Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 7.6.2016

[lithgow1]

Would the reaction have been as calm and measured if Jodi Arias had been given a sentence that contained this level of discretion and consideration of mitigators by the judge? I suspect not even a little bit calm.

IIRC she too said she was remorseful and apologised for the pain she had caused. Pistorius has done no more than that and there is no more evidence to suggest he is genuine than there was in her case. He was out partying not too long after killing the love of his life. Begging for help to save the life of someone you know is dead is proof of absolutely nothing.

 

[Cloen]

I hear you.

She was overturned on appeal for an inproper interpretation of law. If the State appeals this sentence, I'd be interested to know what in SA law, if anything, would allow her sentence to be overturned or modified.

She either has the discretion to balance mitigators vs aggravators or she doesn't. She either used legally determined and weighted mitigators or she didn't, and SA law either reflects those determinations or it doesn't.

IMO, what would be a genuine travesty would be if her sentencing is overturned because of public opinion, not the law.

From the sentencing today, as she rightly said Public opinion does not sway or interfere with the Course of Justice in the Court.
It is obvious however, even if this trial hadn't have been televised and the media allowed in Court, that being Blade Runner guninng down his girlfriend in the middle of the night killing her , would still have attracted large media worldwide attention, there's no getting away from that fact. That doesn't mean it affects the sentencing of someone committing Murder.

The concensus does seem to be that she reduced the sentence for mitigation far too much , taking 9 years off a possible minimum of 15 ,
so we'll see if the NPA , who were only considering Appealing if she'd given him less than 8 years (so out in about 4) will bother, given the time this has taken, the costs, and if Justice has seen to be nearly served and if she made enough errors again in her reasoning for this light sentencing.

 

[lithgow1]

Well, here is the law: S v Seegers 1970 (2) SA 506 (A) at 511G-H:

‘Remorse, as an indication that the offence will not be committed again, is obviously an important consideration, in suitable cases, when the deterrent effect of a sentence on the accused is adjudged. But, in order to be a valid consideration, the penitence must be sincere and the accused must take the court fully into his confidence. Unless that happens the genuineness of contrition alleged to exist cannot be determined.’

Thanks for that. Well we know that he certainly didn't do the BIB.

If it is appealed I imagine that this time he will almost have to take the stand. I could quite enjoy another Pistorius cross examination.

 

[LemonMousse]

I don't feel any sympathy for him. I do think the sentence was just.

The most basic truth here is no different than in any other case in which an innocent is dead and a family grieves: there isn't any justice available that can fix or change what matters most.

I can't agree.

Lots of us on here are parents. If I lost one of mine in a similar way, my utter devastation would be made considerably worse if the murderer got off lightly as has happened here.

It would be as if the court systen just shrugged and said, "Meh" and I would find that unbearable.

I get annoyed when I hear anyone say..."It won't bring Reeva back". No, it won't - but justice is not designed to raise the dead. It's designed (in the case of wrongful deaths) to punish appropriately and show that the person who died mattered.

How much has Reeva actually mattered throughout all of this? Really?

It's been all about him from day one. And that stinks.

 

[Madeleine74]

Pistorius has done no more than that and there is no more evidence to suggest he is genuine than there was in her case.

Exactly!

JA is seen as the devil incarnate, the most evil killer evah, evah, evah, still discussed in great obsessive detail down to almost the molecule level, 8 years after the murder and 2 years after sentencing, but OP? Eh, whatever. Judge had discretion, it's fine, really. He said he was sorry, afterall.

 

[Cloen]

Well, here is the law: S v Seegers 1970 (2) SA 506 (A) at 511G-H:

‘Remorse, as an indication that the offence will not be committed again, is obviously an important consideration, in suitable cases, when the deterrent effect of a sentence on the accused is adjudged. But, in order to be a valid consideration, the penitence must be sincere and the accused must take the court fully into his confidence. Unless that happens the genuineness of contrition alleged to exist cannot be determined.’

yes this is right, and we know that she brought up Pistorius' grief that Dr Stipp witnessed, (last trial evidence) and that he'd tried to contact the Steenkamps, but that was just before the trial, (timing is everthing - sarcasm) , and he didn't think it necessary to stand before the Court and profess his utter remorse for his actions and admit to the murder of Reeva and show the court he'd taken responsibility for his actions - so how she thinks he's shown remorse, i don't know. He blubbered a lot and got snotty and stared her out a lot and tried to look helpless in Court a lot (going in and out of Court he smiled at his bouncer mates and looked stern and composed as anything) .

