Oscar Pistorius: pay your dues!

People wrote:...In its decision, the five-judge Supreme Court of Appeal ordered Pistorius — originally sentenced to six years in prison for murdering Reeva Steenkamp — to spend 13 years and five months behind bars, according to the Associated Press, the BBC and The New York Times.

The new ruling reportedly bring Pistroius’ sentence in line with the recommended minimum of 15 years for murder in South Africa, minus the time he has already served either in prison or under house arrest.

According to the AP, the appellate court’s decision is likely the final development in Pistorius’ case. It began not long after he fatally fired four times on Steenkamp, a law grad and model, on Valentine’s Day 2013, shooting her through a closed bathroom door in his Pretoria, South Africa, home.

Pistorius, 31, has always maintained he believed there was an intruder that night, but prosecutors said they suspected he was motivated by an earlier argument with his 29-year-old girlfriend of less than a year. At his first trial, they argued that he was gun-crazy and temperamental.

The shooting came months after the 2012 Summer Olympics at which Pistorius — an amputee runner nicknamed the “Blade Runner,” for the prosthetic legs he used to compete — was an international star. After several successful Paralympic Games, he competed at the Olympics, a first for a double-amputee.

His arrest and trial made months of headlines around the world. Though he was initially convicted of culpable homicide and served one year in prison, prosecutors appealed and he was found guilty of murder in 2015.

Likewise, with Friday’s decision, prosecutors have successfully appealed his initial sentence, which the trial judge reportedly attributed, in part, to Pistorius’ attempts at a personal apology to Steenkamp’s family.

eddie wrote:Of course I agree with this latest development - and think it should be longer - but! I want to play devils advocate a minute, perhaps Quill can answer.

How is it fair that you're given a sentence, then it can be added to, at will? Or have I got that totally wrong?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Of course I agree with this latest development - and think it should be longer - but! I want to play devils advocate a minute, perhaps Quill can answer.

How is it fair that you're given a sentence, then it can be added to, at will? Or have I got that totally wrong?

It happens sometimes. Jeremy Bamber ended up with a longer sentence than the original one. In Northern Ireland, Susan Christie's sentence for killing Penny McAllister was increased from five years to nine years - still too lenient IMO.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It happens sometimes. Jeremy Bamber ended up with a longer sentence than the original one. In Northern Ireland, Susan Christie's sentence for killing Penny McAllister was increased from five years to nine years - still too lenient IMO.

I'm in agreemnet with you re the leniency but it still doesn't seem right that you can add to someone's sentence after they've been sentenced. I don't know why that seems wrong but it does, and it isn't because I'm on the side of the offender either.  

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It happens sometimes. Jeremy Bamber ended up with a longer sentence than the original one. In Northern Ireland, Susan Christie's sentence for killing Penny McAllister was increased from five years to nine years - still too lenient IMO.

I'm in agreemnet with you re the leniency but it still doesn't seem right that you can add to someone's sentence after they've been sentenced. I don't know why that seems wrong but it does, and it isn't because I'm on the side of the offender either.  

Everything that happens in a trial court is subject to appeal.  There is no 'double jeopardy' freeze that sets in when an error has been committed.  When the error favors the defendant, it can be corrected just as well.

Most the time you won't see a prosecutor appeal, because trials are expensive (meh, can be as much as a $1-million+ proposition).  They take a crap-shoot approach, and feel that they are lucky if it was a win.  But occasionally, as here, the injustice is so egregious as to prompt the prosecution to appeal.

Courts are writing policy at the same time that they are adjudicating the individual case.  That's what precedent is all about.  Mindful of this, appeals courts in particular are keen to 'steer' the law in the right direction. This is the appellate court telling the trial court: No, no...not that way...it works this way.

smelly-bandit wrote:Bloody hell

Calm down folks, all he did was kill her,


With the amount of hatred going down range you'd swear he did something  serious like misgendering her or denying the pay gap.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:Bloody hell

Calm down folks, all he did was kill her,


With the amount of hatred going down range you'd swear he did something  serious like misgendering her or denying the pay gap.

No, he just took away from us a beautiful, and very talented woman.  And what did he give back?  His egotistical, nanny-fed, narcissism.  He gave the world a bad deal.

Fuck 'im...he deserves a bullet in the temple, I says.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:Bloody hell

Calm down folks, all he did was kill her,


With the amount of hatred going down range you'd swear he did something  serious like misgendering her or denying the pay gap.

No, he just took away from us a beautiful, and very talented woman.  And what did he give back?  His egotistical, nanny-fed, narcissism.  He gave the world a bad deal.

Fuck 'im...he deserves a bullet in the temple, I says.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, he just took away from us a beautiful, and very talented woman.  And what did he give back?  His egotistical, nanny-fed, narcissism.  He gave the world a bad deal.

Fuck 'im...he deserves a bullet in the temple, I says.

She was only white Quill since when did you liberals care about whites??

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, he just took away from us a beautiful, and very talented woman.  And what did he give back?  His egotistical, nanny-fed, narcissism.  He gave the world a bad deal.

Fuck 'im...he deserves a bullet in the temple, I says.

