Sentencing hearing for Oscar Pistorius

First topic message reminder :

Oscar Pistorius offered $34,000 to the family of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp after he killed her, but the family rejected the offer because it did not want “blood money,” a prosecutor said Tuesday at the sentencing hearing for the double-amputee athlete.

Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel also referred to separate monthly payments of $550 that Pistorius apparently did make to Steenkamp’s parents after they asked for help. Nel said those would be paid back in full.

The revelations emerged while Nel was cross-examining a social worker over what Pistorius’ punishment should be for shooting Steenkamp. The social worker testified that Pistorius should be placed under house arrest, rather than sent to prison, after his conviction for culpable homicide, or negligent killing.

Social worker Annette Vergeer, one of four witnesses called by the defense, said South African jails are violent and overcrowded and that the athlete would be under duress because of his disability and fragile mental state resulting from the night he fired four times through a toilet door in his home, killing Steenkamp.

Additionally, Vergeer said, Pistorius — who, in 2012, was the first amputee athlete to run at the Olympics — has the potential to be a productive member of society again. A sentence of house arrest and work at a school for disabled children would be more appropriate, she said.

Judge Thokozile Masipa found Pistorius, 27, not guilty of murder, concluding he acted hastily and with excessive force, but didn’t intend to kill Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model. Pistorius could receive a fine and a suspended jail term or as many as 15 years in prison.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The judge did seem to like him, even after the appeal.  She always bought into the 'po lil me' routine he was pitching.

Quill, why couldn't  Riva's lawyers prove he meant to kill her, or at least that he went after her and not a burglar?

Rivas lawyers were not involved.  They stood by to learn things, with the ultimate aim of perhaps bringing a civil lawsuit.

In criminal law the state is always on one side, the defense on the other.  That said, proof of intent is always a subjective matter.  It is state-of-mind, which usually requires an admission or some strong circumstantial evidence imputing intent.

Here, like the Geo. Zimmerman case, there are no eyewitnesses and only the accused's story to go on.  So the jury has no direct evidence, and only Pistorius' word as a basis for its decision.  He could invent any story he wanted...and he designed one that skirted any major admission.

Sorry Quill, I'm not understanding, why couldn't Riva's lawyers get involved?

eddie wrote:Sorry Quill, I'm not understanding, why couldn't Riva's lawyers get involved?

They are not a party.  They represent the interests of the victim and her survivors.  In criminal law the plaintiff is always the State; technically, the defendant is being charged with an offense against the state, not the victim.  The victim, like witnesses, represent the facts—albeit, important facts..

The only contest in a criminal matter, inevitably, is between the State and the defendant. It's more of a government proceeding in that sense...as opposed to a dispute between private parties.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Sorry Quill, I'm not understanding, why couldn't Riva's lawyers get involved?

They are not a party.  They represent the interests of the victim and her survivors.  In criminal law the plaintiff is always the State; technically, the defendant is being charged with an offense against the state, not the victim.  The victim, like witnesses, represent the facts—albeit, important facts..

The only contest in a criminal matter, inevitably, is between the State and the defendant.  It's more of a government proceeding in that sense...as opposed to a dispute between private parties.

Ah ok. I get it now. Thanks.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How do you prove something like that? I think that one of the issues was whether he was wearing his legs or not. If he had been, that would have suggested that he had been up and not in bed just before the shooting. That would have meant that he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. However, the evidence showed that he was probably not wearing them, and that gave credence to his claim that he'd been in bed and thought there was a burglar in the house.

Turn that on its head and say; they had both been in bed together and had a row  and she'd got up and locked herself in the bathroom? Hence he had no legs

Yes, it could have happened that way, but they couldn't prove it. If he had been wearing his legs, it would have been proof that his story was not true.

Tommy Monk wrote:Murder is murder is murder...


I know what it means... I just think you are misinterpreting it slightly...

No I'm not. You're querying the sentencing, but if you looked into it you'd see why the sentence was lighter than 15 years.