 

[Cloen]

I can't agree.

Lots of us on here are parents. If I lost one of mine in a similar way, my utter devastation would be made considerably worse if the murderer got off lightly as has happened here.

It would be as if the court systen just shrugged and said, "Meh" and I would find that unbearable.

I get annoyed when I hear anyone say..."It won't bring Reeva back". No, it won't - but justice is not designed to raise the dead. It's designed (in the case of wrongful deaths) to punish appropriately and show that the person who died mattered.

How much has Reeva actually mattered throughout all of this? Really?

It's been all about him from day one. And that stinks.

exactly. The only person who REMINDED that Court WHO the real victim was in this Trial was Barry Steenkamp.
And Judge Masipa criticised him for having wrongly suggested his daughter , in his opinion, was killed as the result of an argument, how dare she,
Silly c*w.

 

[Cloen]

I can't agree.

Lots of us on here are parents. If I lost one of mine in a similar way, my utter devastation would be made considerably worse if the murderer got off lightly as has happened here.

It would be as if the court systen just shrugged and said, "Meh" and I would find that unbearable.

I get annoyed when I hear anyone say..."It won't bring Reeva back". No, it won't - but justice is not designed to raise the dead. It's designed (in the case of wrongful deaths) to punish appropriately and show that the person who died mattered.

How much has Reeva actually mattered throughout all of this? Really?

It's been all about him from day one. And that stinks.

exactly. The only person who REMINDED that Court WHO the real victim was in this Trial was Barry Steenkamp.
And Judge Masipa criticised him for having wrongly suggested his daughter , in his opinion, was killed as the result of an argument, how dare she,
Silly c*w.

 

[LemonMousse]

I hear you.

She was overturned on appeal for an inproper interpretation of law. If the State appeals this sentence, I'd be interested to know what in SA law, if anything, would allow her sentence to be overturned or modified.

She either has the discretion to balance mitigators vs aggravators or she doesn't. She either used legally determined and weighted mitigators or she didn't, and SA law either reflects those determinations or it doesn't.

IMO, what would be a genuine travesty would be if her sentencing is overturned because of public opinion, not the law.

As has already been pointed out, she made identity relevant again when she shouldn't have done. The SCA made it abundantly clear that who Pistorius thought he was or was not shooting was entirely irrelevant when determining his guilt. Therefore how can it be even faintly relevant when mitigating against sentence?

And she also plainly sentenced on the grounds that it was all a terrible accident ignoring that the SCA had ruled that out and declared it murder.

None of this has anything to do with public opinion. If she made a mistake again it needs to be put right.

 

[soozieqtips]

Once the world's golden boy and the poster child for the resilience of the human spirit, Oscar Pistorius will now forever be remembered as a murderer.

There were groans in the courtroom shortly after the sentence was read out. Pistorius, though, seemed relieved - and understandably.

I cannot remember a time when someone convicted of murder was sentenced to just six years in South Africa.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-36727551

 

[mhiforme]

My hat goes off to Oscar. I'm not sure how many times I heard he's going to become a fugitive of the law, become a runner to Mozambique and yet, he proved the anti-Pistorians wrong and was in court for his sentencing.

 

[mhiforme]

Oscar's been through a lot in his life with the loss of his mother, abandonment by his father and yet the siblings have stayed strong together. Just one more example of sibling love shown in court yesterday with this pic

 

[Tortoise]

This is not an Oscar Pistorius appreciation thread!

 

[Hope4More]

Would the reaction have been as calm and measured if Jodi Arias had been given a sentence that contained this level of discretion and consideration of mitigators by the judge? I suspect not even a little bit calm.

