Pistorius's sentence lengthened to 13 years

[Robbie]

That’s my feeling, but it's a feeling, not a certainty.

I really don’t like the fact that sympathies seem to lie with Pistorius rather than his victim, but that could just be my perception. Victims so often get forgotten though.

I'm sure no-one hear has forgotten Reeva or her family, they'll never really get over it - but Oscar Pistorius is still here and has to be considered now.  We all have gut feelings about things like this and culpable homicide seemed right to me at the time as nothing was quite clear. The law is above all our feelings.

I see wigginhall has made some good comments before I'm posting this.

[Rhiannon]

I'm sure no-one hear has forgotten Reeva or her family, they'll never really get over it - but Oscar Pistorius is still here and has to be considered now.  We all have gut feelings about things like this and culpable homicide seemed right to me at the time as nothing was quite clear. The law is above all our feelings.

I see wigginhall has made some good comments before I'm posting this.

I’m reminded of the mother and daughter who were abused by the husband/father for decades; when they finally left he shot them. The press afterwards focussed on a ‘very very nice man’ who couldn’t cope with losing his marriage. His sons have had to take to the media to explain that their father was a tyrant and their mother and sister the victims, not the guilty parties.

I feel revulsion at sympathy for killers and abusers. To what degree Pistorius is an abuser exactly I don’t know, but the law says he is a killer. So no, I don’t waste sympathy on him and if his ‘here and now’ isn’t pleasant it’s because of what he did to someone utterly blameless.

[Robbie]

Fair enough.

[ProfessorDavey]

I’m reminded of the mother and daughter who were abused by the husband/father for decades; when they finally left he shot them. The press afterwards focussed on a ‘very very nice man’ who couldn’t cope with losing his marriage. His sons have had to take to the media to explain that their father was a tyrant and their mother and sister the victims, not the guilty parties.

I feel revulsion at sympathy for killers and abusers. To what degree Pistorius is an abuser exactly I don’t know, but the law says he is a killer. So no, I don’t waste sympathy on him and if his ‘here and now’ isn’t pleasant it’s because of what he did to someone utterly blameless.

I agree with you - regardless of our thoughts about Pistorius the real victim here is Reeva and her family.

[wigginhall]

Culpable homicide was the view of the first trial judge, who seemed quite sympathetic to him, not sure why.   But she also argued that the prosecution had not shown or proved that he intended to kill Reeva, which I thought was a good point.   Although I don't know how you can show that, unless he shouted, I'm going to kill you.   Apart from that, it's inference.

However, the argument that it's murder in any case, is quite strong.   You can't just shoot burglars - the US has a terrible record of parents shooting their kids, creeping home drunk.   So they pay a heavy price for their castle doctrine.  Having said that, don't really know SA law.

[ProfessorDavey]

Culpable homicide was the view of the first trial judge, who seemed quite sympathetic to him, not sure why.   But she also argued that the prosecution had not shown or proved that he intended to kill Reeva, which I thought was a good point.   Although I don't know how you can show that, unless he shouted, I'm going to kill you.   Apart from that, it's inference.

However, the argument that it's murder in any case, is quite strong.   You can't just shoot burglars - the US has a terrible record of parents shooting their kids, creeping home drunk.   So they pay a heavy price for their castle doctrine.  Having said that, don't really know SA law.

But we are swinging back again into arguing about the original trial. What has changed is the sentence, which is now in line (albeit at the most lenient end) of available sentences for what he has been convicted of, namely murder.

[floo]

I’m reminded of the mother and daughter who were abused by the husband/father for decades; when they finally left he shot them. The press afterwards focussed on a ‘very very nice man’ who couldn’t cope with losing his marriage. His sons have had to take to the media to explain that their father was a tyrant and their mother and sister the victims, not the guilty parties.

I feel revulsion at sympathy for killers and abusers. To what degree Pistorius is an abuser exactly I don’t know, but the law says he is a killer. So no, I don’t waste sympathy on him and if his ‘here and now’ isn’t pleasant it’s because of what he did to someone utterly blameless.

I agree with you.

[Harrowby Hall]

What about justice for his victim?

You are confusing justice with vengeance or satisfaction or completion or something. Justice is the process of investigating, examining and reviewing the consequences of an event within a legal context. The Steenkamp family had received justice - whether their more personal anxieties were resolved is a different matter. It is unlikely that they will ever be resolved.

