So much wrong with this article.... Eg
The opening paragraph doesn't appear to mention that most legal experts have interpreted the sentence as a minimum of three years in prison, (presumably followed by parole/CS rather than 'freedom')
The next point re stealing a phone before killing his girlfriend would have resulted in a longer sentence is unclear, but serves as a dramatic comparison point to emphasise the writer's disapproval re the current sentence. The writer seems also to take issue with the idea of anyone (or perhaps just Pistorius) living in comfort under house arrest. Is it her belief then that people should only be eligible for house arrest if the place they are to stay is uncomfortable/poor, (so house arrest is not for richer inmates?!)
Pretty sure he hasn't said 'his public needs him'. The writer criticises him for daring to say he would like to think Reeva wouldn't want him in prison long term, then suggests herself what Reeva is more likely to want/say. She does the very thing Pistorius is criticised for doing: presuming to know what Reeva would 'more likely' think.
The usual opinions then follow, using the more definite 'is' and 'was' rather than verbs more reflective of an opinion: 'seems' 'appeared'. This, coupled with the emotive repetition of 'unlike...', contrasting Pistorius's perceived suffering/ruin with the profound loss of Reeva and her family, as if to suggest Masipa didn't care/consider the Steenkamps' loss. (despite actually spelling out the impact on the family, their close bond with their daughter etc)
The following paragraph than calls for him to be haunted(!!) (no RIP for Reeva here then), before labelling tears as 'crocodile', vomiting as 'attention seeking' and remorse as 'pseudo', with no explanation of why she believes this to be the case.
Dangerous claims shortly follow: addicted to guns? Violent? prone to abusing partners? Where was evidence to that effect tested in a court of law? Swallowing down and regurgitating untried media gossip is not an especially balanced approach.
Finally the claim that had this been a black man or a woman who had killed a partner in such circumstances, both would have been given mandatory life sentence. Again, nothing concrete to support this claim, just the certainty of opinion. Where is the list of cases of black men and women deemed to have killed their partner under the mistaken belief they were being attacked by someone else, serving these mandatory life sentences? Interestingly though , in comparison with this particular case, Mdunge is a black man who was allowed to plead CH when he shot and killed his wife thinking she was an intruder. Wholly suspended sentence.
IMO, this kind of article embodies much of what has been wrong about the media coverage of this whole trial process.
uke:
