Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: floo on November 24, 2017, 08:30:44 AM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42107701
A pity they didn't make it a lot longer.
-
You can't be serious. It's terrible.
-
You can't be serious. It's terrible.
What is terrible is the fact that evil piece of dog dirt shot his girlfriend dead. I hope he is having a very hard time in prison. >:(
-
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?
-
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?
I don't believe that lying turd for a second. Surely if the person you were sharing a bed with was missing and you heard someone in the bathroom the normal assumption to make is that they were using the facilities. No sane person would shoot first and ask questions later. Besides which, it appears Pistorius had a history of violence.
-
Everything little thing was dragged up and used to crucify him. There are many people who believe he was innocent, just not enough at the end of the day. The very idea that he could be tried for the same crime twice is scandalous.
You go on believing the worst of everyone, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
-
Everything little thing was dragged up and used to crucify him. There are many people who believe he was innocent, just not enough at the end of the day. The very idea that he could be tried for the same crime twice is scandalous.
You go on believing the worst of everyone, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I think the issue now is the sentence rather than the issue of guilt or otherwise.
The court decided that he was guilty of murder - and that being the case the original sentence of just 6 years appears to be crazily lenient for someone guilty of murder. In fact even now, with his sentence increased to 15 years, he has receive the minimum sentence possible for murder.
If he is innocent then he should be in jail at all, if he is guilty of murder (as the court has found) then he should be serving a sentence that is consistent with that murder conviction. That is now the case (just) - it wasn't previously.
-
Everything little thing was dragged up and used to crucify him. There are many people who believe he was innocent, just not enough at the end of the day. The very idea that he could be tried for the same crime twice is scandalous.
You go on believing the worst of everyone, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
So shooting at someone in a restaurant, as he did was a 'little thing' was it? Shooting through the sunroof of his car when having a temper tantrum was a 'little thing' was it? I wouldn't give that piece of scum the benefit of the doubt, when the evidence proves otherwise.
-
So shooting at someone in a restaurant, as he did was a 'little thing' was it? Shooting through the sunroof of his car when having a temper tantrum was a 'little thing' was it? I wouldn't give that piece of scum the benefit of the doubt, when the evidence proves otherwise.
Floo
What he was reported to have done of other occasions is of NO relevance at all to his trial for the shooting of his girlfriend.
Were you a juror in a trial for murder and were found to have used information not raised in evidence at the trial to help convict the accused - then the trial would be declared a mistrial and you might even be found to be in contempt.
-
I think he genuinely thought there was an intruder in the house and that he was actually protecting his girlfriend. The fact that he shot into a room through a door without knowing who was behind it means he is guilty but I think you are wrong in your opinion of him Floo.
-
I think he genuinely thought there was an intruder in the house and that he was actually protecting his girlfriend. The fact that he shot into a room through a door without knowing who was behind it means he is guilty but I think you are wrong in your opinion of him Floo.
And on what basis do you come to that conclusion - were you in the court room for the whole period of the trial? Those who were came to a different conclusion, and on appeal his conviction was confirmed as murder.
I don't think any of us here have enough evidence to hand to be able to genuinely opine on whether he was guilty or innocent, or if guilty whether that was for murder or manslaughter - we simply don't have enough information.
But that isn't the issue here - the issue today is given that he has been convicted of murder (that is simply a statement of fact) whether a sentence of 6 years is appropriate, given that the minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years. I cannot see how anyone can coe to any other conclusion than to say it wasn't appropriate and that the decision today has rectified that by giving him the minimum sentence allowed in the case of someone convicted of murder (which he has been).
-
That's what I think. The original trial in which he was guilty of manslaughter should have stood. I don't know what he can do now about the appalling increase in sentence. None of it brings poor Reeva back to her family. However not one of us was there.
What a dreadful waste of two lives.
-
And on what basis do you come to that conclusion - were you in the court room for the whole period of the trial? Those who were came to a different conclusion, and on appeal his conviction was confirmed as murder.
I don't think any of us here have enough evidence to hand to be able to genuinely opine on whether he was guilty or innocent, or if guilty whether that was for murder or manslaughter - we simply don't have enough information.
But that isn't the issue here - the issue today is given that he has been convicted of murder (that is simply a statement of fact) whether a sentence of 6 years is appropriate, given that the minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years. I cannot see how anyone can coe to any other conclusion than to say it wasn't appropriate and that the decision today has rectified that by giving him the minimum sentence allowed in the case of someone convicted of murder (which he has been).
I expressed my opinion based on the evidence I saw from the court case and other sources. You are correct in what you say which is why I have not ranted and raved or expressed a strong view on the sentence but simply expressed my opinion that he didn't intend to kill Reeva. I could be wrong. Could the court have been wrong?
-
I don't know what he can do now about the appalling increase in sentence.
Justify that statement please, specifically the bit emphasised.