One of the consequences of the Rule of Law is that the offence is committed against the whole of society not just an individual or small group of people. The trial, judgement and sentence were in relation to an offence which had been committed against the state of South Africa not just the Steenkamp family.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are confusing justice with vengeance or satisfaction or completion or something. Justice is the process of investigating, examining and reviewing the consequences of an event within a legal context. The Steenkamp family had received justice - whether their more personal anxieties were resolved is a different matter. It is unlikely that they will ever be resolved.

One of the consequences of the Rule of Law is that the offence is committed against the whole of society not just an individual or small group of people. The trial, judgement and sentence were in relation to an offence which had been committed against the state of South Africa not just the Steenkamp family.

The Steenkamp family can only have been considered to have received justice in the last 24 hours - as it is only then that Pistorius' sentence has been commensurate with that of the crime he committed, murder. Up to then he had a sentence way below the minimum for murder so in no way could it be said that justice had been served.

Whether they have now received justice would depend on whether you think that the mitigating circumstances mean that the most lenient sentence for murder was appropriate. If so then you will consider that justice has now been served - if not then you will continue to consider that they haven't received justice as the sentence was too lenient given the nature of the murder.

[floo]

There was no excuse for Pistorius's behaviour and no mitigating circumstances, imo. Yes he is disabled, but without his disability he probably wouldn't have made a name for himself as an athlete. He had a comfortable life compared to many of his compatriots, who would have most likely been sent down for the full sentence the law allowed for such a heinous crime.

[Owlswing]

He thought she was a burglar. I believe him. The media wanted him to be found guilty of murder. He didn't stand a chance. However doubling his sentence is ridiculous and unjust. What do they want of this man, to commit suicide?

If you believe him you are far more giullible than ii took you for by several dozen orders of magnitude!

I can only give thanks to the Powers that Be that you were never appointed a Judge in a court of law, as the kinds of human excrement that would have escaped scot free does not bear thinking about.

[floo]

If you believe him you are far more giullible than ii took you for by several dozen orders of magnitude!

I can only give thanks to the Powers that Be that you were never appointed a Judge in a court of law, as the kinds of human excrement that would have escaped scot free does not bear thinking about.

I agree. That sewer rat didn't show any genuine remorse during his trial, he was just playing to the gallery, imo.

[Owlswing]

I agree. That sewer rat didn't show any genuine remorse during his trial, he was just playing to the gallery, imo.

You mean like taking off his prosthetics and wandering around the Court on his stumps!

He didn't even bother to yell out "Oy! You in the shit-house I have a gun! Come out with your hands up!"

[jeremyp]

Yes, I wondered if in the US he would have got off, since their 'castle doctrine' (in some states, anyway), permits lethal force for home invasion.

My opinion is that, in some US states, he would have got away with it. However, my other opinion is that the law in the USA is totally fucked up.

It's interesting that in the UK, a jury would be asked if they were sure, I'm not sure that I would be.   

I would be. Nobody denies that he fired a gun into a door, behind which he believed there was a person. There is no doubt in my mind that he was trying to kill the said person. He believed the said person to be a dangerous home invader, but he didn't know that. There was no evidence that his life was in danger.

 The correct verdict IMO is guilty of murder but lenient sentence. And that is what he now has.

[jeremyp]

I just thought that his argument that he hadn't intended to kill her, was plausible.

But he did intend to kill whoever was in the bathroom.

[jeremyp]

I agree. That sewer rat didn't show any genuine remorse during his trial,

Are you sure about that?

[wigginhall]

But he did intend to kill whoever was in the bathroom.

Well, I agree, but it all got focused on whether he intended to kill Reeva, but as you say, this is irrelevant to the charge of murder.   The trial judge seemed very sympathetic to him, not sure why, and brought in the notion of objective foresight, which seemed to confuse everybody.   She also argued that the prosecution had not shown that he intended to kill Reeva, this seems correct, but again, irrelevant to the murder charge.

I also agree that US law here is very weird, and, as I've already said, leads to youngsters coming home late and drunk, getting shot by their fathers by mistake.

[floo]

Are you sure about that?

I don't think he did show any real remorse, he seemed to be almost enjoying his court appearance.

[jeremyp]

I don't think he did show any real remorse, he seemed to be almost enjoying his court appearance.

Really?

So you were there the whole time then.