Curly, there is no point in you continuing to hypothesise in trying to defend Pistorius.
If you want to think he panicked that’s fine.
Actually I also think he panicked but only at the point when Reeva said she was leaving him, and then they argued, he lost the violet temper he was well known for then he killed her.
Did he forget his fire arm training? Of course - deliberately
BIB 1- is that your way of acknowledging that people sometimes panic behind the wheel and forget/don't even think about their driver training? Panic can do strange things to a person's ability to think clearly...
What evidence is there that she told him she was leaving him? Why did someone with such an apparent temper, with his tendency to scream and shout-if Sam Taylor and others are to be believed - not shout at all until after hitting the door with the cricket bat (presumably that is what you believe the first set of bangs to be?) But then gave up on the bat and went for his gun, remembering to shout loudly for help before returning to the bathroom and shooting through the door.
Do you think the intruder version was already in his mind as he fired or that it came to him afterwards?
BIB 1- is that your way of acknowledging that people sometimes panic behind the wheel and forget/don't even think about their driver training? Panic can do strange things to a person's ability to think clearly...
What evidence is there that she told him she was leaving him? Why did someone with such an apparent temper, with his tendency to scream and shout-if Sam Taylor and others are to be believed - not shout at all until after hitting the door with the cricket bat (presumably that is what you believe the first set of bangs to be?) But then gave up on the bat and went for his gun, remembering to shout loudly for help before returning to the bathroom and shooting through the door.
Do you think the intruder version was already in his mind as he fired or that it came to him afterwards?
Jeremy - where are you on the whole conspiracy vs cock-up theory of Masipa's verdict?
I remember your views last year.
The outcome of the appeal may depend on which it was.
I am still firmly convinced there are political movements behind the scenes. After all it is SA!
The ‘Ministerial’ delay to Pistorius’ release into correctional custody comes to mind..
Whilst it is true within the letter of the law consideration about release should not have taken place in Pistorius’ case until 10 months, apparently this has not been ‘custom and practice’ in all previous cases.
Now a few days after the new date has been set for the parole hearing news is released that Pistorius had his cell searched in a dawn raid by prison officers suspicious of his friendship with an underworld figure and that ‘police are currently analysing a hard drive seized from his cell’
Now I’m convinced that this was engineered not to look good just before the parole hearing. The crucial words being ‘just before’ as it now appears this dawn raid actually took place last May yet we are told that after some 3 months ‘police are still analysing a hard drive’ words of course meant to imply Pistorius has not yet been proved innocent of any involvement.
However that said perhaps there is hope that ‘someone’ has finally woken up to the fact he should be kept in jail until the SCA decision is announced. Because once out of jail he represents a flight risk with the possibility of 15 more years in jail hanging over him and if the SCA decision goes the way I am sure it will then he is better in prison than out thereby giving Roux the chance to start more appeals to the Constitutional Court to try to prevent a return to prison.
If there is political pulling of strings which looks highly likely perhaps this time it will work in the interest of justice being done.
Jeremy - where are you on the whole conspiracy vs cock-up theory of Masipa's verdict?
I remember your views last year.
The outcome of the appeal may depend on which it was.
Firstly,I think that the SA Gov had a lot of interest in the case and considered it to be a headache. As such they may have struggled to form a solid opinion on what the best outcome would be for SA.
Also,as I recall, the SA Judiciary are in two camps that oppose each other and fight for some form of superiority. ( Too late here to go finding the specifics.
Then there was Masipa who gave a strong impression that she was not entertaining any media influences throughout.
Bias from any combo from all three could have been at play when coming to her findings or none of them where at work at all. Masipa may simply of not been up to reaching competent findings and sentence.
It does not matter now because it will all be revisited soon.
My guess is that the SA Gov have knowledge of how the wind is blowing and they have stepped in to prevent any possible flight risk. They also know just how strongly folk believe that justice was not served. Yet
After checking out a number of OP support groups the one thing that is evident is that most of those people are very religious. Very little of their literature addresses salient points from the trial and instead its based on emotion.
