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

[mister happy]

Judge Greenland is calling Masipa's sentence today as outstanding, masterful and balanced.

He doesn't think she focused enough on the issue of 'deterrent' and would have favoured a slightly longer sentence.

I think Greenland is just playing the PC game at this point.

 

[soozieqtips]

Doubt Tuson got it wrong more like it was misquoted by the reporter. Roxanne of the DT said it right, i.e. after 1/6th sentence, in this case 10 months, rest can be converted to house arrest, which is exactly what it says on the SA government's own website "Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards" being the first rule under the heading "Minimum periods to be served before placement is considered" :

BIB - Roxanne didn't get it right then, did she? She pronounced as fact that OP would only serve 10 months in jail and then serve the rest of his sentence under house arrest, whereas the truth is that house arrest would only be considered after 10 months. So it does not say "exactly that" on the website. It says specifically that placement will be considered - not guaranteed, like Roxanne tried to make out. If OP is a difficult prisoner and gets into trouble, he most likely won't be released early.

 

[WilliamMunter]

BIB yes, "she's from Burnley, Lancashire love" which will probably mean more to UK posters, but she seems like a survivor. Anyway, I agree, thoughts with them totally. It's all too horrifying, the fall -out from this, for them all. But as she's a Burnley lass* I hope she can find some peace and distraction in setting up her Womens Refuge Centres over there in SA. Not sure how Barry and Kim and the other half siblings will cope though.

It'll be interesting to find out - if they ever speak publicly about it again- how they feel about his 10 months after the dust has settled.

* Tongue in cheek - not saying all Burnley women are cut from same cloth.

BIB

I think they have signed exclusivity rights with a large international media outlet for a month. Then there is her book.

 

[cottonweaver]

I see what you mean. Me, I didn't hope it but I expected it. I actually think that they gave him some drugs to avoid this. This would also explain his strange look before the sentence was pronounced.

No doubt he is on his medication Susza. Behind closed doors MrsB, I agree he will soon be throwing an Olympic wobbler with poor Mr. Weber ( Attorney with complexion of deepest scarlet today. )

However - today's composure didn't surprise me.
Do you remember the purported off-hand comment from initial arrest "I always win"? Even if he did not say it, for me it chimes with his indisputably strong competitive nature and also this demeanour post sentence.
ie. Don't lose face now - look like your winning even when losing, show no weakness (as he might say himself "what's the point of screaming now.")

Plus I am sure Uncle P would have counselled him on how to react - take it like a man etc. Even though Arnold has more than "a little of the night " about him, we can't say he is not dignified. (Although tbh even that I say, begrudgingly. Hard to find Arnold's redeeming features)

I wonder what the atmosphere is like Chez Arnold tonight?

 

[ColonelMustard]

Yes, a terrible article.

But I am gratified by the comments underneath. Bearing in mind this is The Guardian.....that most liberal of newspapers...it is pleasing that most people are telling the writer not to be so stupid and that it is irrelevant that the killers life is ruined.

There is a debate to be had about the efficacy of prison - but punishment has to form part of justice. And losing your freedom, the most important thing to any human being, is the harshest punishment SA has to offer.

Prison won't break Pistorius - it may even be the making of him. It ought to act as a leveller, showing him that he is no better that any other human being, and the rules apply to him as much as they do to anyone.

If he learns some damn humility in there then it's possible for him to come out and be of real service to SA. He is a good example of rising above physical challenges...one of the best the world has ever seen, but that example has been clouded by the unpleasant arrogance and sense of entitlement that's existed alongside it.

The author is a contrarian.
The article is clickbait.

Nothing get clicks like being provocative.

No doubt, more.

 

[cottonweaver]

BIB

I think they have signed exclusivity rights with a large international media outlet for a month. Then there is her book.

Thanks I didn't know that. Even though I don't really want to be buying any more Pistorius stuff after buying the Taylor one-I need to let it go soon- I'd rather give them my cash than Barry Bateman etc. There is some real drivel out there - indeed would much rather read WSers comments!

