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.
If he's been singled out by a minister when no other prisoners are kept in on the same basis, I'm not so sure it is legal. In an interview about this the minister even said he gets lots of requests of the kind that he got from the woman's group but he doesn't review most of them. Seems pretty clear that he did so either because it was convenient for him or because it was coming from (basically) the ANCWL. Either way, he can't say this one case was sent for review because it was the only one for which he received a petition so there's no basis I can see on which he could claim OP has not been singled out - and can that be legal?
BTW, I know the above isn't what you meant by a 'legal' way of keeping OP behind bars. Just got me thinking.
If he's been singled out by a minister when no other prisoners are kept in on the same basis, I'm not so sure it is legal. In an interview about this the minister even said he gets lots of requests of the kind that he got from the woman's group but he doesn't review most of them. Seems pretty clear that he did so either because it was convenient for him or because it was coming from (basically) the ANCWL. Either way, he can't say this one case was sent for review because it was the only one for which he received a petition so there's no basis I can see on which he could claim OP has not been singled out - and can that be legal?
BTW, I know the above isn't what you meant by a 'legal' way of keeping OP behind bars. Just got me thinking.
If I read the Act…..
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.
… to me it means a person’s behaviour patterns for at least one sixth of their sentence must be available before a parole board considers them for early release. So no parole board meets until this time has elapsed.
Now it would appear, no doubt because of prison overcrowding, a blind eye has been turned and this period shorted by the parole board meeting beforehand and releasing a prison on the one sixth mark.
So perhaps one could say prisoners released in this way have benefitted from this ‘short cut’ and Pistorius has been singled out as having the law applied correctly.
It’s ‘convenient’ of course but I would also suggest quite legal. If there was any doubt about legality then we would have seen Roux legging it to the High Court in turbo drive
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.
BIB This became obvious to anyone who had looked at similar cases and judged them in light of the CH. Most legal commentators at the time of the trial doubted there was sufficient for DD but most lay commentators forgot that CH with unproven DD is still just CH. The short sentence was an inevitable result of the early release scheme.
10 months for a mistake is not too wide of the mark. Anyone who has a problem with it should be redirecting their efforts towards gun control and eventual gun abolition not pillorying the one shooter. Reeva's legacy should always be highlighting the need for a gun free civil society.
BIB This became obvious to anyone who had looked at similar cases and judged them in light of the CH. Most legal commentators at the time of the trial doubted there was sufficient for DD but most lay commentators forgot that CH with unproven DD is still just CH. The short sentence was an inevitable result of the early release scheme.
10 months for a mistake is not too wide of the mark. Anyone who has a problem with it should be redirecting their efforts towards gun control and eventual gun abolition not pillorying the one shooter. Reeva's legacy should always be highlighting the need for a gun free civil society.
So firing 4 expanding bullets at torso height through a locked door into a small enclosed space knowing someone was inside
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.
Humphrys and JubJub weren't similar to OP, although they were similar to each other.
H took a risk at a level crossing that he'd taken before and succeeded, but this time it failed. The consequences were a possibility rather than an inevitability.
JJ got into a car mashed and crashed into kids, again a risk in which the consequences were possible but not inevitable.
Neither of them drove their vehicle directly at a bunch of children, or intended to harm them. JJ did not intend to hit the children with his car, H did not intend to hit the train with his bus.
OP intended to fire 4 lethal bullets directly at a person in a cubicle. The journey from intention to action to consequence is direct.
Equally the movement from foreseeing a fatal outcome and reconciling himself to that fact is also direct.
CH was right verdict for H and JJ, but not for OP.
If he knew exactly what he was doing then he would have known what he was doing was likely to result at the very least in a CH conviction
Not so at all. Shooting someone when in a blind rage, and we all know about his temper, does not result in the consequences being uppermost on the mind.
You also need to bear in mind shooting someone through a door is far easier when you can’t see their face.
However I’m sure it was an action instantly regretted and of course one that needed some quick thinking afterwards.