Well he took her away from her family and friends anyway. I doubt you would have known much about her if he hadn't done that.

magica wrote:No we probably wouldn't know who she was, but she had the right to life.  Pistorious snatched that away by murdering her.  

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well he took her away from her family and friends anyway. I doubt you would have known much about her if he hadn't done that.

Your world has changed too, Raggs.  No matter how insignificantly, he took something away from all of us.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Your world has changed too, Raggs.  No matter how insignificantly, he took something away from all of us.

No Quill, it hasn't changed - or it hasn't changed because Reeva was murdered.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No Quill, it hasn't changed - or it hasn't changed because Reeva was murdered.

You'll never have the pleasure of meeting her.  That's changed for you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You'll never have the pleasure of meeting her.  That's changed for you.

I doubt very much that I would ever have met her.

Raggamuffin wrote:

magica wrote:No we probably wouldn't know who she was, but she had the right to life.  Pistorious snatched that away by murdering her.  

I agree, I just think it's silly when people talk as if it was their personal tragedy when they didn't even know the murder victim.

Raggamuffin wrote:

magica wrote:No we probably wouldn't know who she was, but she had the right to life.  Pistorious snatched that away by murdering her.  

I agree, I just think it's silly when people talk as if it was their personal tragedy when they didn't even know the murder victim.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I agree, I just think it's silly when people talk as if it was their personal tragedy when they didn't even know the murder victim.

I don't agree...you said the same thing about the Manchester bomb, yet the people of Manchester grieved for the dead even if they were the lucky ones and were not personally affected.
Similar when Princess Diana died.....the whole nation grieved for her. I don't think it matters whether you would have ever met the person, most people can feel great sadness for others in certain circumstances.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't agree...you said the same thing about the Manchester bomb, yet the people of Manchester grieved for the dead even if they were the lucky ones and were not personally affected.
Similar when Princess Diana died.....the whole nation grieved for her. I don't think it matters whether you would have ever met the person, most people can feel great sadness for others in certain circumstances.

I was gutted when David Bowie died.   

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I agree, I just think it's silly when people talk as if it was their personal tragedy when they didn't even know the murder victim.

I don't agree...you said the same thing about the Manchester bomb, yet the people of Manchester grieved for the dead even if they were the lucky ones and were not personally affected.
Similar when Princess Diana died.....the whole nation grieved for her. I don't think it matters whether you would have ever met the person, most people can feel great sadness for others in certain circumstances.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't agree...you said the same thing about the Manchester bomb, yet the people of Manchester grieved for the dead even if they were the lucky ones and were not personally affected.
Similar when Princess Diana died.....the whole nation grieved for her. I don't think it matters whether you would have ever met the person, most people can feel great sadness for others in certain circumstances.

Grieved for how long? A few days?  They were shocked, but they're not grieving. It's just not comparable with being related to or a good friend of the deceased person.

The same for Diana. I was sad too, but it didn't affect my life. Do you not see the difference?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Grieved for how long? A few days?  They were shocked, but they're not grieving. It's just not comparable with being related to or a good friend of the deceased person.

The same for Diana. I was sad too, but it didn't affect my life. Do you not see the difference?

Yes I do see its different to a personal tragedy, but grief still hurts....and plenty people do feel it even when they are not personally involved.

There are still people in Manchester suffering six months after the bombing even though some of them were not involved.
Events like this can have a profound effect on many people.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

She was only white Quill since when did you liberals care about whites??

All gods creatures deserve love.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well he took her away from her family and friends anyway. I doubt you would have known much about her if he hadn't done that.

Your world has changed too, Raggs.  No matter how insignificantly, he took something away from all of us.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't agree...you said the same thing about the Manchester bomb, yet the people of Manchester grieved for the dead even if they were the lucky ones and were not personally affected.
Similar when Princess Diana died.....the whole nation grieved for her. I don't think it matters whether you would have ever met the person, most people can feel great sadness for others in certain circumstances.

Grieved for how long? A few days?  They were shocked, but they're not grieving. It's just not comparable with being related to or a good friend of the deceased person.

The same for Diana. I was sad too, but it didn't affect my life. Do you not see the difference?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Grieved for how long? A few days?  They were shocked, but they're not grieving. It's just not comparable with being related to or a good friend of the deceased person.

The same for Diana. I was sad too, but it didn't affect my life. Do you not see the difference?

You're changing the goalposts a little bit.  No longer is it "changed" your life, but "affected" your life.  You don't have to be legally or physically involved.  Most importantly, small chance does not mean no chance.

@ Syl: Diana is an excellent example.  Though she is better known, she didn't affect our lives that much.  But we all still joined in the drama of her life...and death.

That's true with anything.  Look how we participate, when a small crime or social misstep forms the basis for a thread.  We don't know the people, but we can envision the scene, and the script, and we willingly join in.  I think the plight of Rev'va has already changed us.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Your world has changed too, Raggs.  No matter how insignificantly, he took something away from all of us.

You're full of shit Quill

You never heard of her before she was killed.

Same way you don't know of the hundreds of thousands killed by violent crime in South Africa nor do you care about them.

