Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re your post above cottonweaver, going by what I have read the likely chain of events is that the parole board (not sure of exact name but you will know what I mean) were hasty in arranging for his early release under house arrest conditions before the minimum time when they could do so. That is, they shouldn`t have even been considering it until now, when he had served a sixth of his sentence. The women`s group petition had the unforeseen effect of bringing the parole board`s error to the attention of the justice minister, who then delayed his release because it shouldn`t have even been considered until now. Could be wrong but that all seems to make sense.

What would be interesting to know IMO is if these `errors` on the part of the parole board are systematic but overlooked in other cases because there is no scrutiny of them, or if this was an example of preferential treatment for OP, and if the latter, where did the pressure to do this come from. From inside the prison system or from outside interests.
 
Interested Bystander said:
A goodly portion sensationalism here from the Daily Fail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...emands-revealed-warned-stay-prison-YEARS.html

'Oscar wanted a bath built in his cell, a new bed and is allowed to cook his own meals because he fears being poisoned': Shamed Pistorius' diva jail demands revealed as he is warned he could stay in prison for YEARS."

What a paper! Yesterday, in the same, I read that the Parole Board had been given 14 days to meet! I will see if I can find it but I do wonder, when I read this type of reporting, whether it is worth uploading.
Click to expand...

It's a dangerous paper!
 
Sounds like once the women's group voiced their objections to the timing of his release during Women's Month, the Justice Minister discovered (or someone else called to his attention) that the parole board had technically jumped the gun by making their decision at their June 5th meeting.

He acknowledged that their request was not based on any valid legal objections.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/19/oscar-pistorius-release-date-put-on-hold

Masutha received a petition on Monday from the Progressive Women’s Movement of South Africa expressing opposition to the release of Pistorius during the country’s Women’s Month. Asked about the timing of his intervention, Masutha, speaking from Cape Town, explained: “Ordinarily I do not consider decisions of parole boards … In this instance I had representations two days ago from a women’s rights organisation which requested that I review the decision.”

The organisation’s argument that Pistorius should not be released in Women’s Month was “not sound in law”, he added, but prompted him to study the parole decision and find fault in its timing. “I don’t go around looking at cases and checking whether they have been dealt with in compliance with the law. It’s only when a matter has been brought to my attention that I would deal with that.”

A statement from the Department of Justice and Correctional Services cited a law stating that a person sentenced to imprisonment must serve at least one-sixth of his or her sentence before being considered for “correctional supervision”, a form of house arrest. It said: “The decision to release him on 21 August 2015 was made prematurely on 5 June 2015 when the offender was not eligible to be considered at all ... One-sixth of a five-year sentence is 10 months, and at the time the decision was made, Mr Pistorius had served only six months of his sentence.”
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...se-poignant-photo-daughter-32nd-birthday.html

Oscar Pistorius will NOT be released from prison on Friday - as Reeva's family releases poignant photo on what would have been model's 32nd birthday

“Ulrich Roux, a prominent criminal defence lawyer, said the minister had referred the case to the parole review board, which had 14 days from yesterday to consider whether Pistorius should be released or serve a longer period in jail.”
 
From the webpage of the Department of Correctional Service:

http://www.dcs.gov.za/Services/CorrectionalSupervisionandParoleBoards.aspx

Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards

What is parole?

Minimum periods to be served before placement is considered

It is important to note that although the new parole boards will consider submissions in respect of all categories offenders presented to it, the new requirements in terms of minimum periods of imprisonment that must be served before parole can be considered will only be applicable to offenders sentenced after 1 October 2004. This implies that all persons sentenced prior to promulgation of the new legislation will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the existing legislation (Act 8 of 1959). In other words offenders sentenced in the past and prior to the promulgation of the new legislation need not fear that the new legislation will hold negative implications with regards to the minimum periods that they must serve before parole can be considered.

In respect of offenders sentenced after 1 October 2004, the following minimum periods of imprisonment must be served before they may be considered for possible placement on parole:

Section 276 1(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
1/6 of sentence must be served prior to placement under Correctional Supervision by the Commissioner. Sentence may not exceed 5 years.
 
I don’t recall this. Old news but interesting, depending on one's opinion.

http://www.destinyman.com/2014/04/15/pistorius-compromised-his-case-legal-expert/

‘Pistorius compromised his case’ – legal expert

Murder-accused paralympian Oscar Pistorius faced seven gruelling days of cross examination during which he made a number of mistakes that could be his downfall. Here's what our expert had to say.
 
Marfa Lights said:
From the webpage of the Department of Correctional Service:

http://www.dcs.gov.za/Services/CorrectionalSupervisionandParoleBoards.aspx

Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards

What is parole?

Minimum periods to be served before placement is considered

It is important to note that although the new parole boards will consider submissions in respect of all categories offenders presented to it, the new requirements in terms of minimum periods of imprisonment that must be served before parole can be considered will only be applicable to offenders sentenced after 1 October 2004. This implies that all persons sentenced prior to promulgation of the new legislation will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the existing legislation (Act 8 of 1959). In other words offenders sentenced in the past and prior to the promulgation of the new legislation need not fear that the new legislation will hold negative implications with regards to the minimum periods that they must serve before parole can be considered.