The quick thinking started as soon as he saw the open window – cue noise of window opening and of course blame it on intruders the bête noire of most white South Africans
Also he needed to be very upset ( thoughts of the loss of millions in sponsorship deals and possible jail worked a treat there)
Throw in some praying to God and there you have it
You don’t need to be called Sherlock to work that out
I slightly disagree in that I think that as he levelled his gun at the door, he knew exactly what he was risking, but in that moment of red mist rage he wanted to to win so much that he (thought) he didn't care.
Afterwards, consequences was all he was left with and he regretted it immediately.
I slightly disagree in that I think that as he levelled his gun at the door, he knew exactly what he was risking, but in that moment of red mist rage he wanted to to win so much that he (thought) he didn't care.
Afterwards, consequences was all he was left with and he regretted it immediately.
Of course and wining was everything to him, even to the extent when he was arrested it is reported his response to the police was, I'll survive, i always win'
Guilty of murder because he washed his hands?
He is not Lady Macbeth
What Botha says puts a political 'leaning' on the other foot. As for the 'have you washed your hands'? It smacks of desperately removing criminal evidence, akin with removing Reeva's body from the scene of the crime.
"bullets coming before bat" means nothing. That is called remorse - op showed plenty of 'remorse' in court. ... for himself. That should not excuse him from a count of murder.
Not so at all. Shooting someone when in a blind rage, and we all know about his temper, does not result in the consequences being uppermost on the mind.
You also need to bear in mind shooting someone through a door is far easier when you can’t see their face.
However I’m sure it was an action instantly regretted and of course one that needed some quick thinking afterwards.
The quick thinking started as soon as he saw the open window – cue noise of window opening and of course blame it on intruders the bête noire of most white South Africans
Also he needed to be very upset ( thoughts of the loss of millions in sponsorship deals and possible jail worked a treat there)
Throw in some praying to God and there you have it
You don’t need to be called Sherlock to work that out
How would Sherlock explain the man heard shouting for help three times before he fired through the door (on the DD version)?
Simple, it was Pistorius in his temper making 'fun' of Reeva's crying for help, he was demeaning her desperate situation.
Just what you would expect him to do with his 'attitude'.
Curly, don't you think it really is time to look at the obvious and stop trying to find ways of defending him
The 'obvious' is that there is not enough evidence to say with certainty that he deliberately killed Reeva Steenkamp that night. Dont you think it really is time to accept that?
The 'obvious' is that there is not enough evidence to say with certainty that he deliberately killed Reeva Steenkamp that night. Dont you think it really is time to accept that?
'Beyond reasonable doubt' is all that the SCA will need. The word 'obvious' does not enter into the case as there is only one witness i.e. the killer. That's the only obvious thing - of course he's going to lie. He probably told Reeva behind the door he was going to pin it on an intruder. No wonder she screamed for her life. >:(
Comments
If he's been singled out by a minister when no other prisoners are kept in on the same basis, I'm not so sure it is legal. In an interview about this the minister even said he gets lots of requests of the kind that he got from the woman's group but he doesn't review most of them. Seems pretty clear that he did so either because it was convenient for him or because it was coming from (basically) the ANCWL. Either way, he can't say this one case was sent for review because it was the only one for which he received a petition so there's no basis I can see on which he could claim OP has not been singled out - and can that be legal?
BTW, I know the above isn't what you meant by a 'legal' way of keeping OP behind bars. Just got me thinking.
If I read the Act…..
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.
… to me it means a person’s behaviour patterns for at least one sixth of their sentence must be available before a parole board considers them for early release. So no parole board meets until this time has elapsed.
Now it would appear, no doubt because of prison overcrowding, a blind eye has been turned and this period shorted by the parole board meeting beforehand and releasing a prison on the one sixth mark.
So perhaps one could say prisoners released in this way have benefitted from this ‘short cut’ and Pistorius has been singled out as having the law applied correctly.
It’s ‘convenient’ of course but I would also suggest quite legal. If there was any doubt about legality then we would have seen Roux legging it to the High Court in turbo drive
BIB This became obvious to anyone who had looked at similar cases and judged them in light of the CH. Most legal commentators at the time of the trial doubted there was sufficient for DD but most lay commentators forgot that CH with unproven DD is still just CH. The short sentence was an inevitable result of the early release scheme.