The main Facebook page is promoting a petition to have OP released because he has reached the 10 month period. It has 101 likes. That should have some impact
After checking out a number of OP support groups the one thing that is evident is that most of those people are very religious. Very little of their literature addresses salient points from the trial and instead its based on emotion.
The main Facebook page is promoting a petition to have OP released because he has reached the 10 month period. It has 101 likes. That should have some impact
Blimey, stressfree_man.... Back away from the support group pages... quietly now.... slowly..... no-one needs to get hurt....!! :-)
After checking out a number of OP support groups the one thing that is evident is that most of those people are very religious. Very little of their literature addresses salient points from the trial and instead its based on emotion.
The main Facebook page is promoting a petition to have OP released because he has reached the 10 month period. It has 101 likes. That should have some impact
Only if they have got God to sign it.
But then of course he will not sign the petitiion after Pistorius lied so much under oath.
Last year I was favouring cockup over conspiracy, partly because I figured if Masipa were going to throw the trial, surely she'd do it in a way that was logical legally. But the whole thing's so strange, I've come to the conclusion that you're probably right.
It's not as if we don't know how much corruption there is in SA.
I'm interested in your PoV Stressfree man, I hope that somehow between the different influences, some kind of justice might be allowed to prevail. Although I have to say that, right now, I'm not banking on it.
But then of course he will not sign the petitiion after Pistorius lied so much under oath.
For these god fearing people to retain their integrity then surely they had to believe that everything he said was true.
Not one has asked for a single hail Mary .
Last year I was favouring cockup over conspiracy, partly because I figured if Masipa were going to throw the trial, surely she'd do it in a way that was logical legally. But the whole thing's so strange, I've come to the conclusion that you're probably right.
It's not as if we don't know how much corruption there is in SA.
I'm interested in your PoV Stressfree man, I hope that somehow between the different influences, some kind of justice might be allowed to prevail. Although I have to say that, right now, I'm not banking on it.
My guess is that public opinion has played a part. Prior the trial the SA government may have believed that their public would except a light sentence?
Legally the trial threw up a lot of questions and confusion in law. I am surprised that gun laws are not being revisited via the appeal
Last year I was favouring cockup over conspiracy, partly because I figured if Masipa were going to throw the trial, surely she'd do it in a way that was logical legally. But the whole thing's so strange, I've come to the conclusion that you're probably right.
It's not as if we don't know how much corruption there is in SA.
I'm interested in your PoV Stressfree man, I hope that somehow between the different influences, some kind of justice might be allowed to prevail. Although I have to say that, right now, I'm not banking on it.
It’s all very strange.
We have learnt from this trial that SA is a country where…….
Men scream like women and women can do impressions (very badly) of men screaming like women
Firearms can discharge themselves
Ammunition can self teleport into safes
Nocturnal deafness is a condition that can affect some housekeepers (and dogs)
A degree in geology is a passport to becoming an expert in everything
Five years actually means ten months
Women get brutally murdered and nobody is apparently to blame
Watermelons can be confused with zombies’ brains
Intruders break into houses to use the toilet
……. and of course a place where God apparently loves liars
Interesting as it includes some of the sentiments expressed on here.
For instance why early release was inapprorpriate….
Come to think of it, Pistorius’s trial has come to symbolise all that is wrong with societies around the world when it comes to how women are treated. The protests against his early release are informed by this belief that women’s lives don’t matter, especially in patriarchal societies. Yes, an early release for Pistorius would simply reinforce this belief.
And also how his sentence was totally inadequate……
That Pistorius committed a most heinous crime in killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, on Valentine’s Day two years ago is not in dispute. That he deserved a much longer prison sentence for this senseless act is obvious.
However, to claim that the delay of his early release was ‘unjust’ and was brought about by an ‘extrajudicial decision’ is incorrect.
The process by which the Justice Minister, Michael Masutha, suspended Pistorius's release on parole was entirely within the law and indeed not unique as he has acted in a similar manner before with the cases of Clive Derby-Lewis and the ‘Waterkloof Four’
Whilst the Minister cannot make a decision to approve or disapprove the decision of the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board except for offenders serving life sentences, section 77(1) of the Correctional Services Act enables him to query decisions of the CSPRB if he feels there are concerns.
