law works. Judges get it wrong every day. There are appeals and judgments are overturned. It will go back to the trial judge unless she’s deceased or incapacitated. It always goes back to the same judge. Even though she will now hear the whole new sentencing argument, OP can appeal the sentence. He can take the sentence on appeal to the SCA or he could decide to go to the Constitutional Court and can appeal the conviction and sentence there. There will be recourse for both sides if she gets it wrong again.
Q. A lot of people are saying this reflects badly on Judge Masipa and perhaps other High Court judges who get their sentencing wrong, but actually this is just the law at work and none of it is personal and sometimes a judge does err in interpreting the law or applying the facts properly. The SCA is then a check and balance.
A. Very much so. There are countless examples of very highly respected judges that have their rulings overturned. The SCA gets regularly overturned by the Constitutional Court, so it’s not unusual for that to happen.
Q. One other thing people are asking is what happens to OP in the interim between now and when Masipa re-sentences him?
A. I’ve spoken to just about every dodgy criminal lawyer about it. There’s differing legal opinion. What happened yesterday in that judgment, the original conviction and sentence was set aside. The conviction was replaced but there was no sentencing replaced. What they did was sent it back to the High Court for sentencing. So a lot of lawyers that I’ve spoken to say theoretically at the moment OP is actually a free man. He’s not serving correctional supervision because that sentence was aside but he could go out tonight and drink, theoretically, or he could go to Tasha’s for lunch. That could happen because he’s not strictly serving a sentence.
Q. But I’ve heard other opinions from other lawyers who say, “No, the current sentence holds until the new sentence is established.
A. Exactly. So there’s two differing views. There’s one view that says they need to issue a warrant again and have him re-arrested and he has to apply for bail, and then there’s a differing view from other lawyers who say, “The status quo remains, he’s currently busy serving the sentence of correctional supervision. That holds until the High Court hears all new sentencing again sometime next year, probably February, and a new sentence is put in place. So I think what is going to happen today is the Registrar of the High Court is going to have to take a look at Masipa’s original order and say, “How has this been affected?” and determine whether or not a warrant needs to be issued. Top legal minds – everyone that I’ve spoken to – no-one seems to actually know what’s going on because it’s unprecedented. It’s very unusual for someone to be released and then have to be sent back to prison again.
It continues on about mitigation at the next sentencing hearing but I think this is long enough as it is.
http://iono.fm/e/234120?utm_content...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I hope it's accurate. She speaks quickly and the accent doesn't help.
Another article and another opinion on sentence.
The minimum sentence for a first offence of murder is 15 years’ imprisonment. This is the shortest sentence Pistorius can expect unless he can prove that there are “substantial and compelling circumstances” for a lesser sentence. But the court will need to be convinced that:
• his particular circumstances render the minimum prescribed sentence unjust; and
• it would be disproportionate to the crime, the accused’s personal circumstances and the needs of society.
But the court is unlikely to deviate from the minimum prescribed sentence lightly. Whatever sentence Pistorius gets, he will, at the very least, serve two-thirds of it.
http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/124f0d804ad03cdabd36bf2f1282c98c/-
The minimum sentence for a first offence of murder is 15 years’ imprisonment. This is the shortest sentence Pistorius can expect unless he can prove that there are “substantial and compelling circumstances” for a lesser sentence. But the court will need to be convinced that:
• his particular circumstances render the minimum prescribed sentence unjust; and
• it would be disproportionate to the crime, the accused’s personal circumstances and the needs of society.
But the court is unlikely to deviate from the minimum prescribed sentence lightly. Whatever sentence Pistorius gets, he will, at the very least, serve two-thirds of it.
http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/124f0d804ad03cdabd36bf2f1282c98c/-
Masipa is 68yo and will retire in two years at 70yo! I was checking this as i read some media article which said "they could bring her out of retirement for the sentencing" which is obviously incorrect but I cannot find the article now.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Judge-Masipa-grilled-over-her-Oscar-Pistorius-ruling-20150414
I guess there is only a slim chance that she will not be the sentencing judge in February. I would have preferred someone else.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Judge-Masipa-grilled-over-her-Oscar-Pistorius-ruling-20150414
I guess there is only a slim chance that she will not be the sentencing judge in February. I would have preferred someone else.
So that means a 10 year sentence. What is the chance that it could start at 20 years minus time spent and mitigating factors? Does OP's sentencing have to start at 15 years because it is a first offence?