Following on from that - Op is bound to get a future memoir etc into a tabloid in the next few years. (Maybe he has to wait the 5 years?) Would I have the strength of character to resist reading it even though it would be full of B.S.? No doubt it would say "Oscar Pistorius has not been paid for this interview etc. "

 

[Cherwell]

I wonder what the atmosphere is like Chez Arnold tonight?

Actually it might be a relief to have him off the premises. At least they can sleep safe in their beds at last :lol:

 

[WilliamMunter]

RSFS

BBM - Anyone here knows which countries' borders are closed for people having been convicted of CH?

It all seems a little unclear but this gives some info.

http://wikitravel.org/en/Traveling_with_a_criminal_history

USA: There are numerous crimes that makes you ineligible to enter the US, including "crimes involving moral turpitude." Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States for which the definition can seem imprecise and the list of offenses, which can vary somewhat by jurisdiction, can include everything from shoplifting to murder.

Canada: While Canada's policies on criminal record is strict, any convictions no matter how minor or how long ago makes anyone inadmissible, it is possible to overcome the inadmissibility by submitting an application for "rehabilitation". This process can take a long time and requires numerous references to prove that you are in fact rehabilitated and that further offenses are unlikely

United Kingdom: has a concept of "spent" conviction and immigration officers wishing to exclude or remove someone on the basis of criminal conviction must prove that the offense is not spent and therefore the person is not rehabilitated. A conviction is "spent" if more than 10 years has passed since imprisonment (if any) between 6 and 30 months. Any imprisonment over 30 month cannot ever be spent and therefore will always count against you.

 

[mrjitty]

I'm just going to say it one last time and then leave it:

-The judgment was clear that he intended to shoot the person.
-If someone intends to shoot a person, and does so and kills them, it does not necessarily constitute murder.

That's all I was saying.

Ok - I understand but I think the original judgement was full of weasel words and an intention to avoid making specific factual findings the judge was called upon to make.

This is now even more specific - and renders the verdict obviously incorrect on its face.

My training is with NZ law - and I believe the Court of Appeal of NZ would find that there was a significant risk the judge had misdirected herself.

Specifically because she fails to explain your second point.

In other words, how was it that OP intended to shoot the person but did not in fact foresee the possibility of death?

While you are legally correct in your second point - the judge actually has to make the factual finding that shows how it did not constitute murder.

She cannot just assume it, or refuse to accept the logical inferences which flow from her own findings.

 

[cottonweaver]

Actually it might be a relief to have him off the premises. At least they can sleep safe in their beds at last :lol:

Too true - he has brought so much trouble to their door.

Talking about sleep, would OP's medication stop him having nightmares? If so, I can still imagine he must be haunted by Reeva's face or lifeless body before he falls asleep each night.

 

[soozieqtips]

Too true - he has brought so much trouble to their door.

Talking about sleep, would OP's medication stop him having nightmares? If so, I can still imagine he must be haunted by Reeva's face or lifeless body before he falls asleep each night.

I bet he'll get as much medication as he wants / needs, in order to be as out of it as possible for the entire sentence.

 

[mrjitty]

Prof. Grant:
IMO: Today's sentence was well reasoned as a sentence for Culp, but inconsistent with reasoning of verdict - which Nel may appeal.

https://twitter.com/CriminalLawZA/status/524606037849280513

yes exactly!

How on earth can they be reconciled?

In the end, to arrive at CH, the judge needed to find self defence, based on an unreasonable mistake.

 

[mister happy]

BIB - Roxanne didn't get it right then, did she? She pronounced as fact that OP would only serve 10 months in jail and then serve the rest of his sentence under house arrest, whereas the truth is that house arrest would only be considered after 10 months. So it does not say "exactly that" on the website. It says specifically that placement will be considered - not guaranteed, like Roxanne tried to make out. If OP is a difficult prisoner and gets into trouble, he most likely won't be released early.