His query was in respect of Section 73(7)(a) of the Correctional Services Act which states the following,
‘A person sentenced to incarceration under section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, must serve at least one sixth of his or her sentence before being considered for placement under correctional supervisor, unless the court directs otherwise.’
It is clear the Act says one sixth of his or her sentence shall be served before any release is considered.
The Minister’s query was that should the CSPB have ‘considered ‘and indeed announced Pistorius’ release before that time.
So can the the Act be interpreted as meaning 10 months in Pistorius' case have elapse before release was considered? I would suggest so otherwise a situation could develop in that if Pistorius had committed any act in prison which would have infringed the conditions for his early release between the CSPB announcement and the release date the CSPB themselves would have committed to delay his release themselves.
"Pistorius “seems remorseful”, found Masipa, and he “earlier attempted to apologise privately to the deceased’s parents, but they were not ready”. This is a most unsatisfactory finding, given that Pistorius failed—indeed defiantly refused—to manifest remorse in the only manner that is legally meaningful: admitting that he deserves blame for what he did."
"Judge Masipa described other cases of culpable homicide, where mercy had demanded even lighter sentences than the one given to Pistorius. But those cases (as well as others cited by analysts in defence of Pistorius’ sentence) are distinguishable for one critical reason: the offenders all pleaded guilty. They placed themselves at the mercy of the community and the court, and received it."
"Pistorius “seems remorseful”, found Masipa, and he “earlier attempted to apologise privately to the deceased’s parents, but they were not ready”. This is a most unsatisfactory finding, given that Pistorius failed—indeed defiantly refused—to manifest remorse in the only manner that is legally meaningful: admitting that he deserves blame for what he did."
"Judge Masipa described other cases of culpable homicide, where mercy had demanded even lighter sentences than the one given to Pistorius. But those cases (as well as others cited by analysts in defence of Pistorius’ sentence) are distinguishable for one critical reason: the offenders all pleaded guilty. They placed themselves at the mercy of the community and the court, and received it."
This article makes no sense. OP did admit what he'd done and may very well have pleaded guilty to CH. But he was charged with murder not CH, the decision of the state, not the defense. So how the author concludes that this demonstrates a lack of remorse is beyond me.
Interesting as it includes some of the sentiments expressed on here.
For instance why early release was inapprorpriate….
Come to think of it, Pistorius’s trial has come to symbolise all that is wrong with societies around the world when it comes to how women are treated. The protests against his early release are informed by this belief that women’s lives don’t matter, especially in patriarchal societies. Yes, an early release for Pistorius would simply reinforce this belief.
And also how his sentence was totally inadequate……
That Pistorius committed a most heinous crime in killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, on Valentine’s Day two years ago is not in dispute. That he deserved a much longer prison sentence for this senseless act is obvious.
However, to claim that the delay of his early release was ‘unjust’ and was brought about by an ‘extrajudicial decision’ is incorrect.
The process by which the Justice Minister, Michael Masutha, suspended Pistorius's release on parole was entirely within the law and indeed not unique as he has acted in a similar manner before with the cases of Clive Derby-Lewis and the ‘Waterkloof Four’
Whilst the Minister cannot make a decision to approve or disapprove the decision of the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board except for offenders serving life sentences, section 77(1) of the Correctional Services Act enables him to query decisions of the CSPRB if he feels there are concerns.
His query was in respect of Section 73(7)(a) of the Correctional Services Act which states the following,
‘A person sentenced to incarceration under section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, must serve at least one sixth of his or her sentence before being considered for placement under correctional supervisor, unless the court directs otherwise.’
It is clear the Act says one sixth of his or her sentence shall be served before any release is considered.
The Minister’s query was that should the CSPB have ‘considered ‘and indeed announced Pistorius’ release before that time.
So can the the Act be interpreted as meaning 10 months in Pistorius' case have elapse before release was considered? I would suggest so otherwise a situation could develop in that if Pistorius had committed any act in prison which would have infringed the conditions for his early release between the CSPB announcement and the release date the CSPB themselves would have committed to delay his release themselves.