Raggs... it means that it matters not what he says about who he thought was in there...


He intentionally shot multiple rounds at someone through a toilet door... well knowing that this would likely result in the death of the person in there...


That is murder!


Pure and simple!


And the min sentence is 15 years!!!


"...Legal analysts say the Supreme Court could convict Pistorius of murder itself, which has a minimum 15-year sentence, order a retrial or throw out the state's appeal.

LEGAL CONCEPT WITH LATIN NAME

The working definition of dolus eventualis in South African law, taken from the 1963 case of State vs. Malinga, suggests that the intent could apply equally with regard to the intruder Pistorius says he believed was behind the door..."


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-pistorius-idUSKCN0SS0LY20151104

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggs... it means that it matters not what he says about who he thought was in there...


He intentionally shot multiple rounds at someone through a toilet door... well knowing that this would likely result in the death of the person in there...


That is murder!


Pure and simple!


And the min sentence is 15 years!!!


"...Legal analysts say the Supreme Court could convict Pistorius of murder itself, which has a minimum 15-year sentence, order a retrial or throw out the state's appeal.

LEGAL CONCEPT WITH LATIN NAME

The working definition of dolus eventualis in South African law, taken from the 1963 case of State vs. Malinga, suggests that the intent could apply equally with regard to the intruder Pistorius says he believed was behind the door..."


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-pistorius-idUSKCN0SS0LY20151104

Yes, but the judge can give a lesser sentence if she gives her reasons - which she did.

You are right tommy.

And the law under which he was convicted has a maximum sentence of 15-years.

The exercise in sentencing is to summarize all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and place him somewhere in the spectrum. Somehow, the judge's addition and subtraction came up with a low figure. As I said, I believe she bought into the 'po lil ol' me' crap that he was selling.

I mean, the judge says everyone was dumping on poor old Pistorius, but WTF...he did murder someone.

Good evening Raggs...

From the link you posted up before...


"...Masipa said the mitigating factors – that he was vulnerable on his stumps, believed there was an intruder, tried to save Steenkamp’s life and was, in the judge’s view, genuinely remorseful..."


Is that it...!?


He had a gun and was not under any threat at all...


More waffle about this imaginary burglar/intruder...


Tried to save her life...!? I read that the circumstances round his actions directly after suggested he was maybe thinking of trying to cover it up...!


His cry baby tears for himself mean nothing!!!


If it had of been a burglar then it would still have been murder and 15 years or rather premeditated murder and 25 years!!!


What if it had been a burglar..  but he then said he thought it was his girlfriend...?


And how sorry he was to have mistakenly killed a burglar...?


It would still mean he intentionally shot and killed the person behind the door!


Which is murder under dolus eventualis!!!


And carries a min 15 year sentence... all the excuses and waffle he gave are mitigating circumstances to get off of being guilty of the premeditated murder charge... which carries a much longer sentence!


The 'mitigating circumstances' surely can't be used again to get an even lighter possible sentence on the already lesser charge already won by the use of these things...!?

Original Quill wrote:You are right tommy.

And the law under which he was convicted has a maximum sentence of 15-years.

The exercise in sentencing is to summarize all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and place him somewhere in the spectrum.  Somehow, the judge's addition and subtraction came up with a low figure.  As I said, I believe she bought into the 'po lil ol' me' crap that he was selling.

I mean, the judge says everyone was dumping on poor old Pistorius, but WTF...he did murder someone.

It has a MINIMUM sentence of 15 years...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You are right tommy.

And the law under which he was convicted has a maximum sentence of 15-years.

The exercise in sentencing is to summarize all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and place him somewhere in the spectrum.  Somehow, the judge's addition and subtraction came up with a low figure.  As I said, I believe she bought into the 'po lil ol' me' crap that he was selling.

I mean, the judge says everyone was dumping on poor old Pistorius, but WTF...he did murder someone.

It has a MINIMUM sentence of 15 years...

My understanding was a maximum of 15-years.