He has been convicted or murder (that is a fact).
The minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years (that is also a fact)
His sentence has been reviewed and he has now received the minimum sentence that is possible for a murder conviction in South Africa of 15 years (he will serve a further 13 years as the sentence takes account of time already served).
In what way is that 'appalling' - don't forget that even now he has received the most lenient sentence possible for the crime that he has been convicted of.
-
Could the court have been wrong?
Yes, of course they could. Which is why there is an appeals process.
But the point is that until or unless his conviction for murder is overturned on appeal (or reduced to manslaughter) then he should receive a sentence appropriate to his conviction for murder. Prior to today he hadn't, today that has been rectified and he has received the minimum sentence possible under South African law for murder.
-
Yes, of course they could. Which is why there is an appeals process.
But the point is that until or unless his conviction for murder is overturned on appeal (or reduced to manslaughter) then he should receive a sentence appropriate to his conviction for murder. Prior to today he hadn't, today that has been rectified and he has received the minimum sentence possible under South African law for murder.
Agreed. I haven't commented on the sentence though just expressed my personaly opinion - which is all it is.
-
You can't be serious. It's terrible.
He murdered his girlfriend. He's lucky not to be serving a life sentence.
-
Floo
What he was reported to have done of other occasions is of NO relevance at all to his trial for the shooting of his girlfriend.
Were you a juror in a trial for murder and were found to have used information not raised in evidence at the trial to help convict the accused - then the trial would be declared a mistrial and you might even be found to be in contempt.
No, but it is of relevance when considering the sentence.
-
That's what I think. The original trial in which he was guilty of manslaughter should have stood. I don't know what he can do now about the appalling increase in sentence. None of it brings poor Reeva back to her family. However not one of us was there.
What a dreadful waste of two lives.
He knew there was somebody behind the door and he shot through the door. The identity of the person is irrelevant - it's still murder.
-
You can't be serious. It's terrible.
It is the most lenient sentence he could possibly have received given the fact that he has been convicted of murder.
-
I don’t have a strong opinion either way, but there’s this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/07/oscar-pistorius-sentence-an-homage-to-celebrity-and-white-privilege
-
He knew there was somebody behind the door and he shot through the door. The identity of the person is irrelevant - it's still murder.
Exactly. He would be tried for murder here in the UK, even if he had shot a burglar.
-
Just to say that it worries me when sympathies lie so strongly with a killer, intentional or otherwise. Some people are very good at manipulating sympathy. This may or may not be the case here but the evidence that it was accidental didn’t hold up, hence the reason this has happened.
-
No, but it is of relevance when considering the sentence.
I do not dispute this. But it cannot be considered to be evidence of guilt - which appears to be Floo's view.
As to the actual verdict of "Guilty" - I have no quarrel.
-
Just to say that it worries me when sympathies lie so strongly with a killer, intentional or otherwise. Some people are very good at manipulating sympathy. This may or may not be the case here but the evidence that it was accidental didn’t hold up, hence the reason this has happened.
I think Pistorius thought he would get away with it, thank goodness he hasn't.
-
Just to say that it worries me when sympathies lie so strongly with a killer, intentional or otherwise. Some people are very good at manipulating sympathy. This may or may not be the case here but the evidence that it was accidental didn’t hold up, hence the reason this has happened.
Which bits didn't hold up?
-
Which bits didn't hold up?
The claim that the shooting was accidental.
-
It held up when he was initially convicted of manslaughter.
Manslaughter is bad, even if someone is scared by an intruder it is a serious crime to kill and they have to be punished.
-
It held up when he was initially convicted of manslaughter.
Manslaughter is bad, even if someone is scared by an intruder it is a serious crime to kill and they have to be punished.
And that was subsequently overturned. Why was that a wrong decision?
-
The claim that the shooting was accidental.
Which bits of evidence?
-
I don't understand why. Vengeance rather than justice I suspect.
Anyway it's done now and I take the point that his sentence is reasonable given the conviction of murder.
-
I do not dispute this. But it cannot be considered to be evidence of guilt - which appears to be Floo's view.
No - but in many cases it would be relevant evidence that would be admissible in the case as it has a bearing on the actual case being tried.
So for example in a case of domestic abuse it would be completely relevant and admissible for the prosecution to provide evidence of previous cases of violence.
-
I don't understand why. Vengeance rather than justice I suspect.
You don't understand what? That someone convicted of murder should be provided at the very least the minimum sentence for the conviction of murder. In what way is that vengeance - it seems perfectly consistent with justice to me, indeed the only argument that is sustainable in this context is that the new sentence is still too lenient as it is still the very minimum possible. There can be no argument that it is too severe as it is the most lenient that could have been imposed.
Anyway it's done now and I take the point that his sentence is reasonable given the conviction of murder.
Then what are you arguing about.
Bottom line - he was convicted of murder and should be given a sentence consistent with that conviction.