The wording of the Act seems open to interpretation. Surely the only issue at hand is whether the early decision to release OP was unusual or not. If it was unusual, then the reaction of the minister is understandable, but if it wasn't then he's clearly using it as an excuse to keep OP inside if he doesn't also refer other cases where the decision was made early. It seems as though the early decision wasn't unusual.
This article makes no sense. OP did admit what he'd done and may very well have pleaded guilty to CH. But he was charged with murder not CH, the decision of the state, not the defense. So how the author concludes that this demonstrates a lack of remorse is beyond me.
I don’t understand the confusion
In the context of the article the author does make it clear in his opinion that Pistorius could and should have accepted, at the outset, that he was guilty of culpable homicide. Despite being charged with murder the Defence could have submitted a plea of CH which the State may or may not have accepted. Instead he Defence entered a plea of Not Guilty then mounted a strident defence, insisting that he was legally blameless for what he had done and that a reasonable person in his position would have done the same things.
However that is but one small mere facet. The crux of the article is why Masipa convicted Pistorius of a crime bearing a potential prison term of 12 years, then despite her conclusions pointing against clemency she then shied away from an extended period of imprisonment.
As a reminder of those conclusions, she found that ……
His actions were so grossly negligence they bordered on dolus eventualis
His actions had brought about the most terrible and irreparable consequences.
He was a trained marksman, who fired four shots through a closed door, knowing that there was a person in the small cubicle behind it, with no room to escape.
His actions had brought intense suffering of the Steenkamp family
Reeva “was killed under very peculiar circumstances”.
Pistorius was an “evasive” witness who was not truthful when asked about his intentions that morning, as he armed himself with a lethal weapon.
Pistorius was not candid with the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone.
Furthermore she was unconvinced about his claims of special vulnerability
Yet despite all the above she effectively sentenced Pistorius to 10 months in prison which could be extended up to 5 year if he didn’t behave himself!!
That is what the article is really about!
Finally, I would add that had the Defence even considered a CH plea it would not have been acceptable to Pistorius. He has to be ‘blameless’ even in the most incriminating of circumstances (firearms discharging miraculously discharging themselves comes to mind here!)
The wording of the Act seems open to interpretation. Surely the only issue at hand is whether the early decision to release OP was unusual or not. If it was unusual, then the reaction of the minister is understandable, but if it wasn't then he's clearly using it as an excuse to keep OP inside if he doesn't also refer other cases where the decision was made early. It seems as though the early decision wasn't unusual.
I would agree there is room for misinterpretation and I have no doubt that the decision by the Minister is ‘politically’ motivated.
However, in this case he has raised the query that should the phrase ‘before being considered’ mean nothing should have happened officially until 10 months had elapsed.
If he is correct then we can conclude that no matter how many other cases have gone before where release has been on the one sixth date they have not been in accordance with the meaning of the Act.
And in law two wrongs don’t make a right
Of course in truth it’s just a convenient ‘legal’ way of keeping Pistorius behind bars until the SCA decision.
In the context of the article the author does make it clear in his opinion that Pistorius could and should have accepted, at the outset, that he was guilty of culpable homicide. Despite being charged with murder the Defence could have submitted a plea of CH which the State may or may not have accepted. Instead he Defence entered a plea of Not Guilty then mounted a strident defence, insisting that he was legally blameless for what he had done and that a reasonable person in his position would have done the same things.
However that is but one small mere facet. The crux of the article is why Masipa convicted Pistorius of a crime bearing a potential prison term of 12 years, then despite her conclusions pointing against clemency she then shied away from an extended period of imprisonment.
As a reminder of those conclusions, she found that ……
His actions were so grossly negligence they bordered on dolus eventualis
His actions had brought about the most terrible and irreparable consequences.
He was a trained marksman, who fired four shots through a closed door, knowing that there was a person in the small cubicle behind it, with no room to escape.
His actions had brought intense suffering of the Steenkamp family
Reeva “was killed under very peculiar circumstances”.
Pistorius was an “evasive” witness who was not truthful when asked about his intentions that morning, as he armed himself with a lethal weapon.
Pistorius was not candid with the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone.
