Julian
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, today was a fairly interesting day in court, it must be said.
For what it's worth, here's my take on proceedings. Thought it might help by giving an overview of sorts (copied, I must admit, from what I posted elsewhere). If not, I apologize!
________
Firstly, one might do well to remember the basic template of a case such as this (that is, a case based essentially on the question of putative self defense). In South African law, I believe, that template is provided for by a case mentioned here before, that of S v De Oliveira. In that case, the accused, De Oliveira, was convicted of murder when he shot a man in the driveway of his house. (Simply put, he was awakened one afternoon by his wife who told him, in some consternation, that there were "unknown black men" in his driveway. He got his gun and shot at them through a window, killing one of these men.)
De Oliveira's defense was that he thought he was acting in self defense, that he may have been mistaken in this belief, but that his mistake was nevertheless pardonable. If this line of defense had been accepted, De Oliveira would have been acquitted of murder; instead, the court dismissed it.
One of the major reasons for this dismissal was the fact that De Oliveira himself did not testify on his own behalf. As a result, the court had to rely on other evidence to try and establish his state of mind at the time of the shooting. The court argued that no reasonable man in similar circumstances would have believed that his life was in imminent danger. To this it added that, since De Oliveira himself did not testify, there were no "proved facts or circumstances" existing which would justify a different conclusion.
Now, what of Pistorius? Well, firstly, he, unlike De Oliveira, did testify. The problem is, however, that his testimony became something of a mess. Effectively, Pistorius attempted to not just bolster his putative self defense claim, but also to try and claim that he did not have the intent to kill anyone. The two do not work well together at all: putative self defense means that the accused defended himself - and intentionally defended himself - in the mistaken belief he was under imminent threat. It therefore requires intent. If one has no intent - if one did not mean to defend one's self - it cannot be self defense, putative or otherwise.
Pistorius's testimony, therefore, put his lawyers in a pickle, and I believe that Vorster was called in - probably at a very late date - to help them get out of that.
The next problem, however, was that Vorster overshot her mark (or at least was made to look like she did, by a rather inspired prosecution). She was clearly brought in to try to explain why Pistorius actually felt that he was under threat - why he believed, and justifiably (if mistakenly) believed - that he had the right to defend himself. Instead, however, she raised the very awkward spectre of Pistorius not being quite sound of mind; of there being, in other words, a case for diminished responsibility. (In fact, in one disastrous moment, she accepted that Pistorius's disorder made him "dangerous" when handling a gun.)
And this, of course, has led to the very unexpected idea that Pistorius may be hustled off to some sort of psychiatric hospital for evaluation.
All in all I very much doubt such an evaluation is in the cards. I also feel, however, that Vorster's testimony will not help Pistorius one iota. Having said that, though, this is, as Vorster herself said, up to the court.
_________
For what it's worth, here's my take on proceedings. Thought it might help by giving an overview of sorts (copied, I must admit, from what I posted elsewhere). If not, I apologize!
________
Firstly, one might do well to remember the basic template of a case such as this (that is, a case based essentially on the question of putative self defense). In South African law, I believe, that template is provided for by a case mentioned here before, that of S v De Oliveira. In that case, the accused, De Oliveira, was convicted of murder when he shot a man in the driveway of his house. (Simply put, he was awakened one afternoon by his wife who told him, in some consternation, that there were "unknown black men" in his driveway. He got his gun and shot at them through a window, killing one of these men.)
De Oliveira's defense was that he thought he was acting in self defense, that he may have been mistaken in this belief, but that his mistake was nevertheless pardonable. If this line of defense had been accepted, De Oliveira would have been acquitted of murder; instead, the court dismissed it.
One of the major reasons for this dismissal was the fact that De Oliveira himself did not testify on his own behalf. As a result, the court had to rely on other evidence to try and establish his state of mind at the time of the shooting. The court argued that no reasonable man in similar circumstances would have believed that his life was in imminent danger. To this it added that, since De Oliveira himself did not testify, there were no "proved facts or circumstances" existing which would justify a different conclusion.
Now, what of Pistorius? Well, firstly, he, unlike De Oliveira, did testify. The problem is, however, that his testimony became something of a mess. Effectively, Pistorius attempted to not just bolster his putative self defense claim, but also to try and claim that he did not have the intent to kill anyone. The two do not work well together at all: putative self defense means that the accused defended himself - and intentionally defended himself - in the mistaken belief he was under imminent threat. It therefore requires intent. If one has no intent - if one did not mean to defend one's self - it cannot be self defense, putative or otherwise.
Pistorius's testimony, therefore, put his lawyers in a pickle, and I believe that Vorster was called in - probably at a very late date - to help them get out of that.
The next problem, however, was that Vorster overshot her mark (or at least was made to look like she did, by a rather inspired prosecution). She was clearly brought in to try to explain why Pistorius actually felt that he was under threat - why he believed, and justifiably (if mistakenly) believed - that he had the right to defend himself. Instead, however, she raised the very awkward spectre of Pistorius not being quite sound of mind; of there being, in other words, a case for diminished responsibility. (In fact, in one disastrous moment, she accepted that Pistorius's disorder made him "dangerous" when handling a gun.)
And this, of course, has led to the very unexpected idea that Pistorius may be hustled off to some sort of psychiatric hospital for evaluation.
All in all I very much doubt such an evaluation is in the cards. I also feel, however, that Vorster's testimony will not help Pistorius one iota. Having said that, though, this is, as Vorster herself said, up to the court.
_________