-
It held up when he was initially convicted of manslaughter.
But overturned on appeal.
Manslaughter is bad, even if someone is scared by an intruder it is a serious crime to kill and they have to be punished.
It wasn't manslaughter though, it was murder.
-
Which bits of evidence?
The testimony of Pistorius that the shooting was accidental (i.e. his claim) is not considered to be evidence?
-
It held up when he was initially convicted of manslaughter.
While he was convicted of manslaughter the sentence should reflect that conviction of manslaughter - but that was overturned on appeal and he was subsequently convicted of murder. Once convicted of murder his sentence must reflect that conviction - of murder - which in South Africa is a minimum of 15 years.
In fact he should consider himself extremely fortunately in receiving the most lenient sentence possible for the crime he was convicted of.
-
I don't understand why. Vengeance rather than justice I suspect.
Anyway it's done now and I take the point that his sentence is reasonable given the conviction of murder.
What about justice for his victim? How can you be more certain than the judiciary that changed the verdict on appeal?
-
In fact he should consider himself extremely fortunately in receiving the most lenient sentence possible for the crime he was convicted of.
There were mitigating circumstances, namely he did have a legitimate fear of home invasion.
-
What about justice for his victim? How can you be more certain than the judiciary that changed the verdict on appeal?
I am not more certain, just believe in giving the benefit of the doubt when there are doubts.
Hopefully Reeva Steenkemp's family now feel that justice has been done.
-
There were mitigating circumstances, namely he did have a legitimate fear of home invasion.
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. However, I can't remember if P's defence tried this approach, but the first judge seemed sympathetic to it. But it got muddled up with dolus eventualis, which seemed to fox many people outside SA, to do with foreseeing the results of one's actions.
It's interesting that in the UK, a jury would be asked if they were sure, I'm not sure that I would be.
-
That's what I think. The original trial in which he was guilty of manslaughter should have stood. I don't know what he can do now about the appalling increase in sentence. None of it brings poor Reeva back to her family. However not one of us was there.
What a dreadful waste of two lives.
only a life and a half really , he was missing his legs :o
-
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. However, I can't remember if P's defence tried this approach, but the first judge seemed sympathetic to it. But it got muddled up with dolus eventualis, which seemed to fox many people outside SA, to do with foreseeing the results of one's actions.
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 really don’t think it’s possible to tell unless maybe you are in the same courtroom.
-
I really don’t think it’s possible to tell unless maybe you are in the same courtroom.
Yet plenty of people seem sure that his defence, that he thought a burglar had got in, is false. I suppose this is based on the idea that if your girl-friend goes to the loo, you are aware of this. Dunno.
-
Yet plenty of people seem sure that his defence, that he thought a burglar had got in, is false. I suppose this is based on the idea that if your girl-friend goes to the loo, you are aware of this. Dunno.
Why would a burglar be in the bathroom anyway? Surely they would grab the stuff they wish to steal and get out pdq, instead of stopping off for a comfort break?
-
That's a point but a burglar might hear someone moving and dive into the bathroom to hide I suppose.
We'll never know for sure why it all happened.
-
Why would a burglar be in the bathroom anyway? Surely they would grab the stuff they wish to steal and get out pdq, instead of stopping off for a comfort break?
But that's arguing that Pistorius should have gone through a rational thought process, when he heard a noise. His defence argued (if I'm remembering correctly), that he was terrified of home invasions, because he wouldn't be able to escape. I think in the UK, it would be murder in any case, since killing a burglar is murder, unless they are attacking you, but not sure about SA.
I just thought that his argument that he hadn't intended to kill her, was plausible.
-
Yet plenty of people seem sure that his defence, that he thought a burglar had got in, is false. I suppose this is based on the idea that if your girl-friend goes to the loo, you are aware of this. Dunno.
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.
-
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 just found it interesting, as in the US, he would probably have got off, as they have a very harsh castle doctrine, but in the UK, not, as we don't allow that, unless you are being attacked. One of my neighbours killed a burglar, and went to jail, as the burglar was climbing out of the window. Of course, he's a local hero now.
-
The testimony of Pistorius that the shooting was accidental (i.e. his claim) is not considered to be evidence?
The original comment was that the evidence didn't hold up. Just wondered what they meant.
-
The defence seemed confused, didn't they? At one point, they argued that it was an accident, but then that P thought a burglar had got in. That doesn't add up. Apart from that, it was a lot to do with his state of mind, which is difficult to compute. I was surprised when the higher court ruled that he could not have feared for his life. Why not, if he thought a burglar was there and he is walking around on stumps?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Fair enough.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!"
-
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.
-
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.
-
I agree. That sewer rat didn't show any genuine remorse during his trial,
Are you sure about that?
-
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.
-
Are you sure about that?
I don't think he did show any real remorse, he seemed to be almost enjoying his court appearance.
-
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.