In respect of offenders sentenced after 1 October 2004, the following minimum periods of imprisonment must be served before they may be considered for possible placement on parole:

Section 276 1(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
1/6 of sentence must be served prior to placement under Correctional Supervision by the Commissioner. Sentence may not exceed 5 years.
Click to expand...

Am I right in thinking that pistorius wouldn't be on parole but under correctional supervision? If so, then I think this bit from the website you quoted from above is interesting :

In respect of offender’s who can be considered for placement under Correctional Supervision or referred back to the court a quo for possible conversion of sentence into Correctional Supervision the following periods must be served:

Section 276 1(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
1/6 of sentence must be served prior to placement under Correctional Supervision by the Commissioner. Sentence may not exceed 5 years.

Eta. BIB - This wording doesn't seem to insist on 1/6 of the sentence bring served before even being considered for Correctional Supervision, just that 1/6 has to be served before being placed under correctional supervision...
 
aftermath said:
Am I right in thinking that pistorius wouldn't be on parole but under correctional supervision? If so, then I think this bit from the website you quoted from above is interesting :

In respect of offender’s who can be considered for placement under Correctional Supervision or referred back to the court a quo for possible conversion of sentence into Correctional Supervision the following periods must be served:

Section 276 1(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
1/6 of sentence must be served prior to placement under Correctional Supervision by the Commissioner. Sentence may not exceed 5 years.

Eta. BIB - This wording doesn't seem to insist on 1/6 of the sentence bring served before even being considered for Correctional Supervision, just that 1/6 has to be served before being placed under correctional supervision...
Click to expand...

But is this wording not subordinate to "Minimum periods to be served before placement is considered"?
 
Trotterly said:
But is this wording not subordinate to "Minimum periods to be served before placement is considered"?
Click to expand...

I don't know - i think it depends on how separate 'parole ' and ' Correctional Supervision ' are. The chunk before the bit I quoted above (about correctional supervision placements) is about consideration of parole is this: (my bold)


In respect of offenders sentenced after 1 October 2004, the following minimum periods of imprisonment must be served before they may be considered for possible placement on parole:

Determinate sentences: Half of the sentence or the non parole period as specified by the court or 25 years of the sentence, whichever is the shortest period.
Life imprisonment: After having served twenty five years
Persons declared Habitual Criminals: After having served at least seven years
Scheduled offences in terms of the Criminal Law Amendment Act: After serving 80% of the sentence but the court may rule that only two thirds of the sentence need to be served
 
aftermath said:
Am I right in thinking that pistorius wouldn't be on parole but under correctional supervision? If so, then I think this bit from the website you quoted from above is interesting :

In respect of offender’s who can be considered for placement under Correctional Supervision or referred back to the court a quo for possible conversion of sentence into Correctional Supervision the following periods must be served:

Section 276 1(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
1/6 of sentence must be served prior to placement under Correctional Supervision by the Commissioner. Sentence may not exceed 5 years.

Eta. BIB - This wording doesn't seem to insist on 1/6 of the sentence bring served before even being considered for Correctional Supervision, just that 1/6 has to be served before being placed under correctional supervision...
Click to expand...
Does this help?

Correctional Services Act, 1998 (Act No. 111 of 1998)
Chapter VII : Release from a Correctional Centre and Placement under Correctional Supervision and on Day Parole and Parole

73. Length and form of sentences

7) a) A person sentenced to incarceration under section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, must serve at least one sixth of his or her sentence before being considered for placement under correctional supervision, unless the court has directed otherwise.
Click to expand...

http://www.acts.co.za/correctional-...correctional_supervision_and_parole_board.php
 
lithgow1 said:
What would be interesting to know IMO is if these `errors` on the part of the parole board are systematic but overlooked in other cases because there is no scrutiny of them, or if this was an example of preferential treatment for OP, and if the latter, where did the pressure to do this come from. From inside the prison system or from outside interests.
Click to expand...

Agreed to all Lithgow. I had read yesterday or day before, somewhere that "pre-evaluations " by parole board are very common in S.A. Can't remember link now I'm afraid but it was nothing with specific examples/ worth posting. But the follow-on point was, was the Minister going to bar the other "pre-evaluated" prisoners ( also reviewed on June 5th panel or whenever) from release also.

(Incidentally, after reading a SA observer's complaint that the Minister, during his tv interview, looked around the studio strangely, I looked him up and the minister has a serious sight impairment and in fact has been in forefront of disability rights reform in SA for over 20 years.):facepalm:

Anyway , useful to find out on here that basically he gets reviewed for correctional release again in 2 weeks? (A poster has quoted Ulrich Roux saying that)
 
Masipa wanted OP out in 10 months, but SA does not. The State's appeal will win and OP will spend many years in prison, convicted of Murder, without the luxury of that 5 years / 1/6th rule, rest assured. The minister stepping in is proof of what is sure to come, all of these people work together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 189 more.
Total: 4,129 (members: 190, guests: 3,939)

Online statistics

Members online
190
Guests online
3,939
Total visitors
4,129
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,836
Messages
17,959,820
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top