Furthermore she was unconvinced about his claims of special vulnerability
Yet despite all the above she effectively sentenced Pistorius to 10 months in prison which could be extended up to 5 year if he didn’t behave himself!!
That is what the article is really about!
Finally, I would add that had the Defence even considered a CH plea it would not have been acceptable to Pistorius. He has to be ‘blameless’ even in the most incriminating of circumstances (firearms discharging miraculously discharging themselves comes to mind here!)
We can't possibly know what would or would not have been acceptable to OP. My guess is that CH would have been accepted in the context of a plea bargain given that that's what happened in similar cases and I'd be surprised if the defense didn't try to negotiate before the trial.
The state's case was that even on OP's version it was murder, so I don't see how he had the opportunity to ever plead guilty to a lesser charge.
I think it's obvious why Masipa didn't sentence OP to 12 years or so. Clearly it was because she was viewing this in a similar light to all the other cases where people have shot loved ones or intruders and either not been charged or received only a suspended sentence. You can't argue that those sentences were right and then sentence someone who did something very similar to 12 years. Look at some famous cases - Humphreys, and Jub Jub. Long sentences around that mark, ultimately for CH, - in each case they acted deliberately albeit stupidly, in daylight and in public places - not in the dark in their own home and in fear - and in each case multiple children died. It seems more that the original accusation of murder is the basis on which some want a long sentence for CH, not the crime for which he was sentenced.
Comments
BIB 1- is that your way of acknowledging that people sometimes panic behind the wheel and forget/don't even think about their driver training? Panic can do strange things to a person's ability to think clearly...
What evidence is there that she told him she was leaving him? Why did someone with such an apparent temper, with his tendency to scream and shout-if Sam Taylor and others are to be believed - not shout at all until after hitting the door with the cricket bat (presumably that is what you believe the first set of bangs to be?) But then gave up on the bat and went for his gun, remembering to shout loudly for help before returning to the bathroom and shooting through the door.
Do you think the intruder version was already in his mind as he fired or that it came to him afterwards?
Curly, tell you what.....
just wait and see what the SCA brings OK.
No further discussion need.
Okay, Jeremy. No problem.
I hope you don't mind if I continue to post on here in the meantime though- i just won't hold out for any replies from you until after the SCA meet.
I remember your views last year.
The outcome of the appeal may depend on which it was.
I am still firmly convinced there are political movements behind the scenes. After all it is SA!
The ‘Ministerial’ delay to Pistorius’ release into correctional custody comes to mind..
Whilst it is true within the letter of the law consideration about release should not have taken place in Pistorius’ case until 10 months, apparently this has not been ‘custom and practice’ in all previous cases.
Now a few days after the new date has been set for the parole hearing news is released that Pistorius had his cell searched in a dawn raid by prison officers suspicious of his friendship with an underworld figure and that ‘police are currently analysing a hard drive seized from his cell’
Now I’m convinced that this was engineered not to look good just before the parole hearing. The crucial words being ‘just before’ as it now appears this dawn raid actually took place last May yet we are told that after some 3 months ‘police are still analysing a hard drive’ words of course meant to imply Pistorius has not yet been proved innocent of any involvement.
However that said perhaps there is hope that ‘someone’ has finally woken up to the fact he should be kept in jail until the SCA decision is announced. Because once out of jail he represents a flight risk with the possibility of 15 more years in jail hanging over him and if the SCA decision goes the way I am sure it will then he is better in prison than out thereby giving Roux the chance to start more appeals to the Constitutional Court to try to prevent a return to prison.
If there is political pulling of strings which looks highly likely perhaps this time it will work in the interest of justice being done.
Firstly,I think that the SA Gov had a lot of interest in the case and considered it to be a headache. As such they may have struggled to form a solid opinion on what the best outcome would be for SA.
Also,as I recall, the SA Judiciary are in two camps that oppose each other and fight for some form of superiority. ( Too late here to go finding the specifics.
Then there was Masipa who gave a strong impression that she was not entertaining any media influences throughout.
Bias from any combo from all three could have been at play when coming to her findings or none of them where at work at all. Masipa may simply of not been up to reaching competent findings and sentence.
It does not matter now because it will all be revisited soon.
