After 'bladerunner' Pistorius got off with a relatively light sentence of five years the state prosecutor Nell announced today that they will appeal. No doubt most South-Africans will be happy as the idea that he would get away with possibly just 10 months in jail didn't go well.
The reason for the light sentence was that the judge didn't find Pistorius guilty of premeditated murder, in other words she was convinced he didn't have the intention to kill his girlfriend Reevan Steenkamp. Understandable as there were only two witnesses and one is dead now and the other not willing to testify against himself. Circumstantial evidence wasn't considered strong enough to convict him from willingly murdering Reeva.
However the presiding judge also ruled that he didn't have the intention to kill the person in the toilet. He shot four times through the door from close range which experts agree is very likely to kill any person sitting or standing there. In so called 'Dolus eventualis' you are guilty of non-premeditated murder if could foresee that your action is very likely to kill someone. She found the state not convincing in proving this.
Now South-African law is quite different as an appeal doesn't mean the trial will be done all over again. You can only appeal on an issue of law; very similar to Supreme Court appeals or whatever the name of the highest court in any legislation. State prosecutor Nell will claim that the judge was wrong in interpreting this dolus eventualis. Pistorius could have know that shooting into a small cubicle would kill whoever was behind that door.
So we won't see a new parade of all the witnesses, no vomiting Pistorius, no heated cross-examinations. It will be a discussion about interpreting law. No doubt disappointing for the millions who followed the trial and have their own opinions on the guilt of bladerunner.
These very public trials where journalists and cameras record every word, every emotion inevitably lead to an opinion on the guilt of the protagonist. The public doesn't take a month to study all the witness statements in the cool of a judicial chamber. The public verdict is made up based on emotions: how believable is the defendant, how sympathetic the victim, how convincing the rhetoric of the lawyers.
Do you have an opinion on the guilt of Pistorius or do you accept whatever the appeal court decides? And should people always be held responsible for murder when firing at close range #Politics
Had he not been an athlete the trial would never have made the news. Gladiatorial fixation.
Shooting for times can happen out of panic or very much to be sure that the person on the other side will be severely injured. I agree with the judge, though, that the circumstantial evidence isn't enough to be sure he wanted to see that person dead. It's tricky and one can wonder what the motive of the prosecutor is to demand a higher sentence. In dubio pro reo, right?
If he had been black or poor or both, the trial would have lasted an hour and he would be facing 20 years +Harmon Harris
Do you know anyone who, upon suspecting an intruder is in the house, would sneak out of bed without checking if his partner is there, alerting his partner and only then proceeding to secure the rest of the house?
Only a nut job's first reaction is "let's go over and shoot before checking"
Indeed, it did not go over very well +Max Huijgen, and the majority of people seem to think that he got off lightly. Personally I think the state's mistake was to lead with a charge of pre-meditated murder. (Our appeal court is the Supreme Court. In fact, that's what it's called. The Supreme Court of Appeals. The only higher court we have is the Constitutional Court.)
the layering is uncommon +Iblis Bane that's why i explained it. Usually there is an appeal court which redoes the complete trial.
Interesting case in terms of the various interpretations of the law. The sensationalism took the essence of the trial away but that was expected wasn't it? Call me simplistic, but at the end of the day a life was lost under dubious circumstances and a ruling plus sentence was meted out. Were these fair? Well I guess that's open to your interpretation and as to what side of the trial fence you were sitting on. My opinion which ultimately counts for nothing is he got off rather lightly.
+Max Huijgen the Greeks couldn't have written a more prototypical tragedy (just about all of the Archetypes are also assembled!)… this is completely irrespective of whether he killed her on purpose (if he did, why allow yourself to get into a position to be "driven" to do so, and throw it all away…?) or not.
Rarely has a society (and even "the world" for that matter in Pistorius' case, as few would be more globally noticed than 1) an "Olympian" with 2) a normally crippling handicap overcome by technology and personal "heroism") a more meteoric rise, or deeper fall, for both people involved.
/cc +Alexander Becker
I go with James Grant's view on this one. http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/18/unsuccessful-attempts-to-justify-masipas-errors/
You might have noticed my subtle (I hope) use of the word 'protagonist' +Alex Schleber +Harmon Harris
Agree +Peter du Toit Summary 'The question then, correcting also for the defence of putative private defence, should have been: did the accused foresee the possibility of unlawfully killing whoever was behind the door.
Again, it does not help to say this cannot be true because he thought the deceased was in the bedroom. This is the argument that Masipa seems to have finally settled on – and it is fatally flawed in logic. She says: the accused could not have forseen the possibility of killing the deceased, or anyone else for that matter, becuase he thought the deceased was in the bedroom. The fact that the accused thought that the deceased was in the bedroom says nothing about what he thought about the presence of someone else in the toilet. Indeed, it is his defence that he believed someone else was in the toilet.
He fired four shots, somebody died. He got off with easy time to serve. Count himself lucky I say. Man up and do the time.
While they are at it put a gag-order on the press coverage.
Is there no double-jeopardy under South African law?
There is +Edward Morbius, only in cases of either conviction or acquittal. If you have been convicted or acquitted, you can't be re-tried for the same charge.
+Iblis Bane So the sentence itself can be appealed?
It can +Edward Morbius, although I'm not sure what point of law the appeal will be based on.
exactly,..if she was in bed,..like he said,.. why would she be dressed?
who gets up and shoots when ever they hear a noise through a door at night? before yelling out to hear what/who it is before waking their partner to tell them of your suspicions? a warning shot at least, he was in no danger anyway, even if it was an inrtuder, it isjust an act of a wanna be hero gun loving trigger happy by rushing to shoot at anything that moves in the night. i herad a noise, so i shot,..wtf?
shouldve got 25 yrs.
I agree with max jail terms or heavy sentences In south africa is meant for the blacks and poor but only poor blacks bcos there are some wealthy blacks who are untouchable, if you have money you can do as you please. Atleast he got 10 months whilst others who should have got double life sentences are free.
So sad.
only God is just, he'l judge him
"Who's there!", would've saved Oscar from a five year prison term.
Not interested no more in this.Thank you