What is it with the comparisons to the single and entirely different case of CMJA?

One can suspect OP's remorse isn't genuine. No reasonable person can argue that CMJA feels anything other than triumphant about killing her victim.

Reasonable people can disagree whether or not OP intended to kill Reeva. No reasonable person doubts that CMJA premeditated TA's murder for weeks, if not months.

CMJA deliberately chose to slaughter her victim with a knife, to inflict the maximum amount of every kind of pain imaginable. OP, even if one believes he knew Reeva was there (I don't) acted in the heat of passion and killed quickly.

The crimes committed aren't comparible. The sentencing in each was contingent foremost upon the crimes.

 

[mhiforme]

This is not an Oscar Pistorius appreciation thread!

It's also not an Oscar bashing thread, but for the most part that is what this trial has been.

We keep hearing about how evil the Pistorius family is but we haven't seen a lot of balance that shows the other side about this family. This is his family and the bond is strong.

 

[Hope4More]

Well, here is the law: S v Seegers 1970 (2) SA 506 (A) at 511G-H:

‘Remorse, as an indication that the offence will not be committed again, is obviously an important consideration, in suitable cases, when the deterrent effect of a sentence on the accused is adjudged. But, in order to be a valid consideration, the penitence must be sincere and the accused must take the court fully into his confidence. Unless that happens the genuineness of contrition alleged to exist cannot be determined.’

Seems a pretty squishy legal definition. "Sincerity" is as subjective as it gets. Marsipa believes him sincere. What exactly in the trial record could the High Court point to in order to overrule her about his "sincerity?"

 

[LemonMousse]

What is it with the comparisons to the single and entirely different case of CMJA?

One can suspect OP's remorse isn't genuine. No reasonable person can argue that CMJA feels anything other than triumphant about killing her victim.

Reasonable people can disagree whether or not OP intended to kill Reeva. No reasonable person doubts that CMJA premeditated TA's murder for weeks, if not months.

CMJA deliberately chose to slaughter her victim with a knife, to inflict the maximum amount of every kind of pain imaginable. OP, even if one believes he knew Reeva was there (I don't) acted in the heat of passion and killed quickly.

The crimes committed aren't comparible. The sentencing in each was contingent foremost upon the crimes.

So you think that it's just a coincidence that four people heard what sounded very much like a woman desperately in fear of her life at exactly the same time as a woman was actually desperately in fear of her life?

Taking it further...is it still coincidental that those witnesses stopped hearing a woman in fear of her life at the same time as the woman who was in fear of her life died of gunshot wounds?

Because in order for his story to be true, you have to believe that.

 

[cottonweaver]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-36727551

how you feeling?

I feel like I have been a parallel universe- i couldn't even add up before, kept saying that's 9 years of the minimum.
Weary with the B.S.

URoux was just saying - overall, it's improved the rep of SA court system in world's eyes. ????!

BIB the more I read - I think I am back there.
I think we do need a new OP legals thread after all , at pre-entry level

 

[lithgow1]

Seems a pretty squishy legal definition. "Sincerity" is as subjective as it gets. Marsipa believes him sincere. What exactly in the trial record could the High Court point to in order to overrule her about his "sincerity?"

Well it's South African law. Personally I find the whole Pistorian thing 'creepy' but that is by the by. What Sherbet quoted is South African law. Re the BIB, Pistorius did not meet the requirement of taking 'the court fully into his confidence'. There have been many examples of Masipa's ineptness, and this supposed mitigator is just another in a long list.

 

[Cloen]

It's also not an Oscar bashing thread, but for the most part that is what this trial has been.

We keep hearing about how evil the Pistorius family is but we haven't seen a lot of balance that shows the other side about this family. This is his family and the bond is strong.

Pistorius is a member of the family, anything that happens to him reflects on them, especially a Murder conviction.
The other brother had a murder charge against him too,
great track record for one family.
Disappearing evidence comes to mind, lying in Court under Oath and end of today they were saddened he even had to spend time in prison, such is their arrogance, . So when i think of them,evil is about right.