My guess is that the SA Gov have knowledge of how the wind is blowing and they have stepped in to prevent any possible flight risk. They also know just how strongly folk believe that justice was not served. Yet
The main Facebook page is promoting a petition to have OP released because he has reached the 10 month period. It has 101 likes. That should have some impact
Blimey, stressfree_man.... Back away from the support group pages... quietly now.... slowly..... no-one needs to get hurt....!! :-)
Only if they have got God to sign it.
But then of course he will not sign the petitiion after Pistorius lied so much under oath.
Last year I was favouring cockup over conspiracy, partly because I figured if Masipa were going to throw the trial, surely she'd do it in a way that was logical legally. But the whole thing's so strange, I've come to the conclusion that you're probably right.
It's not as if we don't know how much corruption there is in SA.
I'm interested in your PoV Stressfree man, I hope that somehow between the different influences, some kind of justice might be allowed to prevail. Although I have to say that, right now, I'm not banking on it.
I ran out very fast I tell ye. I am not tackling OP fanatics and God at the same time. I wish to preserve my sanity ^_^
For these god fearing people to retain their integrity then surely they had to believe that everything he said was true.
Not one has asked for a single hail Mary .
My guess is that public opinion has played a part. Prior the trial the SA government may have believed that their public would except a light sentence?
Legally the trial threw up a lot of questions and confusion in law. I am surprised that gun laws are not being revisited via the appeal
It’s all very strange.
We have learnt from this trial that SA is a country where…….
Men scream like women and women can do impressions (very badly) of men screaming like women
Firearms can discharge themselves
Ammunition can self teleport into safes
Nocturnal deafness is a condition that can affect some housekeepers (and dogs)
A degree in geology is a passport to becoming an expert in everything
Five years actually means ten months
Women get brutally murdered and nobody is apparently to blame
Watermelons can be confused with zombies’ brains
Intruders break into houses to use the toilet
……. and of course a place where God apparently loves liars
Brilliant
I thought it was where God WILL TRY to love liars,
http://mg.co.za/article/2015-09-03-pistorius-injustice-demeans-us
Interesting as it includes some of the sentiments expressed on here.
For instance why early release was inapprorpriate….
Come to think of it, Pistorius’s trial has come to symbolise all that is wrong with societies around the world when it comes to how women are treated. The protests against his early release are informed by this belief that women’s lives don’t matter, especially in patriarchal societies. Yes, an early release for Pistorius would simply reinforce this belief.
And also how his sentence was totally inadequate……
That Pistorius committed a most heinous crime in killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, on Valentine’s Day two years ago is not in dispute. That he deserved a much longer prison sentence for this senseless act is obvious.
However, to claim that the delay of his early release was ‘unjust’ and was brought about by an ‘extrajudicial decision’ is incorrect.
The process by which the Justice Minister, Michael Masutha, suspended Pistorius's release on parole was entirely within the law and indeed not unique as he has acted in a similar manner before with the cases of Clive Derby-Lewis and the ‘Waterkloof Four’
Whilst the Minister cannot make a decision to approve or disapprove the decision of the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board except for offenders serving life sentences, section 77(1) of the Correctional Services Act enables him to query decisions of the CSPRB if he feels there are concerns.
His query was in respect of Section 73(7)(a) of the Correctional Services Act which states the following,
‘A person sentenced to incarceration under section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, must serve at least one sixth of his or her sentence before being considered for placement under correctional supervisor, unless the court directs otherwise.’
It is clear the Act says one sixth of his or her sentence shall be served before any release is considered.
The Minister’s query was that should the CSPB have ‘considered ‘and indeed announced Pistorius’ release before that time.
So can the the Act be interpreted as meaning 10 months in Pistorius' case have elapse before release was considered? I would suggest so otherwise a situation could develop in that if Pistorius had committed any act in prison which would have infringed the conditions for his early release between the CSPB announcement and the release date the CSPB themselves would have committed to delay his release themselves.
http://mg.co.za/article/2015-08-25-remorseless-pistorius-didnt-deserve-judges-mercy
"Pistorius “seems remorseful”, found Masipa, and he “earlier attempted to apologise privately to the deceased’s parents, but they were not ready”. This is a most unsatisfactory finding, given that Pistorius failed—indeed defiantly refused—to manifest remorse in the only manner that is legally meaningful: admitting that he deserves blame for what he did."