Court wrote:"...Masipa said the mitigating factors – that he was vulnerable on his stumps, believed there was an intruder, tried to save Steenkamp’s life and was, in the judge’s view, genuinely remorseful..."

She also bought into the notion that guns are for defense. Anytime someone fires a gun, they are trying to kill someone, not "save [someone's] life." It's one of those logical contradictions that have crept into our culture...the notion that guns can save.

Tommy Monk wrote:Good evening Raggs...

From the link you posted up before...


"...Masipa said the mitigating factors – that he was vulnerable on his stumps, believed there was an intruder, tried to save Steenkamp’s life and was, in the judge’s view, genuinely remorseful..."


Is that it...!?


He had a gun and was not under any threat at all...


More waffle about this imaginary burglar/intruder...


Tried to save her life...!? I read that the circumstances round his actions directly after suggested he was maybe thinking of trying to cover it up...!


His cry baby tears for himself mean nothing!!!


If it had of been a burglar then it would still have been murder and 15 years or rather premeditated murder and 25 years!!!


What if it had been a burglar..  but he then said he thought it was his girlfriend...?


And how sorry he was to have mistakenly killed a burglar...?


It would still mean he intentionally shot and killed the person behind the door!


Which is murder under dolus eventualis!!!


And carries a min 15 year sentence... all the excuses and waffle he gave are mitigating circumstances to get off of being guilty of the premeditated murder charge... which carries a much longer sentence!


The 'mitigating circumstances' surely can't be used again to get an even lighter possible sentence on the already lesser charge already won by the use of these things...!?

Tommy, I'm not agreeing with the sentence, I'm merely pointing out that the judge could give less than 15 years if she wanted to. You keep saying that 15 years is the minimum, but it clearly wasn't in this case.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

It has a MINIMUM sentence of 15 years...

My understanding was a maximum of 15-years.

Court wrote:"...Masipa said the mitigating factors – that he was vulnerable on his stumps, believed there was an intruder, tried to save Steenkamp’s life and was, in the judge’s view, genuinely remorseful..."

She also bought into the notion that guns are for defense.  Anytime someone fires a gun, they are trying to kill someone, not "save [someone's] life."  It's one of those logical contradictions that have crept into our culture...the notion that guns can save.

Tommy's right that it's a minimum sentence, not a maximum. However, see my other posts.

A gun saved my life on several occasions, mind you i was holding it!!

Raggs... his mitigating circumstances have already been used to avoid the charge/conviction of premeditated murder...


The being vulnerable and thinking it was a burglar etc... that has already got him off the much more serious charge of premeditated murder.



He has been convicted of murdering SOMEONE by his intentional deliberate action of firing multiple rounds through a door that he knew SOMEONE was there behind it... and knowing that this would likely result in the death of the SOMEONE...


The who he he says he thought it may or not have been is subsequently irrelevant in this...


If he thought it was a burglar and it was a burglar then he would be on the more serious charge and convicted of premeditated murder...


If he thought it was girlfriend and it turned out it was then again that would be premed murder...


If it turned out burglar but he said he thought it was his girlfriend... then this is the same as saying he thought it burglar and it turned out to be girlfriend... as far as the mistaken identity part of his waffle goes...


The charge and conviction is of the fact that he knew someone was in there and shot multiple rounds at them knowing that this would likely kill them... matters not who or who he says he thought it may have been
..

And 15 years is the minimum for this... and only ever a considered lesser charge than the premed murder because of the already used mitigating circumstances... cant use them again to lesser punishment for what is already a lesser charge based on circumstances...



Do you see what I'm saying?

nicko wrote:A gun saved my life on several occasions,   mind you i was holding it!!

The gun didn't save your life.  Your threat, or use of it saved your life.  Did it save the other person's life?  

One way or the other, a gun is designed to kill someone.  Net/net...it never saves a life...you just got on the positive side of the equation.

Tommy Monk wrote:Raggs... his mitigating circumstances have already been used to avoid the charge/conviction of premeditated murder...