10 months for a mistake is not too wide of the mark. Anyone who has a problem with it should be redirecting their efforts towards gun control and eventual gun abolition not pillorying the one shooter. Reeva's legacy should always be highlighting the need for a gun free civil society.
So firing 4 expanding bullets at torso height through a locked door into a small enclosed space knowing someone was inside
Is a mistake?
No further comment necessary!!
Thinking he was under attack was the mistake.
www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/06/oscar-pistorius-murder
Why Botha puts a more obvious slant on the immediate events after the murder
- "Did you wash your hands?"
Enough said.
Guilty of murder because he washed his hands?
He is not Lady Macbeth
Actually Curly thinking he was under attack was something he made up afterwards to save his skin surely you have realised this by now
Of course he knew exactly what he was doing when he opened fire and who he was aiming at.
In which case why shoot through the door?
Because that's where she ran to protect herself.
If he knew exactly what he was doing then he would have known what he was doing was likely to result at the very least in a CH conviction
Humphrys and JubJub weren't similar to OP, although they were similar to each other.
H took a risk at a level crossing that he'd taken before and succeeded, but this time it failed. The consequences were a possibility rather than an inevitability.
JJ got into a car mashed and crashed into kids, again a risk in which the consequences were possible but not inevitable.
Neither of them drove their vehicle directly at a bunch of children, or intended to harm them. JJ did not intend to hit the children with his car, H did not intend to hit the train with his bus.
OP intended to fire 4 lethal bullets directly at a person in a cubicle. The journey from intention to action to consequence is direct.
Equally the movement from foreseeing a fatal outcome and reconciling himself to that fact is also direct.
CH was right verdict for H and JJ, but not for OP.
Of course. Hence the intruder story.
Not so at all. Shooting someone when in a blind rage, and we all know about his temper, does not result in the consequences being uppermost on the mind.
You also need to bear in mind shooting someone through a door is far easier when you can’t see their face.
However I’m sure it was an action instantly regretted and of course one that needed some quick thinking afterwards.
The quick thinking started as soon as he saw the open window – cue noise of window opening and of course blame it on intruders the bête noire of most white South Africans
Also he needed to be very upset ( thoughts of the loss of millions in sponsorship deals and possible jail worked a treat there)
Throw in some praying to God and there you have it
You don’t need to be called Sherlock to work that out
I have looked at the evidence afresh and I'm afraid it still doesn't all add up to murder, which is of course, the requirement.
Afterwards, consequences was all he was left with and he regretted it immediately.
Since when has all the evidence got to add up to get a murder conviction?
It is quite possible to have contradictory evidence of insufficient weight to change a competent verdict that is beyond reasonable doubt
Of course and wining was everything to him, even to the extent when he was arrested it is reported his response to the police was, I'll survive, i always win'
What Botha says puts a political 'leaning' on the other foot. As for the 'have you washed your hands'? It smacks of desperately removing criminal evidence, akin with removing Reeva's body from the scene of the crime.
You mean like bullets coming before bat?
"bullets coming before bat" means nothing. That is called remorse - op showed plenty of 'remorse' in court. ... for himself. That should not excuse him from a count of murder.
How would Sherlock explain the man heard shouting for help three times before he fired through the door (on the DD version)?
Simple, it was Pistorius in his temper making 'fun' of Reeva's crying for help, he was demeaning her desperate situation.
Just what you would expect him to do with his 'attitude'.
Curly, don't you think it really is time to look at the obvious and stop trying to find ways of defending him
The 'obvious' is that there is not enough evidence to say with certainty that he deliberately killed Reeva Steenkamp that night. Dont you think it really is time to accept that?
'Beyond reasonable doubt' is all that the SCA will need. The word 'obvious' does not enter into the case as there is only one witness i.e. the killer. That's the only obvious thing - of course he's going to lie. He probably told Reeva behind the door he was going to pin it on an intruder. No wonder she screamed for her life. >:(