Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #70 *Appeal Verdict*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tortoise said:
On what grounds are people speculating that the minimum term of 15 will be reduced to 10? I've read that there needs to be extenuating or exceptional grounds.
Click to expand...

It's known as the Masipa protocol
 
Interested Bystander said:
If he gets 10 years, which I think is highly likely (assuming he doesn't somehow manage to dodge the SCA ruling) how much time do you think he will actually serve? I am guessing half the tariff minus the year he has already served. So around 4 years is my guess.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it's a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for a first offender (less time served) and that there have to be substantial or compelling circumstances for the sentence to be reduced. I haven't found the rule relating to parole, but I don't understand how a mandatory minimum sentence can be reduced by years according to this. There was an amendment to the Act so a bit of research is called for.

My feeling was, if he appeared before Masipa, that she'd sentence him to 15 less 1 for time served. That's a far cry from 4, but then we were all shocked to learn he was only required to serve 10 months of a 5 year sentence for CH.

Until I find out more, I believe he'll serve 10 years inside, but it looks like I'm an outsider here.

ETA In view of the comments by the judges of the SCA, I can't see how Roux can use OP's disability at all. In fact, I have no idea what he can use in mitigation in the next round of sentencing.
 
JudgeJudi said:
My understanding is that it's a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for a first offender (less time served) and that there have to be substantial or compelling circumstances for the sentence to be reduced. I haven't found the rule relating to parole, but I don't understand how a mandatory minimum sentence can be reduced by years according to this. There was an amendment to the Act so a bit of research is called for.

My feeling was, if he appeared before Masipa, that she'd sentence him to 15 less 1 for time served. That's a far cry from 4, but then we were all shocked to learn he was only required to serve 10 months of a 5 year sentence for CH.

Until I find out more, I believe he'll serve 10 years inside, but it looks like I'm an outsider here.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see any other cases where the minimum has been reduced.
 
JudgeJudi said:
snipped

ETA In view of the comments by the judges of the SCA, I can't see how Roux can use OP's disability at all. In fact, I have no idea what he can use in mitigation in the next round of sentencing.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

Disability and vulnerability was ruled out by the trial court and the SCA as being a factor in the shooting.

How can he mitigate his actions at all? It has been rejected that he genuinely feared for his life, and his own testimony is that he didn't fire for any reason except loss of control over the trigger.
 
Tortoise said:
It would be interesting to see any other cases where the minimum has been reduced.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, it's only children aged between 16 and 18 who can have the mandatory minimum sentence reduced by up to half.
 
I tried searching for my posts where I researched the sections of the act - but the search just returns thread results?

Going on memory, this was not one of the aggravated murder types with special sentence and parole rules.

So 15 is the starting point

I believe parole eligibility is at 50%?
 
Tortoise said:
Got you :D

So it is the pessimistic view - not the one which would apply to anybody else.
Click to expand...

If I were the judge I would view 15 as the minimum

I think the shocking nature of the execution is worth 20 by international standards
 
mrjitty said:
If I were the judge I would view 15 as the minimum

I think the shocking nature of the execution is worth 20 by international standards
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly.

Absolute minimum.

They haven't accepted that he honestly believed he was in a life threatening situation, so it was just barbaric.

No wonder Roux was concerned about getting the judges to consider why he had shot 4 devastating bullets - he can't mitigate it.
 
And without a confession, or acceptance of any responsibility, it is a remorseless crime too.
 
JudgeJudi said:
My understanding is that it's a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for a first offender (less time served) and that there have to be substantial or compelling circumstances for the sentence to be reduced. I haven't found the rule relating to parole, but I don't understand how a mandatory minimum sentence can be reduced by years according to this. There was an amendment to the Act so a bit of research is called for.

My feeling was, if he appeared before Masipa, that she'd sentence him to 15 less 1 for time served. That's a far cry from 4, but then we were all shocked to learn he was only required to serve 10 months of a 5 year sentence for CH.

Until I find out more, I believe he'll serve 10 years inside, but it looks like I'm an outsider here.

ETA In view of the comments by the judges of the SCA, I can't see how Roux can use OP's disability at all. In fact, I have no idea what he can use in mitigation in the next round of sentencing.
Click to expand...


You may well be right and I hope you are but there was a lot in the press at the time of the SCA altered the verdict, much of which commented that he would not get 15 years or, more correctly, he would serve only a small portion of the tariff. The following is from the Daily Fail and so has to be viewed with some scepticism but this was not the only article. Legal commentators also thought he would not be serving the full sentence and SA often seems not to stick to the rules.


"Oscar Pistorius could be out of prison in just three years after he was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, a source close to the trial has said.

The Paralympian was sentenced to five years for manslaughter last October but he served less than a year of that before he was placed under house arrest in his uncle's mansion.

Pistorius, 29, could now be rearrested and jailed before Christmas day after five Supreme Court judges upgraded that conviction to murder.

The minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years but 'he can even get ten years and eventually only serve 30 per cent, so three years', said a source at Pretoria's High Court. "


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...erturned-MURDER-conviction.html#ixzz40cVs3uys
 
Those of you who are on this thread at present know that I'm a card carrying member of the DD club. No matter what sentence he receives from Masipa, for me it will always be shockingly inappropriate.
 
Tortoise said:
I agree wholeheartedly.

Absolute minimum.