The being vulnerable and thinking it was a burglar etc... that has already got him off the much more serious charge of premeditated murder.



He has been convicted of murdering SOMEONE by his intentional deliberate action of firing multiple rounds through a door that he knew SOMEONE was there behind it... and knowing that this would likely result in the death of the SOMEONE...


The who he he says he thought it may or not have been is subsequently irrelevant in this...


If he thought it was a burglar and it was a burglar then he would be on the more serious charge and convicted of premeditated murder...


If he thought it was girlfriend and it turned out it was then again that would be premed murder...


If it turned out burglar but he said he thought it was his girlfriend... then this is the same as saying he thought it burglar and it turned out to be girlfriend... as far as the mistaken identity part of his waffle goes...


The charge and conviction is of the fact that he knew someone was in there and shot multiple rounds at them knowing that this would likely kill them... matters not who or who he says he thought it may have been
..

And 15 years is the minimum for this... and only ever a considered lesser charge than the premed murder because of the already used mitigating circumstances... cant use them again to lesser punishment for what is already a lesser charge based on circumstances...



Do you see what I'm saying?

The point is that they used the dolus eventualis issue - ie, he knew there was a possibility that the person on the other side of the door would die. The minimum is clearly not 15 years - otherwise he would have got 15 years.

"Intent in the form of dolus eventualis or legal intention, which is present when the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences, suffices to find someone guilty of murder."


This is 15 year minimum sentence.


In my opinion... the law has been wrongly applied again here to give him anything less... except minus time already served.

Tommy Monk wrote:

"Intent in the form of dolus eventualis or legal intention, which is present when the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences, suffices to find someone guilty of murder."


This is 15 year minimum sentence.


In my opinion... the law has been wrongly applied again here to give him anything less... except minus time already served.

Link please to where it specifically says the minimum sentence for that kind of crime is 15 years. You see the word "possibility" there?

He has been found guilty of murder under dolus eventualis...


That means he knew the possibility of causing death to person in toilet... and carried on anyway...


If it turned out to be the person he thought he was murdering then it would have been premeditated murder... be that burglar or if he admitted trying to kill girlfriend and it turned out to be girlfriend...




The guilty finding of dolus eventualis is the consideration that he murdered someone... but just not the person he was trying to murder...



If I beat someone to death... but then claimed that I only wanted to beat them to within an inch of death... is that an excuse for murdering them?


What if I attacked and beat someone to death... who I didn't know... but thought they were someone else that looked like them ... who I really wanted to beat to death...


What excuses are there then...!?


And then what is I also claimed I only wanted to beat them to within an inch of death etc...!?



Does that make any difference to that too...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

He has been found guilty of murder under dolus eventualis...


That means he knew the possibility of causing death to person in toilet... and carried on anyway...


If it turned out to be the person he thought he was murdering then it would have been premeditated murder... be that burglar or if he admitted trying to kill girlfriend and it turned out to be girlfriend...




The guilty finding of dolus eventualis is the consideration that he murdered someone... but just not the person he was trying to murder...



If I beat someone to death... but then claimed that I only wanted to beat them to within an inch of death... is that an excuse for murdering them?


What if I attacked and beat someone to death... who I didn't know... but thought they were someone else that looked like them ... who I really wanted to beat to death...


What excuses are there then...!?


And then what is I also claimed I only wanted to beat them to within an inch of death etc...!?



Does that make any difference to that too...!?

There's no indication that he was trying to murder anyone, let alone a specific person.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It has a MINIMUM sentence of 15 years...

My understanding was a maximum of 15-years.

Court wrote:"...Masipa said the mitigating factors – that he was vulnerable on his stumps, believed there was an intruder, tried to save Steenkamp’s life and was, in the judge’s view, genuinely remorseful..."

She also bought into the notion that guns are for defense.  Anytime someone fires a gun, they are trying to kill someone, not "save [someone's] life."  It's one of those logical contradictions that have crept into our culture...the notion that guns can save.