The prosecutors say Pistorius will serve at least 20 months in prison. Roux says only 10 months. Can anyone elaborate on this? I'm confused as usual.

PS- Funny how we're discussing months and months, when most of us feel it should be years and years.

 

[katydid23]

After sleeping on it, I am still wishing it was a longer sentence. Especially if he is going to be out in 1 yr for house arrest, as some have said.

 

[Paul_1900]

I think this sentence will prove to be very important if there's an appeal.

He intended to shoot the intruder.
But he didn't intend to kill the intruder...because he thought Reeva was in bed?

Nope. Makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

BIB
Exactly, and like others expressed much better than me that is the point causing headaches to so many not only lay people but many highly respected legal professionals. Despite the fact that strangely THIS part (2nd BIB) was where Masipa said he was untruthful about.

EDIT just noted I got confused. In fact she didn't believe he tell the truth about "he didn't intend to SHOOT" but then she didn't follow the next logical step to infer that he indeed "intended to kill the intruder" - given all the circumstantial evidence, i.e. 4 shots, grouping, deliberately shooting, etc

SOOOOOOOO confusing :doh:

 

[cottonweaver]

Head of ANC Women's League has just been on BBC News saying that they will be lobbying NPA as strongly as possible that an appeal against verdict must be made.

Even if Steenkamps are satisfied, they are pressing NPA for appeal in strongest terms to protect SA women in the future.

 

[mrjitty]

Further on this point - we can go all the way back to this excellent piece of writing by Dadic.

The problem is that Masipa's finding is contrary to the accused own pleading.

His biggest problem lies in the appeared change of his defence. It was always understood that Oscar had acted out of a form of self defence (putative defence – an accused kills when he honestly believes his life or property to be in danger). However in order to lay claim to this defence one has to reconcile oneself with the idea that one INTENDED to kill somebody, but such intent and killing was lawful in the circumstances. It seemed Oscar couldn’t reconcile himself with that. He simply could not get the words “I intended to kill someone because I honestly felt I was in a life threatening situation” out of his mouth, which was always believed to be his defence.

It was actually this catastrophe under cross that blew up his entire defence. Because somehow he was pleading self defence whilst not actually pleading it.

Yet somehow the judge found a unique solution where you can intentionally shoot someone, not in self defence, and its not murder.

 

[Madeleine74]

My take on Masipa's inconsistency is as simple as, she gave him the verdict she thought he should have and worked backwards to justify it, which is where her illogical statements and reasonings and beliefs came in. And today she gave him the sentence she thought he should have and one that people could essentially live with on both sides, which was less illogical than her reasoning in the verdict, and by comparison, seemed quite reasonable.

 

[soozieqtips]

Somebody said on Sky News that inmates are locked in their cells for 23 hours a day? I can't see that happening with OP. There's a gym in the hospital wing, so I'm sure he'll want to use that to stay in some sort of physical shape, even though his career is over. And how will he manage if he's confined for 23 hours? I'm wondering about his psychological state if he doesn't interact with anyone except for an hour each day. Will Uncle Arnold be able to negotiate more outside time for him? I think OP would go stir crazy locked up for 23 hours a day in his cell. And before anyone asks, no, I'm not feeling sorry for him!! I'm just curious as to if the 23 hour rule would apply to him, or whether his family would argue his 'vulnerability' and 'mental issues' means he can't be confined like 'normal' prisoners.

 

[whiterum]

Really unimpressed with the DT saying so categorically that he'll be out in ten. Even if he's eligible for early release to house arrest after that time, it's not up to the DT! So arrogant.

The DT are jumping the gun as who knows, having a short fuse and in the past threatening to break someone's legs, he might get violent if crossed. A fellow prisoner could be whacked over the head with a prosthetic leg , could even be Dewani (hopefully ). Five years will then be his lot !!