"Judge Masipa described other cases of culpable homicide, where mercy had demanded even lighter sentences than the one given to Pistorius. But those cases (as well as others cited by analysts in defence of Pistorius’ sentence) are distinguishable for one critical reason: the offenders all pleaded guilty. They placed themselves at the mercy of the community and the court, and received it."
This article makes no sense. OP did admit what he'd done and may very well have pleaded guilty to CH. But he was charged with murder not CH, the decision of the state, not the defense. So how the author concludes that this demonstrates a lack of remorse is beyond me.
The wording of the Act seems open to interpretation. Surely the only issue at hand is whether the early decision to release OP was unusual or not. If it was unusual, then the reaction of the minister is understandable, but if it wasn't then he's clearly using it as an excuse to keep OP inside if he doesn't also refer other cases where the decision was made early. It seems as though the early decision wasn't unusual.
I don’t understand the confusion
In the context of the article the author does make it clear in his opinion that Pistorius could and should have accepted, at the outset, that he was guilty of culpable homicide. Despite being charged with murder the Defence could have submitted a plea of CH which the State may or may not have accepted. Instead he Defence entered a plea of Not Guilty then mounted a strident defence, insisting that he was legally blameless for what he had done and that a reasonable person in his position would have done the same things.
However that is but one small mere facet. The crux of the article is why Masipa convicted Pistorius of a crime bearing a potential prison term of 12 years, then despite her conclusions pointing against clemency she then shied away from an extended period of imprisonment.
As a reminder of those conclusions, she found that ……
His actions were so grossly negligence they bordered on dolus eventualis
His actions had brought about the most terrible and irreparable consequences.
He was a trained marksman, who fired four shots through a closed door, knowing that there was a person in the small cubicle behind it, with no room to escape.
His actions had brought intense suffering of the Steenkamp family
Reeva “was killed under very peculiar circumstances”.
Pistorius was an “evasive” witness who was not truthful when asked about his intentions that morning, as he armed himself with a lethal weapon.
Pistorius was not candid with the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone.
Furthermore she was unconvinced about his claims of special vulnerability
Yet despite all the above she effectively sentenced Pistorius to 10 months in prison which could be extended up to 5 year if he didn’t behave himself!!
That is what the article is really about!
Finally, I would add that had the Defence even considered a CH plea it would not have been acceptable to Pistorius. He has to be ‘blameless’ even in the most incriminating of circumstances (firearms discharging miraculously discharging themselves comes to mind here!)
I would agree there is room for misinterpretation and I have no doubt that the decision by the Minister is ‘politically’ motivated.
However, in this case he has raised the query that should the phrase ‘before being considered’ mean nothing should have happened officially until 10 months had elapsed.
If he is correct then we can conclude that no matter how many other cases have gone before where release has been on the one sixth date they have not been in accordance with the meaning of the Act.
And in law two wrongs don’t make a right
Of course in truth it’s just a convenient ‘legal’ way of keeping Pistorius behind bars until the SCA decision.
We can't possibly know what would or would not have been acceptable to OP. My guess is that CH would have been accepted in the context of a plea bargain given that that's what happened in similar cases and I'd be surprised if the defense didn't try to negotiate before the trial.
The state's case was that even on OP's version it was murder, so I don't see how he had the opportunity to ever plead guilty to a lesser charge.
I think it's obvious why Masipa didn't sentence OP to 12 years or so. Clearly it was because she was viewing this in a similar light to all the other cases where people have shot loved ones or intruders and either not been charged or received only a suspended sentence. You can't argue that those sentences were right and then sentence someone who did something very similar to 12 years. Look at some famous cases - Humphreys, and Jub Jub. Long sentences around that mark, ultimately for CH, - in each case they acted deliberately albeit stupidly, in daylight and in public places - not in the dark in their own home and in fear - and in each case multiple children died. It seems more that the original accusation of murder is the basis on which some want a long sentence for CH, not the crime for which he was sentenced.