Frankly, as I stated over on Pg#1, the judge bought into his 'Oscar Award Winning' sobbing routine during the trial - when upon cue and the specific question he'd go into his wailing/sobbing/retching act and carry on as if he was going to perish right there in the courtroom from a broken heart!

Oscar Pistorius Gets 6-Year Prison Sentence In Girlfriend's Murder
 July 6, 20166:54 AM ET   Bill Chappell  

Oscar Pistorius is embraced by family members as he leaves the High Court after being sentenced to six years in prison for the 2013 murder of his girlfriend.                                                        

A South African judge sentenced former Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius to six years in prison Wednesday, imposing punishment for the 2013 killing of Reeva Steenkamp, Pistorius' girlfriend who was shot through a bathroom door in his house.
The sentence is less than half of the 15-year minimum term Pistorius had faced. In announcing the sentence, Judge Thokozile Masipa cited "substantial" mitigating factors in the case of the double-amputee athlete, saying that a long jail term "would not serve justice."
Steenkamp's parents, June and Barry, were in court to hear the sentence; afterward, they told reporters that nothing would bring their daughter back. Steenkamp was locked in the bathroom when she was killed on Valentine's Day in 2013.
"Pistorius has always maintained he mistook his girlfriend for an intruder," NPR's Ofeibea Quist-Arcton reports, adding, "Prosecutors earlier indicated they would appeal any sentence under eight years imposed on the double amputee athlete."
Before announcing the sentence in court today, Judge Masipa said that Pistorius' life has been changed forever. She added, "I am of the view that a long term in prison will not serve justice in this matter. The accused has already served 12 months imprisonment. He is a first offender... and he is not likely to reoffend."
For Pistorius, the prison sentence is a sharp turnaround from last summer, when a parole board recommended he be released under supervision after having served one-sixth of a five-year sentence he received for culpable homicide, a charge similar to manslaughter.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/06/484902325/oscar-pistorius-gets-6-year-prison-sentence-in-girlfriends-murder

So that leaves one question left unanswered; will the prosecutors office follow up on their word and "appeal any sentence under eight years imposed on the double amputee athlete?" 

Dolus eventualis guilty verdict says exactly that he did murder someone with intent... by intentionality firing multiple shots at someone who could likely die as a result of his actions...


The minimum is 15 years for this.


If he said he thought it was burglar and it was a burglar... then that would have been premeditated murder and minimum 25 years...


If he said he thought it was girlfriend and it was girlfriend... then that too would have been premeditated murder and min 25 years...



The waffle about he thought it was burglar but turned out to be girlfriend etc... ONLY GETS HIM OFF THE PREMEDITATED MURDER CHARGE!!!


The same waffle about he thought it was burglar but turned out to be girlfriend IS AN ADMISSION OF MURDER BY DOLUS EVENTUALIS WHICH CARRIES A 15 YEAR MINIMUM SENTENCE!!!



Do you see the point I am making...?

Tommy, why don't you write a letter to the judge and tell her she got the law wrong?

Tommy Monk wrote:
Dolus eventualis guilty verdict says exactly that he did murder someone with intent... by intentionality firing multiple shots at someone who could likely die as a result of his actions...
The minimum is 15 years for this.
If he said he thought it was burglar and it was a burglar... then that would have been premeditated murder and minimum 25 years...
If he said he thought it was girlfriend and it was girlfriend... then that too would have been premeditated murder and min 25 years...
The waffle about he thought it was burglar but turned out to be girlfriend etc... ONLY GETS HIM OFF THE PREMEDITATED MURDER CHARGE!!!
The same waffle about he thought it was burglar but turned out to be girlfriend IS AN ADMISSION OF MURDER BY DOLUS EVENTUALIS WHICH CARRIES A 15 YEAR MINIMUM SENTENCE!!!
Do you see the point I am making...?

Does the 'POINT YOU ARE MAKING' mean that your opinion about this is going to make that judge retry that case - open it up because your opinion carry's so much weight with her that she's going to say - 'Absolutely, Tommykins ...you've made me see the error of my legal rationale and I'm the court appointed dumb-ass and should be disbarred-dethroned-tossed out of chambers?' 