Same way you would never have heard of her if he wasn't famous.

You can put down your "Je suis Reeva" placard you're not fooling anyone

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're changing the goalposts a little bit.  No longer is it "changed" your life, but "affected" your life.  You don't have to be legally or physically involved.  Most importantly, small chance does not mean no chance.

@ Syl: Diana is an excellent example.  Though she is better known, she didn't affect our lives that much.  But we all still joined in the drama of her life...and death.

That's true with anything.  Look how we participate, when a small crime or social misstep forms the basis for a thread.  We don't know the people, but we can envision the scene, and the script, and we willingly join in.  I think the plight of Rev'va has already changed us.

Changed or affected - same thing. It's absurd to imply that someone who was sad for a minute or two, or a day or two, is grieving in the same way that someone who was close to her is.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes I do see its different to a personal tragedy, but grief still hurts....and plenty people do feel it even when they are not personally involved.

There are still people in Manchester suffering six months after the bombing even though some of them were not involved.
Events like this can have a profound effect on many people.

They might be worried about being killed themselves, but they're not grieving for those who died. I find it quite offensive to compare the two things.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They might be worried about being killed themselves, but they're not grieving for those who died. I find it quite offensive to compare the two things.

Others may be offended that you think them caring about others and feeling grief and sadness for their deaths is somehow connected with self preservation.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Changed or affected - same thing. It's absurd to imply that someone who was sad for a minute or two, or a day or two, is grieving in the same way that someone who was close to her is.

I think my post to Russ is more to the point.  You too might consider: where is the line drawn between change and affected.  What would it take for you to care?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Others may be offended that you think them caring about others and feeling grief and sadness for their deaths is somehow connected with self preservation.

How many of those who died in Manchester can you name? Do you think about them and cry? No, you don't, and neither do people who didn't know them.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How many of those who died in Manchester can you name? Do you think about them and cry? No, you don't, and neither do people who didn't know them.

I don't know their names but that's not important, they were young people, mums picking up their children after a concert that attracted lots of youngsters.

I don't think a person has to cry to feel grief and sadness....though I did cry a lot at the time, as did many other people.
Even when we lose a beloved person we don't weep and wail months after their passing....it doesn't mean we don't still hurt.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You're full of shit Quill

You never heard of her before she was killed.

Same way you don't know of the hundreds of thousands killed by violent crime in South Africa nor do you care about them.

Same way you would never have heard of her if he wasn't famous.

You can put down your "Je suis Reeva" placard you're not fooling anyone

What do you think is necessary in order to care, Russ?  Where is the line drawn between Meh... and OMG!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't know their names but that's not important, they were young people, mums picking up their children after a concert that attracted lots of youngsters.

I don't think a person has to cry to feel grief and sadness....though I did cry a lot at the time, as did many other people.
Even when we lose a beloved person we don't weep and wail months after their passing....it doesn't mean we don't still hurt.

You're not grieving for those people though. You didn't know them and their deaths don't affect your life. Losing someone that you were close to is completely different. I don't get why you can't see that.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're not grieving for those people though. You didn't know them and their deaths don't affect your life. Losing someone that you were close to is completely different. I don't get why you can't see that.

I do see it Rags, I said it was different.
There are different levels of grief like there are different levels of love, it doesn't have to be all consuming.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't know their names but that's not important, they were young people, mums picking up their children after a concert that attracted lots of youngsters.

I don't think a person has to cry to feel grief and sadness....though I did cry a lot at the time, as did many other people.
Even when we lose a beloved person we don't weep and wail months after their passing....it doesn't mean we don't still hurt.

You're not grieving for those people though. You didn't know them and their deaths don't affect your life. Losing someone that you were close to is completely different. I don't get why you can't see that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I do see it Rags, I said it was different.
There are different levels of grief like there are different levels of love, it doesn't have to be all consuming.

So do you agree with Quill's posts then? I find them very silly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I do see it Rags, I said it was different.
There are different levels of grief like there are different levels of love, it doesn't have to be all consuming.

So do you agree with Quill's posts then? I find them very silly.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're not grieving for those people though. You didn't know them and their deaths don't affect your life. Losing someone that you were close to is completely different. I don't get why you can't see that.

It's called virtue signalling.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So do you agree with Quill's posts then? I find them very silly.

You remind me to the ancient Greek challenge of how to make a square into a circle.  They hypothesized that if they split each straight line in half, they would eventually get a circle.  Then someone told them, you're not making the angles disappear, you are just making them smaller, and undetectable.  You've still got a bunch of straight lines

Likewise, you think if you minimize the connection, you make it go away.  It doesn't go away; you're just making it smaller.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So do you agree with Quill's posts then? I find them very silly.

You remind me to the ancient Greek challenge of how to make a square into a circle.  They hypothesized that if they split each straight line in half, they would eventually get a circle.  Then someone told them, you're not making the angles disappear, you are just making them smaller, and undetectable.  You've still got a bunch of straight lines

Likewise, you think if you minimize the connection, you make it go away.  It doesn't go away; you're just making it smaller.