NPA wants Pistorius in court 'urgently'
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/npa-wants-pistorius-in-court-urgently-20151204
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/npa-wants-pistorius-in-court-urgently-20151204
h
Yes, I think there's a good chance that she'll sentence properly.
Regarding her mistakes, though, I have to say that I find it easier to forgive the ones that have just been put right by the SCA than to excuse those that have lasting repercussions - her lack of interest and enquiry during the trial and her dismissal of the screams evidence, in particular.
Maybe we have to give Masipa a break....I know, I know, bear with me!
Without exception, every single lawyer commenting is saying that not only do all judges make mistakes, it is expected...hence the SCA which is just part of the same process. Every one of those five judges yesterday would have had their own judgements (when they were in the High Court) appealed and overturned too - probably multiple times.
Law is a human endeavour and human beings make mistakes all the time. We need to make mistakes so that we can rectify them and then learn...which is what's happened here. Obviously, given how many legal bods were saying she was correct there has long been some kind of confusion over DE which has now been clarified. More importantly, the requirements of a PPD defence have been laid out with no ambiguity......you may NOT shoot anyone just because they are in your home. In a country with so many guns this message has to be driven home in flashing neon lights.
Anyway, what I'm driving at is that I think there is reason to be optimistic regarding sentencing. Masipa will have to approach it from a new perspective......that Pistorius shot with no genuine belief that his life was in danger. She might not personally agree, but that's not the issue....and I don't think she'll make it the issue.
She will be sentencing a man who shot another human being four times without any justification at all. That's what the SCA found and she'll have to take that as her starting position. She didn't seem to give much truck to the whining social worker who tried to claim that Pistorius shouldn't be jailed because his disability. In fact, she was very scathing of her and wrote off her evidence entirely.
And since most legal people have said that 5 years was the correct(ish) sentence for a man convicted of CH who had an accepted defence of PPD, then can we not hope that this time she'll give the correct(ish) sentence for a convicted murderer who killed without justification?
I'll keep everything crossed.
I hope he doesn't get bail next week. Why should he? Is it normal for convicted murderers to be bailed between verdict and sentencing? It's not like a custodial sentence is in any doubt, no matter what they bring in mitigation. And he's hardly covered himself in glory given behaviour when he was last on bail. Also, he himself has said he can be suicidal - so that's another reason to bring him into custody.
Bloody ridiculous that he gets to spend Christmas bouncing babies on his knee (if there are cameras around).
Nope - the man with the big, white beard (Santa Leach) delivered Pistorius his prezzie yesterday. He needs to go and collect it
Yes, I think there's a good chance that she'll sentence properly.
Regarding her mistakes, though, I have to say that I find it easier to forgive the ones that have just been put right by the SCA than to excuse those that have lasting repercussions - her lack of interest and enquiry during the trial and her dismissal of the screams evidence, in particular.
I have no problems at all with adware or loading. I've installed an add blocker that seems very efficient. Would like to tell you wich one but I don't know where to look for. I'm sorry.
Anyone could help me? I'm on iMac OS X 10.11
Is there any reason why they cannot arrest OP now?
LemonMousse
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 939
- Reaction score
- 9,337
Yes.
I think it's really clear to all of us that what she did was begin her deliberations having already decided her verdict and then cherry-picked her way through the evidence.
This is actually a fairly normal way of thinking for all of us - we all do it, to some degree or other. Which is why people continue with beliefs that have actually been disproved in some way.
BUT....in any academic discipline - science, law, history etc - you are specifically trained to be mindful of this trap and take steps to avoid it. To follow the evidence wherever it leads, and discard nothing just because it doesn't fit. More....the fact that it doesn't fit should clue you in to the obvious implication that there is something wrong with your theory.
Bizarrely she avoided no traps at all....instead, jumped into all of them. Maybe she is just some dotty old lady past her best, but absolutely no one who knows her believes this.
I do wonder how much the squeaky voiced du Toit had to do with this, with all of her dumb "holistic justice" drivel. I really do.
I seem to have successfully removed all of my ads except one simply by clicking on the RH top corner and then clicking "irrelevant".
I have always blamed du Toit.
I cannot help thinking...if only OP had been honest in the first place, it would have saved him a lot of money and time and everyone else including the two families a lot of angst. As it stands, he will probably end up with a similar sentence to what he would have received if he had plead guilty.
- Status
Similar threads
Guardians Monthly Goal
Our goal for the month is 50 new Guardians members to sign up. Have you been thinking about becoming a member?
Click here to find out how!
Online statistics
- Members online
- 172
- Guests online
- 1,597
- Total visitors
- 1,769