Raggamuffin wrote:Tommy, why don't you write a letter to the judge and tell her she got the law wrong?

Oh come on Raggs... don't be like that...


I'm only trying to debate these finer points with you because i respect your opinion and your objective/reasoned thinking...


I think the verdict of Pistorius being guilty of murder by 'dolus eventualis' is the least he can be prosecuted for... and should have been found guilty of this at his original trial.


The judge clearly got it wrong then... as I said back then...


And I think the judge now has got it wrong on sentencing...



I'm sure many top legal boffins are making these arguments to the relevant south African authorities already...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Tommy, why don't you write a letter to the judge and tell her she got the law wrong?

Oh come on Raggs... don't be like that...


I'm only trying to debate these finer points with you because i respect your opinion and your objective/reasoned thinking...


I think the verdict of Pistorius being guilty of murder by 'dolus eventualis' is the least he can be prosecuted for... and should have been found guilty of this at his original trial.


The judge clearly got it wrong then... as I said back then...


And I think the judge now has got it wrong on sentencing...



I'm sure many top legal boffins are making these arguments to the relevant south African authorities already...

You flatterer.

You're quite right though Tommy - this is a complex issue and it deserves more attention. I will look into it more but I can't do that at the moment as I have to go out.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Pistorius has been sentenced to 6-years in prison for the murder of Re'eva Stienkamp.  Far less than the 15-years maximum.

Pistorius is white.

It's because it couldn't be proved that it was premeditated.

I have to disagree on the reason he got off lightly Rags.
Women the world over are hooked on TV soaps where nothing is real but they always feel sorry for the main male character and especially if he cries on screen.
He becomes the Knight on a white horse who can do no real harm. The O.J. Simpson case was similar.
Women should never serve on jury's as they get emotionally involved. Had the jury been all male he'd have been doing life without parole in
my opinion.

So you don't like black people, Asian people, Muslim people of any kind and female people?

eddie wrote:So you don't like black people, Asian people, Muslim people of any kind and female people?

I didn't even imply that Ed, no-one escapes my criticism though if I don't agree with them.
I don't discriminate then whoever they are, black, white , male , female, straight or gay.
I guess I just like to argue the toss with everyone

blackie333 wrote:Had the jury been all male he'd have been doing life without parole in my opinion.

Unfortunately, not true. The jury doesn't sentence; the court does.

The sentence is determined by the judge within a sentencing range. The sentencing range is determined by the charge. The charge is what the court is given by the prosecutor.

In this case the appeals court gave the lower court a charge that could only have a sentencing range of 15-years maximum.

But I like your thinking. Had I been the judge I'd have given him the maximum.

Original Quill wrote:

blackie333 wrote:Had the jury been all male he'd have been doing life without parole in my opinion.

Unfortunately, not true.  The jury doesn't sentence; the court does.

The sentence is determined by the judge within a sentencing range.  The sentencing range is determined by the charge.  The charge is what the court is given by the prosecutor.

In this case the appeals court gave the lower court a charge that could only have a sentencing range of 15-years maximum.

But I like your thinking.  Had I been the judge I'd have given him the maximum.

Well if that's the case OQ surely their system of justice needs to be questioned.

Original Quill wrote:

blackie333 wrote:Had the jury been all male he'd have been doing life without parole in my opinion.

Unfortunately, not true.  The jury doesn't sentence; the court does.

The sentence is determined by the judge within a sentencing range.  The sentencing range is determined by the charge.  The charge is what the court is given by the prosecutor.

In this case the appeals court gave the lower court a charge that could only have a sentencing range of 15-years maximum.

But I like your thinking.  Had I been the judge I'd have given him the maximum.

We should argue more about criminal cases as I think you'd be a good adversary.

Lets begin with Jeremy Bamber and his crocodile tears photograph convincing most of the female population thinking him innocent when
to me it's a clear cut case of his guilt.