They haven't accepted that he honestly believed he was in a life threatening situation, so it was just barbaric.

No wonder Roux was concerned about getting the judges to consider why he had shot 4 devastating bullets - he can't mitigate it.
Click to expand...

But that's the whole point. They did consider it and changed the conviction murder.
 
Tortoise said:
And without a confession, or acceptance of any responsibility, it is a remorseless crime too.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. There was no remorse. I think people also need to be reminded that there are no special laws for disabled people in SA or anywhere else in the world as far as I'm aware of.
 
The following is a comment by Marius du Toit a well known Defence Lawyer who appeared on the Round Table during OP’s trial. To me it seems he thinks the original Tariff can be subtracted from the 15 year Tariff for murder or maybe I have misinterpreted his comment. I will see if I can find more about this.
"He is still serving his sentence for culpable homicide, and the sentencing will be heard afresh by the high court," Marius du Toit, a defence lawyer and former prosecutor, told News24.

"He is now facing a 15-year jail term, unless he provides substantial and compelling reasons to the high court to deviate from that."

Du Toit said it was possible that Pistorius would be able to provide a compelling reason.

"He was sentenced to five years [for the culpable homicide]. I think he is capable of maybe bringing it [the murder sentence] down to a 10 year sentence, suspended for five years."

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/N...ll-now-plead-for-leniency-law-expert-20151203


EDIT On reflection, I don't think Pistorius is still serving his sentence for CH. I think he is on bail until sentencing for the new verdict. Is Du Toit wrong in what he is saying? I can see that if he were to be judged as still serving the CH sentence that the whole of the time until the "fight" is finally over could be seen to be relevant but not if he is only on bail. Was this a clever move by Nel to agree to bail?
 
JudgeJudi said:
Those of you who are on this thread at present know that I'm a card carrying member of the DD club. No matter what sentence he receives from Masipa, for me it will always be shockingly inappropriate.
Click to expand...

.....and what about the suspended sentence mentioned above by IB, how does that figure in SA....is it possible considering that Masipa may well be sentencing him again that she may of taken an extreme dislike to all the bad attention she was given due to her previous sentence and decide to give him a light sentence by reducing it partially or even totally with a suspended sentence......
 
Colin de France said:
.....and what about the suspended sentence mentioned above by IB, how does that figure in SA....is it possible considering that Masipa may well be sentencing him again that she may of taken an extreme dislike to all the bad attention she was given due to her previous sentence and decide to give him a light sentence by reducing it partially or even totally with a suspended sentence......
Click to expand...

The State can appeal sentence, so I don't think she would want to attract more negative attention.
 
Try Googling anything similar to "How many convicted murderers are allowed bail" and it's hard to find any results apart from OP. I just read a case of a guy in Canada (also a convicted murderer) and also awaiting an appeal who had his application for bail turned down. From the search results alone, it seems that granting bail to convicted murderers is very very rare.


Court of Appeal Justice J.C. Marc Richard delivered the decision not to grant bail on Wednesday afternoon in Fredericton, in front of a packed courtroom.

Bail has never been granted to a convicted murderer in New Brunswick.

Richard said Oland met the first two conditions required under the Criminal Code to be considered for release: his appeal is not "frivolous" and he's not considered a flight risk.

The third condition — whether Oland's detention is required in the public's interest — was the most difficult, he said.

Although Richard was satisfied Oland wouldn't be a danger to the public, he said releasing him would send the wrong message to the public.

Of course it would. A convicted murderer belongs in jail, not swanning around enjoying freedom for months and months on end. I doubt Roux is going to be able to convince anyone that OP is a 'special' case, considering the murderer survived a year in jail already, wasn't starved, wasn't abused, and even managed to make some pals.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-bail-murder-appeal-1.3450016
 
soozieqtips said:
Try Googling anything similar to "How many convicted murderers are allowed bail" and it's hard to find any results apart from OP. I just read a case of a guy in Canada (also a convicted murderer) and also awaiting an appeal who had his application for bail turned down. From the search results alone, it seems that granting bail to convicted murderers is very very rare.


Court of Appeal Justice J.C. Marc Richard delivered the decision not to grant bail on Wednesday afternoon in Fredericton, in front of a packed courtroom.

Bail has never been granted to a convicted murderer in New Brunswick.

Richard said Oland met the first two conditions required under the Criminal Code to be considered for release: his appeal is not "frivolous" and he's not considered a flight risk.

The third condition — whether Oland's detention is required in the public's interest — was the most difficult, he said.

Although Richard was satisfied Oland wouldn't be a danger to the public, he said releasing him would send the wrong message to the public.

Of course it would. A convicted murderer belongs in jail, not swanning around enjoying freedom for months and months on end. I doubt Roux is going to be able to convince anyone that OP is a 'special' case, considering the murderer survived a year in jail already, wasn't starved, wasn't abused, and even managed to make some pals.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-bail-murder-appeal-1.3450016
Click to expand...

When this came up before I did find some, I think by wading through Saffli docs. JJ remembers because she mentioned it not too long ago. Unfortunately I cannot remember how many or if it was one only and it took so long to track the info down I won't be going there again!! It is VERY unusual though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 175 more.
Total: 3,841 (members: 176, guests: 3,665)

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
3,665
Total visitors
3,841
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,658
Messages
17,957,112
Members
228,580
Latest member
RealAce
Back
Top